Assuming a left-right paradigm (which its significance is disputed), I would place Nazism to the left. Nazi is short for National Socialism. Socialism is known to be part of the left. Hence, Nazi is part of the left.
(This is a mere etymological argument, not necessarily an ideological one.)
Wikipedia the greatest source ever says this:
Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social changes to create a more egalitarian society
Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.
Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics
The policy made the speeches.
Not even close. Do you even know how politics works?
@ Epicurus ibn Kalhoun
/= is also a correct form of DNE if that’s what you’re saying. Irrelevant though . . .
But yes, I do suppose you could call Nazism “anti-labor” and “pro-corporation.” Not because they are Corporatist policies though.
I’d say left wing, because they were strong believers in evolution/science, didn’t believe in individual firearm ownership (Hitler bragged about firearm registration to the state reaching an all-time high), they were certainly anti-freedom on economic issues (far-left there), and they were partially pro-choice.
One could say they were new right, but they weren’t at all true, Old Right conservatives. They were modern liberals like FDR.
What do you say to people who claim Hitler was a Christian?
He wasn’t a very good Christian, and he seemed to believe more in evolution than in God.
I would say Nazism can not be placed anywhere on the left-right paradigm. It was a mish-mash of extremisms some left wing, some right wing. (In this it was different from Fascism that can be safely placed on the right.)
Also we must not forget that what is left wing and what is right wing is shifting constantly. Eg nationalism was originally a purely left wing phenomena and remained more left wing than right wing until late 19th century.
If evolution is a “leftist” issue, this world is in a lot of trouble.
If I remember correctly, the Nazi’s did in fact support labor unions (the Marxists actually oppose labor unions), but I know that they did not protect property rights.
If we define the left as anti-individualistic (collectivist) then I would have to say that national socialism belongs on the far left.
Here’s another interesting quote:
.
If we define the left as anti-individualistic (collectivist) then I would have to say that national socialism belongs on the far left
Nationalism and fundamentalism are left wing stances?
That’s the problem w the left/right paradigm. The left and right will always define it different. So that, while you may be able to classify many/most things, there is no real distinction.
I personally see it as an anti/pro establishment divide, but I know even that classifies many of you as lefties, and I doubt you would agree.
Sometime’s I want to think it’s bottom up/top down.
In what sense were they fundamentalists? The national socialists saw themselves as revolutionaries, and believed that their system was the way of the future. They were neither liberal nor communist; their system was somewhere in between both extremes. They, along with many in the west (including the NYT), considered their movement to be a progressive one.
I have no problem with the left/right paradigm. It seems perfectly consistent to place collectivist ideologies on one end (those that believe that the “needs of society” supercede the needs of the individual), and individualistic ideologies on the other end (those that believe that the rights of the individual are absolute and indivisible). I think collectivists are uncomfortable with this because they don’t like where they end up and the groups that they are associated with. But that’s their problem. If they don’t like where they end up then maybe they should rethink their positions.
There’s authoritarian and there’s libertarian. Some are libertarian in economics, some in civil rights. Those are the only real splits in politics. Communist, fascists, there all the same to me.
Left and right wing divisions truly make no sense whatsoever. How are you gonna put Lenin and George Orwell in the same place? Chomsky and Stalin? Hitler and Rothbard are both right wingers? George Bush and Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum? No, it makes no sense, and has no place in reality. If anything, it’s just the establishment trying to divide lovers of freedom.
That’s why people like that guy who put up those quotes in that other thread see us as “Right Wingers” and not as anarchists, and yet are probably friendlier with non anarchist leftists. It’s just a scheme to divide people up.
I’ll take Epicurus & my libertarian socialist friends as an ally over a republican, and Rothbard & Mises over a democrat any day.
In what sense were they fundamentalists?
I mean nationalism and fundamentalism in general. They are both collectivist (we are americans/christians), yet I hardly think they fit into any current, traditional definition of leftism.
I think collectivists are uncomfortable with this because they don’t like where they end up and the groups that they are associated with. But that’s their problem. If they don’t like where they end up then maybe they should rethink their positions.
It leaves left meaning all of human civilization, and right as scattered cultural bouts in between. I really don’t think there’s any good way to view it, especially concerning NAZI’s, the epitome of hegemony.
Most see pro-corporation as a right wing, yet corporations in structure are anything but individualist.
So? This seems perfectly consistent to me. The individualists would be the progressives and the collectivists would be the conservatives (in the grand scheme of things).
How so? How is the right to own claims to capital, and engage in production with those who are risk averse (laborers), in anyway anti-individualistic or collectivistic? Individuals choose to join natural hierarchies in order to maximize their remunerations. What’s the problem?
There’s authoritarian and there’s libertarian. Some are libertarian in economics, some in civil rights. Those are the only real splits in politics. Communist, fascists, there all the same to me.
Left and right wing divisions truly make no sense whatsoever. How are you gonna put Lenin and George Orwell in the same place? Chomsky and Stalin? Hitler and Rothbard are both right wingers? George Bush and Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum? No, it makes no sense, and has no place in reality. If anything, it’s just the establishment trying to divide lovers of freedom
Exactly. I’ll admit I would traditionally be called a leftist. But I despise Lenin and love Orwell. Rothbard is a great thinker to me as well.
I’ll take Epicurus & my libertarian socialist friends as an ally over a republican, and Rothbard & Mises over a democrat any day
Twice in one day? Be careful I don’t get a big head
Hey, real recognize real.
So? This seems perfectly consistent to me. The individualists would be the progressives and the collectivists would be the conservatives (in the grand scheme of things).
That’s completely nonsensical, no offense. Is Gordon Gecko the only true rightist?
How so? How is the right to own claims to capital, and engage in production with those who are risk averse (laborers), in anyway anti-individualistic or collectivistic? Individuals choose to join natural hierarchies in order to maximize their remunerations. What’s the problem?
First, just because you choose collectivism doesn’t make it individualism. That’s also why I don’t like the individual/collective divide. There is no real place to draw the line. Only a hermit is an individualist in any true sense of the word.
Second, there’s no real individual owner, no individual accountablility. Ownership in a publicly traded company is inherently placed in a collective.
Third, there are dress codes, and rules governing one’s behavior.
Even if we identify with the “individualists”, we still see our ideas as what is best for everyone, what creates a better standard of living. If it didn’t, what would be the point?
Care to explain why? Human history is pretty uniform; the individual had little to no rights, and then there was a little blip for about 150 years where philosophers made irrefutable arguments in favor of individual rights, and now we’re regressing back to previous conditions. Why do the two polar ideologies need to have an equal share in human history? Humanity hasn’t been around for a long time, and civilization itself is quite novel (even when compared to human history).
Gorden Gecko isn’t real; he’s a movie character. But if you want to put individualism on the right, then individuals like Adam Smith, JP Say, Mises, Hayek, Rand, etc, would be on the right.
Of course there is; I just did it. Individualism asserts that individual rights (to their property), as opposed to the “needs of society,” are absolute and indivisible.
Individualism does not, as you imply, mean living in complete isolation. The individualist supports free and voluntary cooperation and condemns coercion (as opposed to persuasion). There is nothing anti-individualistic about choosing to join a hierarchical organization in order to maximize your remuneration.
There are many individual owners who freely choose to own a small portion of the firm. They have the power to change management if they so choose, for whatever reason (they form voting blocks). If they are part of the minority, then they have the right to sell their titles of ownership. There is nothing collectivistic about this. Again, collectivism =/= cooperation.
And you can either accept such rules or not accept such rules.