First, to start, the terms "right," "left" and so forth, are not terribly helpful. The usage comes out of the French revolution, when supporters of a republic sat to the left of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly, while supporters of the Church and the monarchy sat to the right. While these are common usage in contemporary politics, they actually don't say very much.
So, with that as predicate, who said this? "I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow." The year was 1930 and it was a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler.
Socialists of the Marxist sort believed that the division of the classes was the driving force in History - with a capital "H." The difference was that National Socialists argued that the competition between the races - not classes - was the fundamental engine of History.
They were both socialist, but differed on what they saw as the central motive force of history. In fact, "Mein Kempf," Hitler's seminal work, is replete with attacks on what he and other socialists called the "rich decadent Anglo-Saxon capitalists." There was no love of capitalism in Hitler's worldview.
As to Fascism, it too draws from the "left," but not in the Marxian/socialist tradition. Rather, it derives from the social engineering ideas that came, indirectly, (you'll love this!!!) from Rousseau.
Rousseau, to oversimplify a bit, argued that man in the state of nature was a diffidently mildly rational and social being. However, pre-rational ideas created a society that distorted man's nature and corrupted it. He therefore argued that if law was made in conformance with natural law, that society could be perfected.
In the fullness of time, this led to theories of social engineering. That is that man could rationally plan out how a society ought develop and thus man could rationally structure his own nature. This leading to the idea that the state was the pinnacle of authority and the instrument by which society could be reordered and perfected. From this came the idea of the "corporatist state" and finally, in the fullness of time, Fascism.
Please note, Fascism and National Socialism are often conflated but are, in fact, VERY distinct things. One puts the state at the pinnacle of authority. The other makes the competition of the species the driver of History - with a capital "H." Their methods are similar, their aversion to Communism is shared but springs from very different intellectual starting points, but in fact Fascism is antagonistic to National Socialism's emphasis on anything other than the state. (Recall that Mussolini was, at first, singularly antagonistic to Hitler. Their alliance only coming later in their relationship.)
As to violence. It is the unintended outgrowth of "the left's" theories of social engineering. Suffice to say, when one sees tradition and the "old order" as hostile to progress and the re-shaping of man's nature, this is bound to lead to conflict and violence.
To Rousseau, man could be reasoned into reordering society into conformance with the "natural law" and to some degree this was inevitable. To the socialists/communists, Fascists and National Socialists, "History" needed to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and marched toward its' destiny.
"If ye eat of the fruit of the tree, ye shall be as gods." These theories seek to make men - or at least some men - gods, and that does not conduce to peace. So while the "left" is not necessarily violent - that term covering a lot of ambiguous ground - and does not have a monopoly on violence, it contains within its intellectual constructs the seeds of much tumult.
I'm not a Rousseauist lol, moreover I wanted to have your opinion on an analysis by Raymond Aron, I had planned to translate the first chapter for you but it's really complicated for me to do that so I'll try to make the best summary as I can, although it will be largely incomplete.
The book first describes the three myths on which the ideology of the left is based (the myth of the left, the myth of the Revolution, the myth of the proletariat); a second part analyzes and criticizes the Marxist vision of history; finally, in a third step, Raymond Aron underlines with astonishment the fascination that Marxist ideology exerts on intellectuals and seeks to identify the reasons for it.
The title refers to the famous Marxist formula according to which religion is the opium of the people, thus expressing (not without a certain malice) on the one hand the parallelism between communism and religion and on the other hand the irrational attraction that exercises communism on the intellectuals.
"Seeking to explain the attitude of intellectuals, pitiless to the failures of democracies, indulgent to the greatest crimes, provided they are committed in the name of good doctrines, I first encountered the sacred words: left, Revolution, proletariat "
The left is the victim of a certain number of myths.
The first of these myths is precisely the myth of the left. The left sees itself as driven by three ideas: on the one hand freedom against arbitrariness, on the other hand the establishment of an order that is not traditional but rational, and finally the defense of equality. against privileges.
But beyond these mythical visions, just as the right can be defined by an ideal type that characterizes it, it is actually an ideal type that defines the left, in this case the idea of progress.
Indeed, the left only exists on the condition of thinking that the future is better than the present; and this is precisely the reason why, created historically in reaction to the old regime, originally in love with freedom, its position now suffers from ambiguities and confusion: "Are they on the left those who demand freedom for all the peoples of Asia and Africa, but not for the Poles or the East Germans? »
The second of these myths is that of the Revolution. The left has also appropriated the term since, otherwise, it calls it more prosaically a coup d'etat. This myth of the Revolution is accompanied by nostalgia for the past of historical revolutions, like the springtime of peoples, but also by a utopian ideal.
The left lives in expectation of this liberating revolution, which, contrary to Marxist theories, has not been accomplished. During the First World War, the sacred union foiled the theory. As for the Bolshevik revolution, it was a coup d'etat by a minority made up of executives, not workers, taking advantage of a weakened state.
It is the violent substitution of one elite for another. It is not the end of the story or the realization that the dictatorship of the proletariat and then socialism must succeed capitalism
Finally, the third myth is that of the proletariat, a collective savior for Marx exactly as the Messiah is a collective savior for Christians. Aron raises a first difficulty with regard to the proletariat, which lies in its very definition: For example, is a public service worker a proletarian even though he receives his money from the state? Three questions thus arise: on the one hand on the frontiers of the proletariat (where does it begin? who is proletarian? who is not?), on the other hand on its unity (do the proletarians form a homogeneous entity, or various groups actually distinct from each other?), and finally on its link with the revolutionary ideal.
Aron then distinguishes between two kinds of worker liberation, "real" liberation (i. e. the gradual improvement in living and working conditions that we see in the United States and Western Europe ) and “ideal” liberation (that is to say the seizure of theoretical power by a mythologized Proletariat following a Revolution, as in the USSR). The ideal liberation rests on a liberation of rupture, it is a total liberation of the worker which supposes the Revolution, but ultimately indifferent to the reality of the living conditions which result from it.
The real liberation is a partial, pragmatic, progressive and never completed liberation, but which allows a real improvement of the working conditions. It is therefore clear that the countries with ideal liberation have deteriorated living conditions (workers from Eastern Europe) while the countries which apply social reforms without doctrine obtain much better results (English labor, Swedish society ) and become real liberation countries. “The workers do not believe on their own that they are elected for the salvation of humanity. They experience much more nostalgia for an ascent to the bourgeoisie.
“The contempt that intellectuals willingly profess for the professions of commerce and industry has always seemed to me contemptible. That the same people, who look up to high engineers or heads of industry, think they recognize in the worker, in front of his lathe or on the assembly line, the universal man, seems sympathetic but surprising to me. Neither the division of tasks nor the raising of the standard of living contributes to this universalization.
Well, there is a lot there. I don't really have the space - nor with a Little League game just a few hours off and the little people in my house due to be, or already are, up the time - to address this in any detail.
In broad terms, there is nothing here that I would argue with. Maybe some of the particulars, but that is a matter of detail rather than the broad argument. Beyond that, you asked for my opinion, but was that on something specific or were you speaking in general terms. I don't mind answering your question, but you could you be more specific than just asking "my opinion" on a three book thesis summarized into just a few paragraphs.
(Although I will say, you did a nice job of summarizing things. You should work for Cliff Notes!!!)
Oh, as to Rousseau, I was just having fun needling you. Grant Rousseau is Swiss by birth, but he was French Swiss - and of course as you know, you ALL think alike. (That was a joke, too, just in case it does not translate.)
Yes I understand perfectly, by the way tell me if your son won his match with his team.
I was talking about a general analysis. Of course I only made a summary, I wanted to translate at least one chapter but it would require too much effort and I'm afraid of making too big a translation mistake.
Often I don't take the time to detail my questions, but when I have to write a text to describe an analysis or on various subjects, then I try to devote as much effort and proofreading as possible to it. However for Aron's book it turned out to be too complicated for me, so I tried to make the best possible summary.
In any case, I wish you a good match to you and your family, and above all good luck for your son
Just wanted to let you know, my little guy's team won!! 2 to 1. Though to be fair, at his age, it is not exactly the most elegant victory. Just lots of little people having fun.
Though I also have to say, my son is more of a sports fan than his dad. Weirdly, he takes more after his mother on that, who is a baseball and football fan.
Anyhow, thanks for asking. It was a fun day and he was cheered on by mom, dad, brothers and sister, which he loved!!
As to your summary, apologies but I have just not had the time to look at it. Also, I have to admit, I have a hard time reading something of that length and complexity on screen. I really need to print it.
So I will try to get to it. You know I enjoy your writing and apologies for not getting to it.
I would like to congratulate your son. He must have been very happy. And winning in front of his family must have been an extra joy. Yes, if they don't have fun at that age it would be a shame. But there are parents who see it as a real competition.
Oh really? Is she a fan of American football? Or European football? I understand that women's soccer in the US is famous.
Oh forget about my text on Raymond Aron. It doesn't matter, no need to apologize for that. It's my fault, I didn't space my writing enough.
Nazism was a flavor of National Socialism. The government wanted to control the economy through central planning. The main goals of their command economy was to solidify German economic hegemony over conquered territories. Thus they would force other nations to move (outsource) their industry to German city centers like Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google, and other woke companies moves manufacturing to China. Then they would import raw materials from countries that had their manufacturing base stripped and turn them into products. After which the surrounding subjugated countries would be obligated by law to purchase German manufactured goods just like Obama Care health insurance products. The subjugated surrounding countries were forced into resource production (i. e. mining) and especially agricultural production to grow the German Aryan population. This is were all the work camps with prisoners came from... So conquered nations had to reduce their carbon foot print and create more green space just like the Green New Deal. The Nazis expanded their scientific research, specifically on human subjects just like mRNA vaccine experiments for COVID. If you haven’t caught on yet, the Nazis are modern day American Democrats and similar Great Reset Build Back Better World Economic Forum goons that you see all around the world right now. They are the same families and same companies running the same economic policies. The conquered people were stripped of their resources, starved, and worked to death in reeducation work death camps… Democrats already set up the camps under the guise of COVID camps…
Inside of the German city centers they allowed the aristocracy (e. g the Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates of Germany) to turn huge profits which was in total contradiction to the command economy they forced on the rest of the German people. The lower rung of German society had a duty to the state to work for the aristocrats, multiply the Aryan population, and to fuel the Military Industrial Complex with fresh meat for the grinder as the Nazis fought in new wars just like the Democrats backing Ukrainian Nazis to fight Russia. The Nazis also fought Russia...
Lock downs were a "civic duty" to the state and the Jeff Bezos/Amazon and Bill Gates/Microsoft of the world got filthy rich off of it as the government mandate purchase of Nazi products like face masks, vaccines, sneeze shields, etc. You are "here" in the Nazi plan... How much further do you want to ride this train?
Do you want to face the hunger? It's coming swiftly in the darkness... This is just some of what they have destroyed in the American food system over the past year...
The Nazis even recruited "Wild Boys" from the Berlin woods... Wild Boys were homosexual criminal drug addict elements. Sound familiar to all the LGBTQ Antifa low level people you see in Portland with meth mouth and what not? All the same moves...
Left and right is a misnomer, cause you go far enough either way and they meet in the back. It is like a circle. Socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism all have one thing in common. Wanting to control people and what they do and how they live and using violence to achieve it.
In the use Right usually means (unless its been hijacked by someone) constitutionalist following it as intended, that it is all important.
Left often means, its a old piece of paper and we need to do what is right.
Obviously. National Socialist German Worker's Party (aka Nazi). Sounds nice, no. National SOCIALIST. Government interest above all (aka Fascist). Even I didn't get that til... age 26/27. Cause the guise of compassion/ righteousness gets your foot in the door. If someone says outright from the getco, " We want to off this list of people by certain group identity traits," Where does it end? Who would stand for that?
In economy - yes. Hitler rose to power with slogans like "It can't be like this that you have no house, and your neighbour has two houses". The name of the party is "Nationalische-Socialische Deutsche Arbeits Partei". Their program consisted of liquidation of big demesnes, nationalising the big companies (Porsche was using war prisoners to work in their factories), delegalising the usury, rising the pensions etc.
Old divide to "left" and "right" is not really accurate nowadays. I much more prefer "two-axis divide" of David Nolan where you distinguish left and right views on world-view and economy.
Hitler would be a "Statist" as he was left wing in economy and right wing in world view.
All dictatorships are either full left (both in economy and in world-view) or Statist (left in economy and right in world-view). There was no dictator in history that was economically free-market. All dictatorships opress freedom.
@TrueConfection: Porsche (owned by Volkswagen) is far from the only German company that used slave labor during WWII. And slave labor is a hallmark of totalitarianism.
@TrueConfection Another trivia: Hugo Boss was making uniforms for SS. They were even advertising themselves as "suplier of uniforms for National Socialists since 1924".
With 2 axis, the left right scale only measures money, so on the left you have communism (everything is shared, nothing is privately owned) and on the right you have capitalism (no public services of any kind)
The up / down or north / south scale is a measure of personal freedom vs state control, so at the top you have an absolute dictator, something like a monarch, all power in the hands of one person and at the bottom you have anarchy, no state or centralised control of any kind.
Between these extremes any system ever concieved can be plotted on this type of graph.
Nazi's / fascists are both right wing because of the economic situation but that isn't what makes them bad, it is the authoritarian scale which is the biggest issue as is seen with Stalin's Russia, that was left wing because it was communist but what made it bad was it being authoritarian, there are examples of anarchocommunisms on large scales being hugely successful in raising the living standard and productivity etc like Spain 1936.
But even authoritarianism doesn't necessarily mean awfulness; you could have a good king, a benevolent dictator, so while people don't have a say the society could still be shaped in a way which is just, fair and in the best interests of humanity etc.
Generally speaking though authoritarians tend to also be 'evil' and humans are extremely bad at using power responsibly and even with the best of intentions there is an inherient problem with one person making choices for another person.
If you know anything about the Nazis, they were a well and truly right wing nationalist movement. You need to understand that attitudes you associate with a particular side of politics were very different in the early 20th century.
Hitler was a staunch anti unionist who associated both the status at the time of socialism and capitalism with Jewish monopoly which he considered a terminal impediment to the prosperity of Germany. The term socialist in his party name was nothing other than an attempt to win over the proletariat and show them that his party was better for the nation and in turn for the people of the nation (but only those Aryans) which will collectively prosper from his policies. Fascism is a decidedly right wing philosophy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#:~:text=The%20first%20fascist%20movements%20emerged,the%20traditional%20left%E2%80%93right%20spectrum.
nazism yes, fascism is not an ideology at all. I'll explain
the terms left and right come from the french revolution, the communists sat on the left side of the room and the jacobins sat on the right (see the french flag also as that's what the colors represent)
the ideas behind those terms are much older though, they started with 2 competing books (tabula rosa and the leviathan) the first argued humans were ultimately good and the second argued humans were ultimately evil
so, any ideology that believes humans are good or can be perfected are left wing and any ideology that believes humans are bad and come with original flaws that can't be fixed is right wing
nazism is left wing as it believes humans can be perfected and is thus in line with tabula rosa
fascism is not an ideology at all, it has no values goals or plans. it's just a new word for a very old thing, the desire to get things done at all costs. fascism is what you do when the system is broken and nobody is fixing it. everyone is a fascist eventually.
Nazism and Fascism are far right ideologies, as far right as you can go. German national socialism (Nazism) was not leftist. In fact, along with strong antisemitism, it was famously anti-leftist (anti-communist). The socialism aspect (which is probably what makes people think Nazis were leftist) is a twisting of the actual idea of socialism (the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) into a struggle of the "master race" against Jews and "untermensch" (sub-humans) that had been exploiting and repressing the Aryan race.
Extreme authoritarian left-wing is communism, extreme authoritarian right-wing is fascism.
Nazism is technically a form of communism, but there is so much overlap between Nazism, communism, and fascism. It's really just an argument between political parties today to try and label the other side is evil
Objectively the Nazis were left wing. But if you compare the ideological moves they made compared to any other extremist groups there was a lot of similarities across the board. There's only minor differences between communism and Nazism
There's also only minor differences between Fascism and Nazism. It's more aligned with Communism and is both a name and action extremist left-wing.
@OddBeMe rather than getting into the Weeds on a topic I said outright is useless arguing, I'll leave you with this.
Broadly speaking, no side has a dominant claim to Authoritarianism and for people to pretend as if it is uniquely right wing is ignorant of political philosophy and history.
From the Hitler Youth to overtaking his own government and charging a secret police to do his bidding. That is exactly in line with Communism
Whoever came up with the idea of "far left" being associated with communism and and "far right" being associated with fascism was a genius because all of you STUPID ASS-WIPE FUQ HEDS are still falling for it. Tyranny is TYRANNY! It doesn't matter the ideology behind it... it's still TYRANNY! It should be "government dominance" vs "individual freedom". If the narrative were to change then all those idiotic leftists would realize that I don't want your shyt but I will fight you from taking my shyt. And then if they continue to try to take mine my ayvarrr fiffteeeen will beat their katana every day.
Hitlerian national socialism and Mussolini's fascism were both "3rd position." They pretty much outright rejected the left/right dichotomy of the late 18th century as obsolete, and strove to create a new political frame for Europe that rejected both the Marxian East and the capitalist Anglosphere.
Of course, nazism and fascism were not successful strategies. They fundamentally misunderstood warfare, and believed that their "spirit" could defeat the "materialist" Allies. They were lofty idealists, and the drug use of their leaders in the later years didn't help lol.
No. Everyone who claims so has absolutely no idea what they‘re talking about. Especially among American conservatives for some reason the misconception is prevalent that socialism (or left wing politics in general) is „when the government does stuff“ which is entirely wrong. There were some sort of left wing views that were mixed with the usual far right nazi politics circuling around in the early NSDAP of the 1920s, most notably represented by the Strasser brothers. Although the last left wing tendencies in the party were eradicated in 1934 during the „night of the long knives“ where Hitler had a large number of high ranking nazis assassinated because he considered them a threat or not loyal enough to his cause. One of the Strasser brothers was killed and one had fled the country and went on to never play a role in german politics ever again.
Most of the Left-Right spectrums people are familiar with are not accurate. You can’t go from Communism which is absolute and total Government control to Anarchy, which is the absence of all Government and right next to each-other on the typical spectrum.
There is only one line and it’s Authoritarian on the Left and Anarchy on the Right. Obviously neither are technically good when you introduce human nature to them, which is why you need balance.
But to answer your question directly, yes. Fascists and communists are two sides of the same coin. Both are ruled by a small elite group that use fear, violence and government force to oppress their denizens and their opponents and keep the power to themselves.
Communism is not absolute and total government control. Communism is a stateless society, so it is very fitting that it is considered to be close to anarchy. The soviet union‘s politics are not the definition of communism.
Left/Right comes from the French Revolution, with roots in Roman "populares" versus "optimates."
Left-wing means egalitarian.
Right-wing means hierarchical.
Hitlerian national socialism was a mix of both. It had proletarian elements and was against the Prussian capitalist aristocracy, but Hitler was staunchly against planned economics and had many in his own government arrested and even killed in order to prevent a socialist coup d'etat.
Mussolini's fascism was also a mixture of left-wing and right-wing elements, but was overall a bit friendlier to the ruling classes and especially to the church.
Did someone just get warped into another reality? Nazi's literally killed communists and hated left ideas. And fascism can by any ideology that can be done by any dictator normally named by something that's unique to that leader. Nazism is unique to hitler. Stalinism is unique to stailn. Saddam Hussein is National Progressive Front. These are all separates ideals made to only benefit the dictator and have nothing to do with been right or left.
@Someone80004 They get that from his party name. As it used socialist in the name but they don't dare to look how opposite his actions were to it. And that a name is just name it don't mean your actually following that ideal. I could call my party Republicans Progressive Alliance then not follow any republicans ideals but dictate a country anyway. Wouldn't mean I am right winged or republican in anyway.
@Andres77 That's Lenin's view not Hitler's otherwise why would you kill off commies who would literally be the next step anyway. And again he wasn't follow socalism just because the party name had it in it. Just because I say right now I am republican don't mean I am, because guess what I just lied? Ya know what dictators do? oh yeah.
One of the key differences between left and right is control. The left believes that government can do a better job of taking care of people than the people can on their own, and therefore likes to establish control, sometimes in evil ways. The right, on the other hand, believes that a person is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, therefore government is there to help, not control.
They are widely accepted by historians and political scientists as being right wing ideologies. Even modern day nazis see themselves as such. The extreme version of the left is communism and the nazis hated them
They've constantly sold victimgood to disenfranchised groups of people. Minorities, gays, women, handicapped, blacks, Asians, lgbt etc. These people eventually have to fight their faux oppressor. l at some point. 2020 summer of love comes to mind for BLM. All that rioting murder rape and vandalism under the false pretense that America is or was at the time somehow worse than during Jim crow. It takes a mentally lazy person or useful idiot to still beleive in the democrats after so many lies.
The Nazis sold victimhood to the majority, like today's right is telling white Americans they're going to be wiped out, or that Christianity is under threat in the US, where there's a church on every block. They blamed disenfranchised groups of people.
Well Nazis and fascists weren't exactly non-violent either. All leftist ideologies have to be inherently violent, because violence is required to subjugate and enslave people. Few people are dumb enough to be talked into it.
Ignore what titles a party claims or how their name sounds, but instead look at their ACTIONS and policies. The modern democrat party in the USA has much more in common with Nazis than republicans based on their policies and actions.
Isn’t it ironic that Nazi stands for “National Socialist German Workers Party”.
It’s always the “movements” put on a facade that they are “for the people” which then ultimately bring the most destruction and widespread misery to humanity.
both the far left and the far right are violent. I really don't think it matters what you call it. Given too much power all governments are corrupt. (yes, even ours) I think I am very much the middle of the road but if you push me too far from either side you will not like who I become.
Typically, as delineated by your word usage N/F are Right leaning. “Democracy”Democratic Socialists (Communists), and Socialists are more Left leaning.
No, but they're very collectivist ideologies, much like Communism, which IS leftist. It's less a line and more a circle; get far enough out, and human assholery will megin reasserting itself.
Not necessarily. Theocracies like Saudi Arabia I would consider facist, unless you think there's a difference which I don't. It's certainly fascist if you're a woman living there.
The official full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. I don't give a damn what Wikipedia says, Adolf Hitler was far-left.
Yes. Quite literally. It's economically and socially far left. Their critique of classical constitutional liberal capitalism was quite literally the socialist critique of classical constitutional liberal capitalism.
The Nazis were picking on a small minority in Germany, and the killings didn't start until the 1940s. People were told the Jews were being "relocated" (which is how it started out). Putin wants to wipe out the Ukranian people. It's really not comparable.
Who do you think the victims will be in the US? It's not the whites or the Christians, that's for sure.
As a conspiracy theorist yourself, that must be very concerning to you. Why don't you post a link to that list on the White House servers? You can start here: https://whitehouse.gov/
No. They are Extreme Right ideologies. Russia, China and Communism are Extreme Left ideologies.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
Modern left anyway. Their views seem to have a lot in common with Hitler's belief about the Jewish banking cabal as well as their methods used to stop it.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
Anonymous(45 Plus)+1 y
