NEO-nazis are certainly of the right by self-identification, but many of their stated economic goals are rooted in Marxism.

"From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was the Che Guevara of his day, a living saint of leftism. Handsome, courageous, charismatic, an erudite Marxist, a riveting speaker and writer, a dedicated class warrior to the core, he was the peerless duce of the Italian Left. He looked like the head of any future Italian socialist government, elected or revolutionary." - The Mystery of Facism ( http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm )

Leftist come from this tradition, a statist one.

Those on the left of our political spectrum, which is different from leftist, are from the the Liberal, old meaning, tradition, as are those on the Right in our country; i.e. politics are very narrowly drawn here.

It is not revisionism to point out that although Franco and Hitler found common cause against communist, Franco (a church supporter) was a rightest, while hitler (who sought to supplant churches) was a creature of the left.

Michael is supremely right though, there are those, both leftist and rightest, who would seek common cause with those we fight in order to subvert our society. The only Americans to openly support the terrorist on 9/11 were neo-nazis.

It's simply a truism that there are enemies of liberty on the left and the right. As you say, the binary divide is false. It's really more of a circle and the question is always how much force someone is willing to use to enforce his own views on everyone else.

Hitler was not a creature of the left. That is truly absurd. It doesnt matter if he sampled leftism in his search for his identity - ditto Mussolini. They found the left unsatisfying and aligned themselves with what can only be considered the right.

Leftism is not the same as statism. The anarchist movement was wholly, organically of the left, and was anti-statist to the core.

There is a reason that there are such a plethora of descriptive terms for political positions. Many movements had roots in one larger tradition or the other, some branched off and left their roots way behind, some popped up from outside the more general traditions.

Michael is right that there is a whole hell of a lot of self serving revisionism going on, in which people try to conjure up a way to stick notable bad guys on their opponents.

You write that
Conservatives who try to rewrite history and make fascists out to be left-wingers remind me of how Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger

What is your basis for this characterization of
Chomsky's views?

I.P. needs to read a bit more about Fascism and the economics system it proposes: corporatism.

Basically, while property rights remain, all groups (corporates) such as labor, capital, etc. must work for the goals of the state.

It may not be classic socialism, but it's a lot closer to it than laissez-faire capitalism.

Maybe it could be summed up like this:

In communism, capital belongs to the collective of workers and is for their benefit.

In fascism, capital belongs to an owner, but it along with labor must work for the benefit of the state.

Oh, and not just anarchism. Even communism, in its pre-Lenin days, was all about the "withering away of the state". Statist, totalitarian communism arose from a marriage between leftism and the traditional culture of autocratic rule in Russia. Then easily taken up by autocrats in other countries. This ended up being, no doubt, the primary manifestation of extreme leftism in the 20th century, but it is not in any way a necessary attribute of traditional leftism.

If anything, Hitler and Mussolini, who moved away from leftism before the Russian civil war was barely over, may well have found the leftism of their day incapable of being a suitable mechanism for acheiving the type of power they coveted.

Well, Michael,

As you say, it is pointless to argue about the rewriting of history that made Hitler a right-winger. What, exactly do the terms left and right mean, anyway. They have nothing to do with socialism and economics, as your distinction makes clear, nor religion, nor sexual morality, nor the emancipation of women, nor democracy, nor the sanctity of life, nor even architecture. Guess all that is left is a distinction based on whether racism and nationalism (nazism), or just nationalism (fascism), is an official part of the ideology. So, I don't think the Islamists are rightist in any sense, either, as their motivations seem to be mostly religious and not covered by the previous categories. It follows that the term Islamofascist is simply an obfuscating slur and a waste of time. Likewise, in this fight, the terms left and right are pointless.

Lets dispense with all that, and simply note that they have declared themselves our enemy, and that they wish to kill us for religious reasons and on account of perceived slights. If we don't wish to yield and would rather retain our own ways, then we must fight to protect ourselves. No need for high-falutin' analysis here.

Yes Aaron, facism was statist. But the distinction you draw - ownership by the workers as opposed to an owner, is precisely one of the distinctions between the left and the right.

Leftism became statist with the rise of Russian communism. Fascism was rightwing and statist. That does not make fascism leftist. That makes both of them susceptible to being statist, which is a danger for any ideology which takes power.

What, exactly do the terms left and right mean, anyway

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the Frech revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Conservatives who try to rewrite history and make fascists out to be left-wingers remind me of how Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger.

The Right is usually associated with conservativism. So if Hitler was "Right", what was he trying to conserve? He certainly wasn't considered a conservative by his contemporaries. And why should he have been? He was basically re-writing the book as he went along. No, he wasn't a catholic as many on the Left ignorantly claim-- he was an occultist-- and his values were not conservative in the traditional sense. The Vatican-- true rightwingers-- rejected him in 1937 when they caught on to him, and that's why he basically tried to create his own state religion out of Nordic mythology and race. He was an occultist. Conservatives are not occultists.

Fascism also was not conservative because it was a relatively new phenomenon at the time. Germany had just come out of monarchism and democracy. So what is so "conservative" about fascism? Nothing. It's Leftist PR.

Eugenics was also new-- not traditional. It was considered "cutting edge". There was nothing conservative about it-- it was a relatively new science pioneered by Leftist champions like Margaret Sanger. So how is that conservative?

If Hitler was "Right", i.e., conservative, what was he trying to conserve? The answer: nothing. It's Leftist PR. Simply because he doesn't fit your idea of the Left doesn't make him a rightwinger.

I.P.,

The dictatorship of the proletariat...let's not forget that little step on the way to the worker's utopia and the withering away of the state.

In the end of the day, does it matter who owns the factory if the orders come down from the ministry for what to produce?

Though must admit it sure was a confusing time period with all the competing sects of economic theories that never worked out quite as planned.

Not only this, with war-time it all gets confusing.

In fascism, capital belongs to an owner, but it along with labor must work for the benefit of the state.

Ever hear of syndicalism? Fascist economic organization in Italy went through several phases, but syndicalism was one of the ideas. Here:

Syndicalism is a political and economic ideology which advocates giving control of industry and government to labor union federations.

And here I thought your post title was referencing Jimmy Buffett...

Spaniard,

Actually, the fascists and nazis could be seen harking back to feudalistic systems or pre-christian times, but that's only part of their appeal.

At the same time, Fascists were "cutting edge" in the 1920's and associated with art movements, etc. They were like Che is today - very popular with the "cool" crowd.

IP,

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy.

Then it follows that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. Hmmm.

Chuck,

Yep. Exactly.

Ever wonder why today's anarchists espouse "action" over words, violence, and wearing black?

because they are political descendants of Fascism.

No, he [Hitler] wasn't a catholic as many on the Left ignorantly claim-- he was an occultist--

I like to think of him as a bohemian sort with artistic pretensions. Kind of a Greenwich Village socialist come to power.

Spaniard,

I didn't say Hitler was a conservative.

Michael,

I know, so then what's the difference between a Rightwinger and a conservative? My thesis is that there is little to no difference. Therefore, it's not accurate to say Hitler was Right.

Spaniard,

Is David Duke a conservative? He says he is. If I were you I would argue with him about that.

Wow. This is off topic, but you just got your ass handed to you, Totten:

http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/08/05/the-global-struggle-against-straw

He can post pictures AND write...

Oh boy.

First of all, thanks for posting this, Michael. The tired meme from people who have little knowledge of political history and economic philosophy that the fascists were leftists is a constant source of annoyance. The idea that Hitler would in any way follow a political philosophy (Marxism) named after and developed by a Jew is just bizarre.

Secondly, anarchists and syndicalists can only be considered to be fascists or statists by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both political philosophies, at their very core, advocate the removal of the state, and propose implementation of grass-roots democratic groups to run society.

Utopian? Definitely. Possible? Arguable. Fascist? Pick up a book on the subject before talking about it like you're an expert, because all you're demonstrating is a shocking ignorance on the subject.

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the Frech revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Oh yes, and the people on the left of that Assembly did such a splendid job of "advocating for the interests of the poor and the workers," except for when they were murdering their political enemies. I wouldn't tar the American left with the brush of the French Revolution like that.

Once again, all this demonstrates is the futility of the silly binary division. The real division, if there is a binary one, is statism and individualism. In America today, all you have are statists and the question is how statist are they?

Did anybody watch the Galloway clip? It's more interesting than this argument (I think).

I don't understand why people on the "left" fail to apprecaite how great the United States is. I am not talking about Democrats who want to tweak a few things, this is not directed at reasonable Dem's or Rep's. I am talking about the hardcore left. Why would anyone want to turn their life over to the government? (communism!!) I suspect that it is more an urge to control others than an attempt to form some sort of "utopia".

Michael ( and anyone interested)

Fascism is solidly on the Right, though it is radically nationalist and statist and not " conservative".

Nazism was a fusion of Left-Right extremes and in fact drew many younger recruits from the Communist Left, particularly the streetfighting SA units. Nazism also is not " conservative" in either the European or American sense of the term. Hitler considered himself a revolutionary and the German conservatives to be untrustworthy " reactionaries". ( Hitler consider Social-Democrats and Communists to be " Marxists"and traitors).

Nazism had a well documented radical left-wing that stressed the " socialist" aspect of National Socialism. It was represented by the Strasser brothers, the SA leadership under Rohm, Goebbels, Bormann and many of the " old fighters" among the Gauleiters. The radicals among the Nazis played a significant role in internal power struggles within the Reich until the final days of the war.

Pick up any recent thorough or scholarly volumne on the Third Reich or Hitler - Richard Evans Coming of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw's 2 volume bio of Hitler, Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History all are excellent and provide ample documentation.

I don't understand why people on the "left" fail to apprecaite how great the United States is... Why would anyone want to turn their life over to the government? (communism!!)

Well, two things. First, both Marx and Engels had great admiration for the US, and a great disregard for Russia. Ironic.

Secondly, as has been pointed out several times on this thread (and repeatedly ignored, apparently) is that a big proportion of the left are not statists, and most emphatically do not want to turn their lives over to the government. Which is why many leftists support organizations like Amnesty International, which does a great job tracking and publicizing authoritarian abuses of individual rights, and the various flavours of Civil Liberties Unions, which track and fight against government intrusions on individual liberties.

Strangely, organizations like this that are dedicated to preserving personal liberties are often roundly condemned by those on the right that profess themselves to be advocates of personal liberty. Weird.

Secondly, anarchists and syndicalists can only be considered to be fascists or statists by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both political philosophies, at their very core, advocate the removal of the state, and propose implementation of grass-roots democratic groups to run society.

But DPU, syndicalism was part of the fascist economic idea. As the 19'th century passed into the 20'th, there were a great variety of ideas floating about, not the dreary few that have survived. The only common feature of many of these was that they sought something other than the capitalist organization of industry. Perhaps it is best said that fascism incorporated many bits and pieces of these philosophies in an attempt to find a "third way" between the marxist and the capitalist viewpoints, avoiding the class struggle and uniting all in a national state. The whole thing was pretty much improvised on the fly by charismatic dictators and there was a great deal of variety. Peron was a variant in this hemisphere.

But DPU, syndicalism was part of the fascist economic idea.

Please demonstart how a decentralized democratic grass-roots anti-statist political philosophy manifested itself in a semi-spiritualist anti-democratic pro-authoritarian militaristic and racists political movement. Please. Aside from the word "union."

"demonstart" == "demonstrate" in my comment above.

Oh baloney.

the Nazis, the Marxists and the Jihadists
were and all TOTALITARIAN and Oppressive

Leave the abstract, were they to the Left or were they to the Right, were the Nazis Socialists or not, alone and to the side the RESULT of all of the above in power
is TOTAL STATE CONTROL and no presence of Individual Liberty whatsoever,.

So to me no matter what label you choose to put on the Nazis, the Marixists or the Jihadists they are all the same.

what's the difference between a Rightwinger and a conservative

Completely orthogonal axes. Or almost completely.

Left - right is a distinction over primary advocacy of the interests of the poor or middle class vs. the intersts of the powers that be.

Conservative - liberal is a distinction in attitude toward tradition (often religous) vs. innovation.

Those in power often are rw, as advocates of their own interest, and tend to be conservative, since that is the system that gave them their power. The opposite combo of works as well.

But not necessarily so. Libertarianism, or, at its extreme, Randian philosophies are very liberal, and very very right wing.

Some religous movements, like Gandhi's, or the Catholic church on its better days are very conservative, but often rather leftist.

On the narrower scale of current American politics, the old "rockefeller republicans", or institutions like the NYT, tend to be liberal, but also somewhat to the right - they are corporate enterprises and support those interests. Modern labor unions (in the Meany afl-cio tradition) tend to be rather conservative, but essentially leftist.

WHile the Islamists and the left are not the same, it is certainly valid to say that the Islamists and the far left share a lot of the same goals. We see that every day.

The whole left-right dichotomy is rather tired and highly inaccurate, and useful distinctions between the two can only be made contemporaneously. For example, John Kennedy was pretty much a right-winger by today's standards.

That said, I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that any type of socialism should be categorized as a creature of the left. I'm reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich right now, and almost everything describing the rise of Nazism points to it being a kind of socialism.

To begin with, the name is a big giveaway: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Hitler spouted all sorts of socialist ideas, and he directed most of his speeches to the working class. His "alliance" with corporate interests lasted about as long as he needed them to get into power. His kind of socialism was more regulatory than command and control, and certainly the Nazi Party was far more interested in political control than in economic theory. That desire for total control was demonstrated when they purged the country of all competing parties. A lot of people insist that the zapping of the Social Democrats and the unions shows a right-wing bias, but that's only true if you ignore similar betrayals of the business interests. Nor does Hitler and Mussolini's antipathy to communists make them right-wingers--the communists were viewed as tools of alien interests (the Russians) by both, and Hitler also saw communism as somehow Jewish. In any case, whether the Nazis were good socialists or not is a moot point; their revolution was surely born from solid socialist roots.

I think the assumption that the Nazis must be labeled as the "far right" comes from a misperception that racism and nationalism are somehow right-wing tendencies. I don't think either is characteristic of the left or of the right--certainly in the U.S. example, the Democrats can't claim to lack either trait, given their history, any more than the Republicans can.

In any event, this whole debate shows how useless left-right distinctions really are. The real dividing line is between those who think that individuals should have control over their lives and those that think that they shouldn't. From where I'm sitting, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, et al. are all of a kind. I think we libertarians and moderates should remember that the greatest strength of a free society (and the basis for the founding of the U.S.) is a healthy distrust of the government. Or of anyone who attempts to control our lives. If someone's got his boot on my face, I don't really care if his shirt is red or blue.

Is David Duke a conservative?

If he had lived pre-1865, then yes. Today, no.

...fuck you for being a moorish bastard...

First, it doesn't matter what Marx or Engels thought of the U.S. because they suck. Any country who follows that toxic model is doomed to state slavery. The nature of government is to take more.

Second: Amnesty Int'l documents abuse, good for them. Is it four or five million dead in the Congo at this point? Did you document it? Way to go, you really made a difference. The United States Marine Corp has done more for humanity than Amnesty Int'l could in the next 500 years.

DPU,
Please demonstart how a decentralized democratic grass-roots anti-statist political philosophy manifested itself in a semi-spiritualist anti-democratic pro-authoritarian militaristic and racists political movement.

Bizarre, huh. How did Marxism manifest itself as a brutal totalitariam regime in a backward country like Russia? Ideas combine and mutate. Look, the times were far more interesting and the variety of thought far greater than you seem to think. The various movements were always splitting and evolving, and people changed their positions while dragging along their previous notions. Sorel and Bergson both seem to have had an impact on the mythic and violent aspects of fascism. In the end, what happens is even more interesting than all the theories that you seem to think define what movements are.

Did anybody watch the Galloway clip? It's more interesting than this argument (I think).

Yep. Kind of strange, and frightening, to run into this sort of demagogue again, shades of the 1930's. The rhetoric tends to the fascist side, what with the talk of grievance and the US and Britain portrayed as attacking the Arabs just because they are Arab. Strange that Galloway came up through the Labor Party, no? Or maybe not. There is a reason such folks start on the left. I think the Brits should toss the sucker in jail. They did as much to Mosley during WWII.

Chuck, I think he would look better on the end of a rope.

Totten asked, "Did anybody watch the Galloway clip?"

I did (thanks for posting that link). Reading the transcripts didn't prepare me for this guy: he's not speaking; he's pounding the pulpit. Former MP Eric Moonman (that's his name, really) said Galloway's remarks "bordered on the unstable," but he's being too kind. I think the man's got delusions of despot-hood. I've written a bit more about this here.

Bizarre, huh. How did Marxism manifest itself as a brutal totalitariam regime in a backward country like Russia? Ideas combine and mutate
*************************************************
Not to my mind, more of Cultures do not change because someone wants them to, change has to arise out of the masses, it cannot be imposed upon them, in the end the people of a society define their society.

Before the Revolution Russialived under a Totalitarian Dictator= Tzar
The Country was run by an oligarchy of about 4 to 5% of the population= Nobility
The rest were Serfs= Slaves

AFTER Revolution Russialived under a Totalitarian Dictator= Party Chairman
The Country was run by an oligarchy of about 4 to 5% of the population= Party Apparatchiki
The rest were Proletariat= Slaves.

Someone point out to me what changed? I mean the STRUCTURE of the Society before and after the Revolution was pretty much the same no matter WHAT the Bolseviks SAID, it is more important to pay attention to what they DID.

Actually most of the people were probably more Free and had more Liberty under the Tzar,

Not to my mind, more of Cultures do not change because someone wants them to, change has to arise out of the masses, it cannot be imposed upon them, in the end the people of a society define their society.

I am coming to think it has more to do with a love of violence that had its start with the French Revolution. I think it can be argued that both the nationalist and internationalist strains of socialism had their roots in that event. And violence leads naturally to dictatorship, to the rule of the strong.

Russia might have been very different if the October coup had failed and the government of Kerenski had survived. But who knows.

I'm sure there are a few fringe neo-nazi and racist groups who have common causes with the islamofascists, but there are even more of these types from the mainstream left.

It doesn't help that lefty media outlets like the guardian or bbc or reuters are anti-war and are undermining our war efforts with their bias.

Michael, the confusion is because you refuse to identify what makes Left different from Right.

eg. Right opposes gay marriage, abortion. Left opposes private ownership of telecoms, or free trade. (Positions that don't necessarily contradict.)

Because I'm confused about what you think are the definitional positions.

Tom,

There is no one thing that makes "the left" different from "the right." Those labels are way too reductionist. There are different kinds of leftists. There are different kinds of rightists. Different cultures produce different variations.

Below are the extremes.

Leftists: Marxists, Anarchists, Greens

Rightists: Fascists, Monarchists, Theocrats

I'm not talking about Democrats and Republicans here. No mainstream liberal or conservative has any reason to get defensive about this.

The left/right axis is clearly bogus by itself. For example, if you were to make a libertarian/authoritarian axis, Marxists and Anarchists end up on opposite poles. And yet, both Marxists and Anarchists are "left."

There are many left-wing political traditions. And there are many right-wing political traditions. Fortunately for all of us, mainstream American liberals and conservatives have distinctly American pedigrees that are different from those above. Liberals aren't Marxists. And conservatives aren't fascists. Marxism and Fascism are European imports, rejected by the overwhelming majority of us.

I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.) They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists. All of Europe's reformed Fascist and Fascist-lite parties are right-wing, to the right of the conservatives, regardless of the country you find them in. See the BNP in Britain, National Front in France, Haider's party in Austria, etc.

Jeez, how many posters to this site are political science professors?

Regarding Galloway, most probably he is a political whore. I imagine his pockets are well lined for making appearances like that one. Beyond that, his rhetoric (the rape of the beautiful Arab daughters of Jerusalem and Baghdad) transgresses any possible norm of political discourse. He seems to have a religious love for the Arabs, similar to the way Pat Robertson feels about Israel. In both cases, they are inappropriate and harmful.

Michael:

"There are different kinds of leftists. There are different kinds of rightists. Different cultures produce different variations."

But you wouldn't know it by surfing the bloggosphere; it seems political blogs either scream "Bush lied!", or "Liberals are anti-America!". It's refreshing to find this blog.

As for the British MP; his comments were vile, treasonous, and disgusting, and I sincerely hope the price he pays for them are high enough to help him see the "light".

Thanks, MJT, for the link to Galloway.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I actually found myself hoping for the delicious irony of Galloway becoming the victim of a terrorist attack. Maybe while travelling around Baghdad glad-handing the 'insurgents'.

Only I'll bet it wouldn't be an attack carried out by a ragged, sandal-wearing, kalishnakov-toting Iraqi.

What a moron.

I watched the clip. Can't the British government try Galloway for incitement? Given how illiberal their mood seems to be just now, Galloway would be well advised to stay low.

As to you basic theme here, I am reminded of this exchange: "I've got millionsk of 'nemies, an' you may be 5 or 6 of 'em".

But seriously, can the center (which may shift definition over time and conflicts) define itself without the endless cataloging of fringe thought?

During the cold war, did we make the mistake of not taking a centrist position, thus embracing thugs on the right to counter thugs on the left?

Maybe the geometry could be a mountain, with the center representing upward (progress) and left/right/north/south representing unbalanced extremes (falling down)?

Once Hitler and contemporaries took power, did they stay true to the social/economic theories they espoused? Or did they merely serve power and their baser instincts? Thinking about this, I don't want either left or right to gain too much.

Finally, what makes America special? Why is our left/right so muted (if in fact it is)?

Using the logic of the "Hitler was a leftie" crowd, South Africa's apartheid National Party regime was socialist to the core. Its strategy for obtaining power in 1948 was close to Hitler's in Germany. It appealed to working class white Afrikaners, outsiders in the white English-dominated economy and political establishment.

It created vast state corporations and a huge bureaucracy to accommodate these voters with jobs.

Of course, no working class or other black person was admitted to this circle. And the English-speakers became outsiders and "liberals" almost overnight.

All this shows national socialism is not Marxist.

left,

right,

no

mean
i
n
g

- ee cummings (actually charons_oar)

Jeez, how many posters to this site are political science professors?

A better question might be "How many posters to this site have any poli-sci education whatsoever?" Not many, from the evidence.

The basic point that historically defines the difference between left and right is the issue of the individual, in that right-wingers believe that society works best when the individual follow their self-interest. Left wingers believe that society works best when collective groups of individuals look out for one another and provide mutual aid.

And that's it, people. The issue of how much state involvement should be present has very little to do with the left/right poles. That's a very different issue. Socialists can be anything from the most diehard Marxists-Leninist advocating complete state control over every aspect of life, to the most extreme forms of anarchism that reject any government whasoever as an unjust intrusion. As Michael said, both are on the left, along with a large number of socialists who also embrace the better aspects of capitalism and liberal democracy.

To simply think "Leftists = bad, Nazis = bad, therefore Nazis = Leftist" is just idiotic, and a strained attempt to rewrite history at worst.

DPU,

And that's it, people. The issue of how much state involvement should be present has very little to do with the left/right poles.

So what does distinquish the poles? I would like to see a definition of the left that excludes the fascists.

Michael,

Viz Neo-Nazis

They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists.

And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?

Who is the audience here for Galloway's tirade? They seem to be in agreement with him, applauding any claim he makes.

I think Galloway believes much of what he says, and then makes other stuff up that he knows is false because it will further his cause.

Wide Boy.

A quote:

I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them. The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment. - Never Whistle Whle You're Pissing, Hagbard Celine

Aristotle, that great thinker (and damned fool) has cast on our society, what I percieve as a great wrong. He appears to have decided that reality appears as an IS/IS NOT proposition. From his sort of logic, we humans seem to make all sorts of generaliizations that don't work.

----------------

As an aside, a number of posters here appear to have great thoughts and ideas about current events, and while I may disagree, I tend to respect the opinion.

However, I do have to agree with some of the posters above... the lack of Pol-Sci knowledge among many posters appears very obvious.

"Better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Come on guys, its embarassing to watch.

PS - I think Galloway should be forced to return to Bethnal Green and Bow and allow them to provide a vote of confidence. If they are outraged, they should be able to dump him, if they share his err, views ick then in a democracy, one would have to respect that. I think.

Ratatosk

George Galloway gobsmacked by Muslim goons - fled London mob with police escort while leaving daughter on sidewalk:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/624

MJT,

The problem is not that these people are necessarily trying to rewrite history. It is that the notion that all political viewpoints can be expressed as a function of a one-dimensional continuum. As you pointed out, the binary political divide is ridiculous. Here is the rub: If only one characteristic is going to define political attitudes, then which characteristic one chooses will control the outcome. For example, most people on the US political right see the continuum as between those that favor more government control (left) and those that favor less government control (right). If that is the test, then fascism is a left wing enterprise. On the other hand if you think, like IP, your test is those who favor the interests of the poor and downtrodden (left) over those who favor the interests of the wealthy (right), then you will see fascism as a right wing enterprise. Another group thinks that the spectrum is between the egalitarian and the libertarians. This has a lot to recommend it, but then again, it probably puts fascism in the center. After all, fascism is a melding of socialistic statism and capitalistic nationalism.

Each will argue for their interpretation in large part because it best expresses their political goal and defines who they believe to be their opponents. If this is correct, then it is no wonder that the left wants to place Stalin on the right and the right wants to place Hitler on the left. This is a good thing! It means that nearly everyone identifies such people as their opponents.

IP

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the French revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Actually, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime. "The Right" supported aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied opposition to it. In modern America and Europe this is ridiculous. Did Hitler support the Kaisers? How about the church? (Hitler once said that a Christian cannot be a true German.) Do you realize that at that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were considered leftist?

The fact is that nearly all modern applications of left and right are analogies to that system and subsequent systems. I don't think the right believes that it is favoring the wealthy. I think it believes that liberty helps all people. JFK once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. You may think that is wrong, but many people, including a democratic president, believe it. Therefore, these people do not think they are favoring the wealthy.

"Better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."---Tosk

You crack me up. Remember the time you confessed that you had had more than enough of the same-o,same-o, and were heading off to other pastures? My guess is that there really aren't any, but it's certainly an excellent thought.

You were right then. MJT posts a topical little essay on that ( searching for words that might not be profane and not finding any)Galloway and the first umpteen comments are a not overly profound rehash of fascism and its non-alignment with leftist thought.

You say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to, let's call the whole thing off. :-)

However, I do have to agree with some of the posters above... the lack of Pol-Sci knowledge among many posters appears very obvious.

Tosk,

I'll admit I'm more historian than political scientist, but it seems to me that to appear knowledgeable in that field we'd have to repeat the party line we learned in college, and most of us are trying to think for ourselves for a change. A pretty good example is this commonly accepted Hitler=Right truism, which I refuse to accept on face value until someone makes a good argument.

Rat,
I hope you aren't equating someone being a PoliSci professor (one poster had a question re that) with knowledge about real-life political science.

JBP,

On the other hand if you think, like IP, your test is those who favor the interests of the poor and downtrodden (left) over those who favor the interests of the wealthy (right), then you will see fascism as a right wing enterprise.

So, let's have some facts here. On what basis do you claim that the fascists favored the wealthy over the poor?

Each will argue for their interpretation in large part because it best expresses their political goal and defines who they believe to be their opponents.

So really, it's all pointless. There are no facts, only convenience and a personal narrative. Guess we can all go home.

"And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?"

Yes, and there are plenty of political parties in the world incorporating derivations of words like "liberty", "freedom", etc., in their parties' names, which nevertheless (gasp!!) hardly defend such values when in power. How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name. Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.

RE Galloway

By the way, if Galloway is not committing treason, then the word has no meaning. If that is not adhering to the enemies of the UK then what is?

(This comment was posted at Don Surber's blog a few days ago. I hope it addresses Michael's post directly.)

What will it take for us to realize that the battle is not between the right and the left but between the center and the fringes?

The extreme left sees everything in shades of gray and rationalizes away any responsibility for any action. Even the most horrible behavior must be understood in some esoteric context, thus the massacre of a school full of children has its basis in some justifiable grievance. Their academic arrogance would have us all debate the nuance of every issue until we are slaughtered by forces that care nothing of logic and compassion.

The extreme right sees everything in black and white and answers any question with dogma. Evil is clearly defined as any belief with which they do not agree, therefore books must be banned, and heretics must be converted or destroyed. Their spiritual certainty would have us all prostrate ourselves to their undeniable knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

The one thing the far left and the far right have in common is that they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us through any means necessary.

Well, I've had enough of this crap. Practice your religion as you see fit, but if you try to impose one iota of it on my nation, I will respond with the Lord's vengeance. Sit in your ivory tower pondering the path to utopia if you will, but should your intellectual gymnastics put my nation at risk, I will run you over in its defense.

If you're in the center of the political spectrum you must decide where the line has been drawn. Is it between the right and the left, or between the moderate and the extreme? I've made my decision.

How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name. Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.

Names do mean something. When Hitler chose the word "socialism" he did it for a reason-- it wasn't random. If he himself wasn't a socialist, he may certainly have been trying to appeal to that crowd. Many people in Weimar Germany did see socialism as a solution to their woes as socialism had not yet been discredited.

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengle?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengle?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengler?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengler?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

“Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.”

Please take the time to study history. You are truly embarrassing yourself. Adolph Hitler was a staunch socialist. He was not even slightly discreet about his economic views. The very term Nazi is an abbreviation of national socialism! The very essence of Nazi economic theory is premised upon protectionism and the providing of state jobs to the citizenry. There is no such thing as distinguishing between the state and the private sector.

I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.)

I certainly DO NOT -- but as I said, the Left is the Islamofascist ally:
“The Left is just more honest about third-kind friends: anybody, and everybody, who is full of Bush-hate (for whatever reason), is an ally.”

You replied: Islamists aren't left. No, but the Left IS supporting the Islamists (are?).

Michael, you keep trying to claim I’m saying the Islamofascists are moving left, or claiming the left; but I’m not.
I’m saying the LEFT is moving towards fascism, and allying itself with Islamofascists.

Isn’t that what Leftist Galloway is doing? The fascists aren’t moving, aren’t changing, aren’t even that interested in an alliance with Left – but the Left is power-hungry enough to follow the fascists. Haven’t you complained yourself of “PC-Nazis”?

In the 1979 Iranian revolution, the anti-Shah fundamentalists were “allied” with the anti-Shah communists. Was it not a Leftist revolution? But the mullahs soon murdered many of the communists – common with the Stalinists murdering the Trotskyites.

Oops, prolly my mistake here: “if the Left… is supporting the Islamists, doesn't that mean the Islamists ARE Left, or allies?” What I meant was that it seems that Leftism has almost no positional point, so the groups it allies with and who accept it become the “Left”. (What makes the Greens Left?) And you still have given no statement of any Leftist position which disqualifies the Islamofascists. Certainly “group rights” over individual rights is something the Islamists advocate.

Today, in America, “Leftism” might mean: anti-American “sole superpower” status. It seems almost all the Leftists, like Galloway and Stanford ex-Pres David Kennedy are mightily concerned with this issue/ problem. Islamofascists, too.

You replied: “Islamists are radical far-right. There is nothing even remotely liberal or leftist about them.”

Why? If we were talking about why bats are mammals, and birds are not, we could say hair or feathers. When you think leftist or liberal, please let us know: what do you mean?

me:”They kill people who disagree. Quite a bit like Pol Pot's Leftist communists.”

MJT: “Killing people who don't agree with you doesn't make you a leftist all by itself…the far-left and the far-right have key things in common”

Correct! But what is their key difference? You don’t say.

You did say your point:”Islamists are pulling crap off German Neo-Nazi Web sites,”

And more and more Leftists, and even Bush-hate Dems, seem to be agreeing with them and their anti-democracy terrorism.

"Names do mean something."

Precisely my point. Hitler no doubt incorporated the word "socialism" to appeal to anyone disenchanted with Germany's economy--which, as you tacitly acknowledge, in no way magically made his policies "socialist". Indeed, names do mean something, even (and often) when they are used to deceive.

“I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.) They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists.”

Oh my God, I can’t believe Michael Totten’s knowledge of economics is truly this abysmally lacking. I could care less whether today’s Nazis consider themselves to be leftists. It doesn’t make a bit of difference. The bottom line is this: they are outright socialists! Please take a look at the 25 Points of this particular American Nazi group:

“ 10 The abolition of incomes unearned by work The breaking of interest slavery.

11 In view of the enormous personal sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

12 We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)”

http://www.nsm88.com/25points/25pointsengl.html

Adam,

How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name.

So if names and self-identification are bogus, how do you propose we distinguish such groups as the nazis, communists, and fascists? Beyond that, how are we to distinquish the left from the right?

Remember the time you confessed that you had had more than enough of the same-o,same-o, and were heading off to other pastures?

dougf, actually I do inhabit the other pastures... However, after I left MJT sent me an email and I told him that I'd check back in a few weeks... I did and comments have resumed their somewhat sane manner, so I post here as well...

(The evolutionsist in one of the other pastures though, would probably love to line up with a few of the Creationists here, just to shoot me though ;-) )

-----------------------
Spaniard,

I always encourage thinmking for oneself... but I find it often important to do research on a subject before thinking for oneself about it (less we fall into Plato's folly).

A pretty good example is this commonly accepted Hitler=Right truism, which I refuse to accept on face value until someone makes a good argument.

You see, thats the problem. No one can make a really good argument for Hitler being on the Left or the Right, because Hitler was neither. He had a lot of Left-Wing Rhetoric, yet his actions did not line up with his rhetoric.

Nazis opposed both individualism and laissez faire capitalism, they also opposed communism and social democracy.

If he himself wasn't a socialist, he may certainly have been trying to appeal to that crowd.

BINGO!!!! Welcome to Sophomore PolSci.

Hitler used socialist rhetoric (because when you're in the middle of a depression, just had the shit kicked out of you in a World War and have no idea where your next meal is coming from... having the government take care of you sounds like a great idea.

Hitler was much less Left or Right than he was Oppurtunistic. Hitler dabbled with the Occult, because he was seeking power. He buddied up with Catholics, because he was seeking power, he preached socialism because he was seeking power, he killed communists, democrats and minorities, because he was seeking power. He took over the corporations, because he was seeking power.

Many people in PolSci, look at Hitler's Nazi Party , Mussolini's version of Fascisim and the whacked out Imperial Japaneese political system as distinct phenomenon. They can be classified as Left or Right in very strict definations, however, depending on which way we restrict the defination, they tend to swap sides.

Saying that Hitler was left or right is sort of like trying to figure out if Jeffery Dahmer was a murderer or a cannibal.

The answer is... he was an insane psychopath.

I think you'lll find that any political system which commits terrible atrocities rarely conforms to a 'normal' defination of left or right. Terrible atrocities tend to be comitted by people who have serious mental problems and often conflicting action/rethoric. I do however, think there are exceptions (Cuba, for example).

Ratatosk

Galloway of the newly formed Respect Party (not Reform). (Long ago prior mistake.)

Andrew,

Hitler no doubt incorporated the word "socialism" to appeal to anyone disenchanted with Germany's economy-

Why speculate when you can actually study up and maybe learn some history? Your "no doubt" is a rather lazy approach to the topic.

Tosk,

I think you'lll find that any political system which commits terrible atrocities rarely conforms to a 'normal' defination of left or right.

In recent history, you will find that terrible atrocities were mostly committed by the left because:

1) They had contempt for conventional morality.
2) They glorified revolution and violence.
3) Atrocities were justified by the necessary ends.

Your other implication, that politicians are opportunistic scoundrels with no core beliefs, seems to me to paper over a great deal. Have you read Mein Kampf? If so, do you regard it as a purely cynical book? Did Lenin believe in Marxism, or was it merely a ploy on his part? How about Stalin? What political purpose did the elimination of the Kulaks serve?

The notion that people do bad things because they have no core values strikes me as the precise opposite of what happens. Terrible atrocities are committed by the idealistic, not the self serving. The latter merely indulge in corruption, a far less harmful thing.

"So if names and self-identification are bogus, how do you propose we distinguish such groups as the nazis, communists, and fascists?"

Chuck, points off for sloppy reading comprehension. Let me make this crystal clear for you, to prevent further misrepresentations of my words: what I said was that names are simply names, and can either accurately or inaccurately represent what they name. Even more simply: names are names--they can be bogus or not. An example, if you need further help understanding my point: I can call myself a Christian, and yet in practice be a Satanist. Honestly, if that's not simple enough for you, then you're on your own. But I'd appreciate not being mis-represented.

David Thomson: Oh my God, I can’t believe Michael Totten’s knowledge of economics is truly this abysmally lacking.

Get stuffed. When I object to Neo-Nazis the last thing I'm thinking about is economics. Nothing I wrote in the last couple of posts is even remotely about economics at all.

Adam,

Even more simply: names are names--they can be bogus or not.

And my guestion was how are you going to distinquish the bogus from the not bogus? I suppose that maybe you can do this, but then again, maybe you can't. Am I wrong?

This (captured) thread is certainly interesting. We have people who strongly believe that the Nazis can be classified as leftists, those that see them as being on the right, and those who think the left-right distinction is meaningless. As much as I think that history points to a socialistic birth for fascism and Nazism, I don't think it really matters much. There is no doubt at all that the Italian Fascist party and the German Nazi party were made up of people who we'd label today as being on both sides of the political spectrum.

I agree that people generally talk about the Nazis as being on the "right", but I imagine that that classification has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Europe and the U.S. were dominated by the then-left and wanted to be sure to distance themselves from fascism as much as possible. Not to mention, it's a good way to attack the right (look at what happens when people like those right-wingers go bad). Let's just agree that fascism borrowed bad features from both sides of the aisle and was really sui generis in the world of politics.

Frankly, if some bozo gets up and starts spouting hate-filled rhetoric, he's a "fascist" in my book. Plenty of those on both sides of the aisle. Too many, if you ask me.

“Why speculate when you can actually study up and maybe learn some history?”

Agreed. There is simply no excuse for the ignorance displayed by many of the above commenters---including our host, Michael Totten. The Nazi movement revolved around socialist economic principles. This is not some sort of great mystery. The evidence is overwhelming and not even slightly debatable. One can only hope that these individuals take the time to study history. Is that too much to expect?

Hitler was basically a nationalist and a racist. The left likes to label those two characteristics as "right wing", but it's a bunch of bs. Hitler might also be considered "right" because he didn't want Slavic Stalin adding a depressed Germany to it's sphere of influence. I'm sure in the utopian world of the German's who got caught up in Hitler, Germany would be full of clean public parks, gun control, health care for all (Germans), women (German women) as equals, euthanasia (These aren't necessarily policies of the current GOP). . You basically take a bit of folklore, and throw that in with a desire to go back to some world where your neighbors all shared the same culture, and genetics, throw that in with a few socialist policies and you have Nazism. I don't know how this fits in with the we define the "right" or "left" in 21st century America. You'd go crazy if you spent too much time trying to fit everything in the right/center/left. I'm sure all the "left wingers" up in Vermont wouldn't be so anxious to have a big migration of inner city people move up there. I'm not sure that every minority that votes for Democrats is necessarily going out and rallying for gay marriage and abortion. I know people in the NRA that congenitally vote Republican that would like to see more wealth redistribution, environmental regulations, etc. Generally, in the US, if you pulled the lever for Bush you're considered right by people who pulled the lever for Kerry, and vice versa. Other than that, why we try to label everything as right/left/center, makes no sense to me.

Perhaps the Wikipedia article on fascism will help:

Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. Many scholars consider fascism to be part of, or in coalition with, extreme right politics. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism, however, fill entire bookshelves. There are clearly elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism.

Another key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack or absorb the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Peter Fritzsche and others have described fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism. This mobilization strategy involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [1], all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of a Communist revolution [2], finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists...

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc., and in some of its forms anti-religion. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.

But Michael, if When I object to Neo-Nazis the last thing I'm thinking about is economics.
it's not the economy (stu...), what IS it?

"And my guestion was how are you going to distinquish the bogus from the not bogus?"

No, your question--the one I responded to in my first post--was this:

"And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?"

My response--echoed by Tosk, among others--was that neither of your conditions in the second sentence is correct. Mussolini's and Hitler's self-identification as socialists was only that--a name, and one assumed with the intent to manipulate.

“Nothing I wrote in the last couple of posts is even remotely about economics at all.”

This is utterly senseless. It is similar to playing baseball without a baseball. There is way to sharply distinguish between the economic policies of a particular regime and its overall policies.

Nazism is purely socialist. The state is to dominate all aspects of human life. Capitalism is perceived as Jewish plot against the common good.

Chuck,

I've read Mein Kampf, and yes it does espouse a left-leaning political ideology. However, in action Hitler did not support the traditional Left values, (any mroe than he did the right).

The analogy doesn't work, it's never worked well and in some historical cases (Hitler, Mussolini and some others) it fails to work well at all. In the context of who the Left and Right are today, in the United States... I doubt we could find a useful answer. Republicans aren't espousing smaller government, they aren't espousing responsible fiscal policies, they aren't acting in a conservative manner in the WoT and socially, they are more authoritarian than mosbunall on the Left.

A political party on the traditional American Right (yet again different from the European or even Isreali Right), would not seek federal intervention in the removal of a patients life support. They would not support a federal ban on recreational drugs, instead leaving that to the State. They would not push for a Federal admendment to define marriage. They would not have a deficit the size we currently have without some useful plan in place to fix it.

I don't know why Mr. Bush has wavered from his Conservative values, but I fear it may have something to do with appeasing some constituants on the fringe of the Republican party.

Traditional pigeon holes don't wrok, they've never worked well, and they are even less useful now.

Remember, polsci is like any science, we develop a model and then use the model to make perdictions about observations. The Left Right Model, can provide us with some useful data that corresponds with some observartions. However, mosbunall PolSci folks have recoginized the restrictive nature of the model, and its inability to closely model reality (whatever that is ;-)).

That's why we see new models, such as the quadrents which try to split Liberal/Conservative and Authoritarian/Libretarian... it doesn't seem to work perfectly, but it does appear to model things more closely. We can perdict the political views of people in each of the four quadrents (and can even be a little more exact based on the location within the quadrent). This currently, appears to match somewhat closely with observations that we make. Of course, no system or model is exact, but the quadrent currently appears more useful than the static line.

However, based on exactly which political action/philosophy we're discussing... Hitler still wanders about the quadrent somewhat.

Ratatosk

Tom in CT: I don't know how [Nazism] fits in with the we define the "right" or "left" in 21st century America.

It doesn't. Nazism is not American. It is German.

Wiki seems to think it's mostly economic.

And "nationalist" (which isn't negative, merely exclusive).

What were YOU thinking, Michael?

"mosbunnal"

wtf?

"In the decade and a half between the close of World War I and the assumption of Adolf Hitler the German people faced the imposing tasks of absorbing defeat in the war, of adjusting to a peace settlement universally regarded in Germany as unjust, and of coping with armed insurrection, runaway inflation, reparations payments and the depression. In response to this series crises there arose among the nationalist-minded intellectuals of the Right an ideological movement referred to by some of its participants as the "conservative revolution." These intellectuals were "conservative" in the sense of wanting to retain or revitalize certain traditional political, economic, and cultural forms and values which they felt were more in keeping with pristine Germanic character than were the "alien" forms associated with the Weimer democracy; they were "revolutionary" because they felt that only by embracing these traditional forms and values to revolutionary extent could Germany rejuvenate her national life and restore her political power. In general the conservatives revolutionaries-or neo-conservatives-were anti-Western, anti-Liberal, and anti-Semitic. Hence they often found themselves en rapport with the National Socialist, though for the most part the conservative revolutionaries were not Nazis in the strict sense. Nonetheless, as the 1920's progressed, the movements represented by the two groups became more closely entwined. The Nazis allowed the largely congenial writings of the conservative revolutionaries to complement their own intellectually barren ideology, while the conservative revolutionaries viewed the dynamism of the Nazi movement as the necessary practical engine for dislodging the Weimer system and opening the way to true volkisch state. Yet once the National Socialist had seized power in 1933, they quickly lost patience with the independent-minded conservative revolutionaries, while the latter soon grew dismayed by the crudeness and fanaticism of the de facto Nazi regime. As a group, the conservative revolutionaries remained true to themselves and after the mid-1930's played no positive role in the Hitler regime.

From:
The Fichte Society: A Chapter in Germany's Conservative Revolution
Nelson Edmondson
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1966), pp. 161-180.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion

Michael,

I'm ahead of you. It is useful to read the whole Wikipedia article and follow some of the links under Italian fascism. The topic is more complicated and less clearcut than your selection implies. I also tend to be a bit more skeptical when Wikipedia deals with politcal topics. The article, for instance, seems to possess conceptual breaks between some of the paragraphs that may indicate the contributions of different authors.

I think the success of the Fascist movements in collecting members from the left indicates a certain affinity. This happened in Vichy also. This sort of thing needs to be explained. The old circle idea is a copout here, IMNSHO.

Marxism

The most dangerous opponent of our worldview at present is Marxism, and its offspring Bolshevism. It is a product of the destructive Jewish spirit, and it is primarily Jews who have transformed this destructive idea into reality. Marxism teaches that there are only two classes: the owners and the property-less. Each must be destroyed and all differences between people must be abolished; a single human soup must result. That which formerly was holy is held in contempt. Every connection to family, clan and people was dissolved. Marxism appeals to humanity's basest drives; it is an appeal to subhumans.

We have seen firsthand where Marxism leads people, in Germany from 1919 to 1932, in Spain and above all in Russia. The people corrupted by Liberalism are not able to defend themselves against this Jewish-Marxist poison. If Adolf Hitler had not won the battle for the soul of his people and destroyed Marxism, Europe would have sunk into Bolshevist chaos. The war in the East will lead to the final elimination of Bolshevism; the victory of the National Socialist worldview is the victory of Aryan culture over the spirit of destruction, the victory of life over death.

From:
Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik

This is a pamphlet outlining Nazi racial theories. It seems to have been intended primarily for members of the SS, though the copy I am working from carries the stamp of a school library. The book also suggests a plan for covering the content of the booklet in eleven class periods, indicating it was intended for use in the schools.

Tom Grey: Wiki seems to think it's mostly economic. And "nationalist" (which isn't negative, merely exclusive). What were YOU thinking, Michael?

Do you think Islamists read Neo-Nazi Web sites for information about economics? I don't. For them it's about sharing the hate.

Our Speakers in the Anti-Marxist Battle

Why? In opposing Marxism, we oppose a deeply-rooted worldview that is based on over sixty years of intensive work. It is in turn founded on the still older liberal world view and economic order. It enjoys not only the protection of tradition, but the strength a younger movement can bring to bear against an older one. Liberalism was not able to resist Marxism. The liberal parties and ideologies could only fight defensively against a worldview with greater strength and clarity of purpose. Even the Marxist worker who long doubted and sought for something better eventually had to conclude that Marxism is the only world view that can bring a new and better society and economic order. Who can hold it against him that he rejected the forces that denied him equality and a share in the results of his labor? The German worker absorbed Marxism in his parents' home, and was surrounded by people who thought the same in the workplace. In what remained of his sound understanding, he knew that there was a flaw somewhere in the world view. He realized that there was a catch somewhere to the lovely teachings of "expropriating the expropriators," of "the equality of everyone with a human face," of "international brotherhood," of "international solidarity," but he did not know where, and there was no one to show him the contradictions, the weak points in the thinking of Karl Marx and his followers.

From:
Unsere Redner im antimarxistischen Kampf. Die Bilanz eines Wahljahrs," Unser Wille und Weg

This article from the Nazi party's monthly for propagandists discusses Nazi propaganda battles with the Marxists, which to their minds included both the socialists (SPD) and communists (KPD). The article notes that National Socialism has gone about as far as it can in reaching the middle classes. The target now has to be the workers, which the writer notes will be a difficult task. He directs some rather biting criticism at many Nazi propagandists. It was published late in 1932, at a critical time. Nazism had lost ground in the 6 November 1932 Reichstag election, and the party was weary after a year of almost constant elections. There had been two presidential elections, two Reichstag elections, and the Prussian state elections, not to mention a variety of others.

spaniard, I believe that "mosbunnal" is a contraction of "mos,t but not all." Similarily, "sombunnal" is a contraction of some, but not all.

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

From:
Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler - Etwas zum Nachdenken

This is a widely distributed Nazi pamphlet from before 1933. The title, loosely translated, is "Those Damned Nazis." At least several hundred thousand copies were printed. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda just before Hitler's takeover in 1933. The booklet included five cartoons by Mjölnir, Goebbels' cartoonist, three of which I include here. Mjölnir also produced some of the most familiar Nazi posters.

Crap, make that "most, but not all."

Stupid punctuation.

MJT, Neodude, Tree-Rat, heroic efforts all, but pointless. There are some deep-rooted faith issues at work here that will not be swayed by words and facts.

Or by anything else, for that matter.

NeoDude,

Nice selections.

Spaniard,

Mosbunall/Sombunall - both appear as words used within E-PRIME, a subset of English. E-PRIME tries to abolish any variant of the verb 'to be' and is based on the general semantics work done by Count Korzybski, Dr. Bourland and others.

Typical E-PRIME Statements, as compared to English statements:

(as swiped from Wilson's Essay on E-PRIME in the magazine Trajectories, and reproduced later in his book: Quantum Psychology.)

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

This improves clarity and often acts as a buffer against the most often found forms of logical error and emotional thinking.

Sombunall and Mosbunall, within E-Prime have been found by many as useful in stating the more or less relative facts of most situations without using absolutes (or negating absolutes). This has been called Predicative Relativism.

Note that this differs from post-modernism and moral relativeism, since E-PRRIME doesnt' try to state what IS real, but only emphaisizes that mosbunall of the statements made by humans tend heavily toward subjectivity.

In other words, we can make definate statements about reality:

"I have a friend named Roy, all of his children are boys. All of his boys have blonde hair."

But we cannot make definate statements about mosbunall things:

"All Americans love democracy."
(vs)
"Mosbunall Americans love democracy."

"All Leftists are Socialists."

"Mosbunall Leftists are Socialists."

Regarding the use of "Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name, can I point out that North Korea's name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea?"

They're democratic, people. No more talk of a dictatorship.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

Shorter Tosk = mosbunnal is a generalization.

;-)

But the Nazis did nationalize key industries, s they were socialists by that definition.

N Korea holds elections, but they're a farce. Germany's nationalization of key industries was real.

TallDave,

So do simulated elections equate to real elections?

Spaniard,

Shorter Tosk = mosbunnal is a generalization.

Well, its not just a generalization (most or some would suffice for that). Mosbunall and Sombunall tend to indicate that a portion of a set has been examined, but not the whole set.

But, thats the general idea, yes ;-)

Hitler's Christianity

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.

More:
"Gott Mit Uns" means God With Us and appeared on many Nazi soldiers belt buckles during WWII

"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a God has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."

(Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs. Bonanza Books ; Distributed by Crown Publishers, 1982, cited in an Internet article by Kevin Davids).

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

–Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

A lot of conservative and libertarian critique that Naziism was a left wing enterprise comes from Hayek, who in the "Road to Serfdom" posited that fascists and communists, rather than being natural enemies, were two sides of the same socialist coin, and their antagonism came from fighting over the same turf, i.e. young disaffected ne'er-do-wells longing for a Utopian state solution.

Regardless of what Left and Right were used to denominate in the past, in today's parlance we tend to use it to describe Left=socialism (small s) and Right=individualism. By that standard, both fascism and communism are properly considered Left Wing.

Jonah Goldberg said that his favorite rebuttal to Liberals decrying the "Fascist (Republican Goblin of the week)" was to ask, "Other than the whole killing Jews and Gays thing, what is it about the tenets of National Socialism that you disagree with?" Conservatives and Libertarians (generally considered right wing) can give you point by point how they differ.

If in your political cosmology, Communism and Fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, then there is no place on that spectrum, for Conservatism, Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, or basically any flavor of ism we follow in the US today.

Do you think Islamists read Neo-Nazi Web sites for information about economics? I don't. For them it's about sharing the hate.

Sigh. I know a lot about what you DON'T think is the case. And I know you name the Islamists fascists, which I agree with.

What I don't know is what, makes a Leftist be on the left?

what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

I know this was asked of MJT, but as a socialist, I think I can answer that one.

A belief that an individual philosophy of mutual aid works better than self interest in modern society and economics. I also believe that an authoritarian state is a flawed and undesirable institution.

NeoDude,

I can play that game too:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. ... What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

Adolf Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930.

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian...

"Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have been taken over from Jewry * * *. A differentiation between the various Christian confessions is not to be made here * * * the Evangelical Church is just as inimical to us as the Catholic Church. * * * All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the help of the NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors. * * * Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. * * * Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time."

Martin Bormann

Mark,

What would be Goldberg's take on Kristols' critique of Hayek and Spencer?

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion

Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism "as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society." He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce "tensions" between the two groups. Kristol's long range view is that the social conservatives represent "an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year."

from:
Splitting the Republican Coalition
Social Democrats, USA
Copyright: 1996, SD, USA

Chuck,

So Hitler sounds like a Neo-Conservative, what's your point!

Strasser's complaint, that liberals have taken over the churches sounds like today's evangelicals.

Some of the most "anti-Christian" remarks come from fundamentalists who believe the faith has become to pluralistic.

Like most rabid nationalistic right-wingers, who fuse Christianity with nationalism, Hitler and Strassner hate Liberalism and anti-Fundamentalist strains.

hits head on desk

Chuck says: NeoDude,

I can play that game too:

Well, duh! What do you think people have been telling you? You can find evidence for Left or Right in Hitler's rhetoric (and is sombunall of his actions). Yes, he had many socialist values, he also had a number of conservative values. He also had a number of ideas that one should not consider valuable to either side!

The left vs right model doesn't work, it's like trying to explain quantum theory via a Newtonian Model... it fails to properly predict observations and therefore should be considered a flawed model.

Are you really unable to grasp this concept?

Left---Right = failed model

Quadrant = imperfect, yet better model

Circle = Silly model, since there is no useful difference between the back half and front half of the circle (until you place it on the quadrant model).

Got it?

Thanks, Ratsy!

Why can't we just admit that the "Political Rainbow" is not a 1/2 circle? It is instead, a FULL circle with the "Extreme Left" actually meeting the "Extreme Right"??
This is not all that hard a concept if you modify your definitions and your 'vision' of them. I would think that Columbus would have had the same trouble convincing Europe to go "West" to get "East".

RataTosk,

Nope. I was just pointing out that selective quotes were inadequate, doesn't mean that the preponderance of the evidence points nowhere. Your constant invocation of uncertainty and conceptual inadequacy simply avoids the hard work of investigation and classification. Really, I thought the General Semantics fad had run its course back in the 1950's, although scientology persists. It hasn't borne any fruit that I can see.

Hitlerian "christianity":

"The Nazi party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism...National Socialism is the doing of God's will...God's will reveals itself in German blood...Dr. Zoellner and Count Galen [the Catholic bishop of Muenster] have tried to make it clear to me that Christianity consists of faith in Christ as the Son of God. That makes me laugh...No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed...True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity...The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation."

~~Dr. Hans Kerrl, Minister of Church Affairs, February 13, 1937

Neodude, yours amounts to nothing more than slander.

And just in case Quadrants are confusing enough, here's a much more exact (and complicated/confusing) model which has some value:

http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm

I asked before about your claim that
Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger

I didn't get a response, so I am trying again.
Where does Chomsky try to make Stalin out to be a
"right-winger"? And whatever Chomsky might have
meant by whatever description he uses of Stalin,
in what way was he tryig to "rewrite history"?

As far as I know, Chomsky places himself in the
tradition of the anarchist critics of the
Bolsheviks, who viewed Lenin and Trotsky as
opposed to "the most essential features of
socialism" and that Lenin and Trotsky
"proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist
structures converted by Stalin into one of the
horrors of the modern age."

quotes from Soviet Union vs. Socialism,
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html

And his views on the Spanish Civil War were
pretty much in line with George Orwell's, viewing
the Soviet Union as opposed to the social
revolution in Spain. I don't think that's even
debatable.

I guess perhaps one could say from this that
Chomsky viewed Stalin as a "right-winger",
although I doubt Chomsky used the term in this
context. But, I ask again - in what way has
Chomsky tried to rewrite history with his
characterization of Stalin? These are views that
are not by any means original with Chomsky, but
are part of a tradition of left-wing thought that
was harshly critical of the Bolsheviks before
the Russian Revolution, and during the Spanish
Civil War.

Mark: If in your political cosmology, Communism and Fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, then there is no place on that spectrum, for Conservatism, Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, or basically any flavor of ism we follow in the US today.

That's because the spectrum doesn't really exist. Dfferent ideologies on "the left" contradict each other, sit at opposite ends of their own poles, and are mutually hostile. Same with ideologies on "the right." See anarchism versus socialism, for example. See also monarchy versus libertarianism.

Remember, also, that what is left-wing in one country may be right-wing in a different country. What is left-wing in one time period may be right-wing in a different time period in the same country.

I would think that Columbus would have had the same trouble convincing Europe to go "West" to get "East".

Um, no, everyone knew that the world was round in Columbus' time. They even knew the size of the earth. Columbus believed that the world was actually smaller than had been calculated by the ancient Greeks, and that it was shorter to travel to Asia by going West than East.

He was wrong, and if he hadn't run into the Americas, he and his crew would have died.

"Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have been taken over from Jewry * * *. A differentiation between the various Christian confessions is not to be made here * * * the Evangelical Church is just as inimical to us as the Catholic Church. * * * All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the help of the NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors. * * * Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. * * * Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time."

~~Martin Bormann in a secret decree of the Party Chancellery signed by him and distributed to all Gauleiters 7 June 1941

See anarchism versus socialism, for example.

Anarchism IS a branch of socialism. Perhaps what you meant was "Anarchism vs. Marxist-Leninism"

I gotta put together a primer on the history of socialism on my blog just to clear up a bunch of this stuff.

Michael,

That's because the spectrum doesn't really exist.

What we need is a cladogram of the descent of political memes. It will require some modifications as the species concept doesn't really apply to ideas.

Tom: what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

Again, it depends. The answer is, and has to be, "nothing in particular." There is no one thing that all leftists have in common. Everything you can find somewhere on the left you can also find somewhere on the right.

I'm speaking in global terms here. What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America. What is considered left in America is considered right in France.

These terms aren't completely useless, but they're getting there fast.

neodude, more:

"The Fuehrer considers his efforts to bring the Evangelical Church to reason, unsuccessful and the Evangelical Church with respect to its condition rightfully a useless pile of sects. As you emphasize the Party has previously carried on not only a fight against the political element of the Christianity of the Church, but also a fight against membership of Party Members in a Christian confession."

~~Hans Kerrl, Reich Minister for Church Affairs, in a letter dated 6 September 1939

There is no one thing that all leftists have in common.

I would disagree. I'd also say that there are ideas that are common to all on the right-wing as well.

What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America.

Examples?

Seth Kulick,

You answered your own question for me. You provided precisely the quote by Noam Chomsky I would have given you had I gotten to your question.

Chomsky certainly thinks of "fascist" as right-wing. So when he refers to Lenin as a "proto-fascist" who laid the groundwork for Stalin, well, there you go. I don't know what else to tell you.

There is no one thing that all leftists have in common.

There is only one thing Leftists have in common-- anti-establishment. Everything else is debatable, but not that. Only this explains their obsession with the "American Taliban" but silence about muslim repression.

"Your constant invocation of uncertainty and conceptual inadequacy simply avoids the hard work of investigation and classification"

Oh christ.

Chuck,

How many years of PolSci do you have? How many years of actual investigation have you done? By what model and system are you classifying Politics, and, more importantly, which subest of politics are you refering to (economics, defense, social)?

Simplification can be useful in somebunall instances of science. We call these Approximations. However, one must realize that solving with an Approximation does not actually tell us what is happening. For example Bhor's Model of the Atom (which is probably the one you studied in school) used Approximations. Today, mosbunall scientists don't use Bhor's model, because the model is flawed. However, its still useful for broad generalizations and High School science class.

If you are happy with High School level models for politics, then stick with your dichotemy and your generalizations and your Approximations. Mosbunall of the people who'd actually like to get an idea of what really going on, will use more complex (and more accurate) models.

Choose for yourself at what level you want to communicate or debate... just don't be surprised if people look at your comments and consider them flawed.

Chuck: What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America. Examples?

"Americans are liberators."

This is the view of the left-wing Kurdish PUK party, for example. Left-wing Americans think it's hogwash.

spaniard: There is only one thing Leftists have in common-- anti-establishment.

Well, I'd hardly take that as an expert opinion. I recollect the Soviet govenment being fairly pro-establishment, as it WAS the establishment. Or take a look at the conservative nature of the loony communist government