History buffs/majors?

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Yes, they employed some public works projects. But they broke up unions, preserved private property, poured money into the military and attacked other nations.

Even Lenin had his "New Economic Policy" in the 1920s, preserving for a time some private property, before Stalin reversed course.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin tolerated unions.
Both Hitler and Stalin poured money into the military.
Both Hitler and Stalin attacked other nations.
Hitler and Stalin were in effect murderous psychotic twins, each advocating an ideology of state control centered in one man and no individual liberty.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Even Lenin had his "New Economic Policy" in the 1920s, preserving for a time some private property, before Stalin reversed course.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin tolerated unions.
Both Hitler and Stalin poured money into the military.
Both Hitler and Stalin attacked other nations.
Hitler and Stalin were in effect murderous psychotic twins, each advocating an ideology of state control centered in one man and no individual liberty.

But we weren't talking about Stalin. We were trying to make Nazism and fascism into some sort of left-wing sect. Nobody who lived through those times saw it that way. Fascism and Nazism were right-wing phenomona, conservativism on steroids.

[marcshoe]

And until recently, this was not considered controversial.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Rojo

But we weren't talking about Stalin. We were trying to make Nazism and fascism into some sort of left-wing sect. Nobody who lived through those times saw it that way. Fascism and Nazism were right-wing phenomona, conservativism on steroids.

That is simply untrue. The conservatives may have formed a coalition with the Nazis, but they only did so to keep the communists out. The true conservatives viewed Hitler and the Nazis with disdain, yet had a greater fear of the communists based on what they had seen from the Russian Revolution. The Nazis were big proponents of policies such as raising the minimum wage, nationalizing certain key industries, land reform, expanding pensions for the elderly, and maintaining full employment through public works. They may have shut independent trade unions out, but they replaced them with party sanctioned workers bodies that worked out deals with industrialists with mediation from the party. Their base of power was not the wealthy, but rather the working and middle classes, which they maintained through populist programs.

As far as being militaristic goes, just about every far left government in history has pumped huge amounts of money and manpower into the military, whether it be the Soviets, their Warsaw Pact allies, China, and nonaligned regimes like Yugoslavia. So to say that a regime is right-wing because it gives great power to the military is false. On the contrary, the military under those regimes was politicized and placed under party control. Once again, if you remove the nationalist ethno-chauvinist characteristics of fascism, you see a lot more in common with communist regimes of the 20th century than you do with conservative movements in liberal democracies.

The real problem is trying to classify political movements along a linear spectrum of left v. right, when in reality many movements that appear diametrically opposed because they came in conflict with each other actually shared many characteristics. If you compared the Republican Party in the US to every other political movement in world history, I think the party they are closest to is the Democratic Party.

[bigredmechanism]

The problem with answering these questions is that the answers often are dependent on how the material was presented by the texts and the professor. There could be several correct answers to some of them, but in the professors eyes there may only be one.

I hated subjective questions in college.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

The true conservatives viewed Hitler and the Nazis with disdain, yet had a greater fear of the communists based on what they had seen from the Russian Revolution.

Qualifying "conservatives" with "true" sounds like a hedge. Yes, some conservatives (the "true" ones?) didn't like Hitler. But maybe we should extend that benefit of the doubt to Communists. Many, many Communists didn't like Stalin, from the get-go. Can we not call them the "true" Communists and absolve of them of the bad Stalin association?

Their base of power was not the wealthy, but rather the working and middle classes, which they maintained through populist programs.

The Nazis popular base was never as large as people imagine. At their highwater mark, they took 37% of the vote. When they gained power, they grabbed 33% of the vote. The Communist and Socialist parties that year got 37% of the vote combined. (Ironically it was the anticommunism of the Socialist Party that stopped them from entering into a coalition with the Communists that would've kept Hitler out of power.) Much of that 37% came from the professional classes. The Nazi Party's roots can be found in the Thule Society which included professionals and aristocrats. And Hitler's rise was largely funded by wealthy businessmen.

The Nazis pitched some popular programs and inserted "socialist" into the party name to win over working class voters but they ultimately disempowered workers, quite the opposite of the Roosevelt Administration. Yes, they both built some public works. For that matter so did the Hoover Administration.

So to say that a regime is right-wing because it gives great power to the military is false.

Granted. But remember the original question. Which party is more "pro military"? Which party wants more money for the Pentagon?

Once again, if you remove the nationalist ethno-chauvinist characteristics of fascism, you see a lot more in common with communist regimes of the 20th century than you do with conservative movements in liberal democracies.

That's quite a thing to remove. How about we spin it this way: If you remove public works spending from the Nazis who do they more resemble -- the Democrats or the party that wants a wall on the border, ultarsounds up lady parts, English only, and broken unions?

The real problem is trying to classify political movements along a linear spectrum of left v. right, when in reality many movements that appear diametrically opposed because they came in conflict with each other actually shared many characteristics. If you compared the Republican Party in the US to every other political movement in world history, I think the party they are closest to is the Democratic Party.

I don't have a problem with this conclusion. I'll add that politics doesn't happen along straight ideological arc. Political actors bob and weave along the way.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by marcshoe

And until recently, this was not considered controversial.

It's Cultural Production. Hannah Arendt gave us the Totalitarian hypothesis that twinned Hitler and Stalin. Before that one was seen as far right and the other far left.

[nmculbreth]

Originally Posted by Rojo

But we weren't talking about Stalin. We were trying to make Nazism and fascism into some sort of left-wing sect. Nobody who lived through those times saw it that way. Fascism and Nazism were right-wing phenomona, conservativism on steroids.

Exactly.

Fascism and Nazism were reactionary movements that grew out of the social and economic discontent following WWI in Europe. Reactionaryism is by definition a right wing ideology, albeit the farthest right on the political spectrum.

To put it another way: Stalinism is to liberalism as Nazism / Fascism is to conservatism.

Attempting to lump Nazism and Fascism in with Stalinism and call it an extreme left wing position is unfair and historically inaccurate.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by nmculbreth

Exactly.

Fascism and Nazism were reactionary movements that grew out of the social and economic discontent following WWI in Europe. Reactionaryism is by definition a right wing ideology, albeit the farthest right on the political spectrum.

To put it another way: Stalinism is to liberalism as Nazism / Fascism is to conservatism.

Attempting to lump Nazism and Fascism in with Stalinism and call it an extreme left wing position is unfair and historically inaccurate.

Or not. Nazism and fascism are similar to Communism in that they sought to tear down existing social structures and replace them with a new social order. In the one instance, it was to replace, in theory, the aristocratic elite with a social structure based on the ascendance of the proletariate, in the other, placing power in the hands of a perceived racially superior group. Both movements engaged in the confiscation of land and wealth from the elite to meet their goals, although the fascists would stop short of confiscating property from those who joined the party and towed the line on the party's social programs. While the fascists rejected Marxism, they also rejected liberal economic policies as well. Fascists would have no problem with taxing the rich and often railed against banks and other lenders as enemies of the people.

Again the problem is viewing these movements in a classical left-right linear spectrum, originally developed to classify the political movements of post revolution France. In that method of classification, the right represents conservative movements intent on preserving or restoring existing social orders based on social class. Most political scientists no longer use that method of classification to describe political movements and use other methods. Using the linear right-left spectrum today is like using only batting average to evaluate hitters in baseball. It's a flawed tool for evaluation that leads to misperceptions.

I find it interesting that Rojo brings up the Thule Society and its membership including intellectuals and aristocrats. While that is true, it is also true for the communists as well as non-communist socialist movements. Look at the early leaders of communist and socialist movements and you see a list of intellectuals from wealthy and aristocratic backgrounds. Remember that most workers in the 1800s and early 1900s were often functionally illiterate, having left school at a young age to go to work. Parties were lead by educated elites with little actual participation from members of the working class. There was a scene in the German biopic about German communist leader Rosa Luxemburg in which Rosa is trying to organize a group of workers and has to read and explain the Communist Manifesto to the workers because they can't do it themselves.

[nmculbreth]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

Or not. Nazism and fascism are similar to Communism in that they sought to tear down existing social structures and replace them with a new social order. In the one instance, it was to replace, in theory, the aristocratic elite with a social structure based on the ascendance of the proletariate, in the other, placing power in the hands of a perceived racially superior group. Both movements engaged in the confiscation of land and wealth from the elite to meet their goals, although the fascists would stop short of confiscating property from those who joined the party and towed the line on the party's social programs. While the fascists rejected Marxism, they also rejected liberal economic policies as well. Fascists would have no problem with taxing the rich and often railed against banks and other lenders as enemies of the people.

That's simply not accurate. Stalinism was an extreme progressive movement which sought to create a new social order; Nazism / Fascism were reactionary movements which sought to replace the social order of the day with one from an idealized past. All three were highly authoritarian in nature but their underlying motivations were quite different.

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

gain the problem is viewing these movements in a classical left-right linear spectrum, originally developed to classify the political movements of post revolution France. In that method of classification, the right represents conservative movements intent on preserving or restoring existing social orders based on social class. Most political scientists no longer use that method of classification to describe political movements and use other methods. Using the linear right-left spectrum today is like using only batting average to evaluate hitters in baseball. It's a flawed tool for evaluation that leads to misperceptions.

To be sure the linear approach lacks the nuance of some of the other methods for political classification, namely the Nolan square spectrum, but that doesn't change the fact that reactionary movements are by definition conservative in nature.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by nmculbreth

That's simply not accurate. Stalinism was an extreme progressive movement which sought to create a new social order; Nazism / Fascism were reactionary movements which sought to replace the social order of the day with one from an idealized past. All three were highly authoritarian in nature but their underlying motivations were quite different.



To be sure the linear approach lacks the nuance of some of the other methods for political classification, namely the Nolan square spectrum, but that doesn't change the fact that reactionary movements are by definition conservative in nature.

What past? They certainly weren't trying to bring back the Kaiser and nobility that held power pre-WWI and not the decentralized Holy Roman Empire before that. Maybe you mean the one they manufactured from whole cloth from bits of German mythology and pseudoscience to justify their eugenics and anti-Semitic policies. In fact, the relationship between conservatives and the Nazis was always difficult and it was conservatives from the aristocracy and clergy that made up much of the group involved in the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler. That's not to imply that the conservatives were always anti-Nazi. However, their relationship was always more tolerance than affinity.

Nationalist movements come in all kinds of flavors that don't necessarily fit into the left-right spectrum. An example of this would be to compare the Nazi party with the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs of more recent history. Whereas the Nazis combined nationalism with socially-oriented welfare and economic policies, the FPÖ combine their nationalism with liberal economic policies (less government, lower taxes, the free market, individualism). The Nazis also were anti-democratic, whereas the FPÖ works within the democratic system and oppose imposition of a totalitarian regime. In many respects, the FPÖ bears little resemblance to the Nazis, yet it gets lumped in with them as a far right party because of its anti-immigrant stance.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

What past?

It was called the Third Reich. They may have been trying to resurrect a past that didn't really exist, but they were thoroughly anti-modern.

[nmculbreth]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

What past? They certainly weren't trying to bring back the Kaiser and nobility that held power pre-WWI and not the decentralized Holy Roman Empire before that. Maybe you mean the one they manufactured from whole cloth from bits of German mythology and pseudoscience to justify their eugenics and anti-Semitic policies. In fact, the relationship between conservatives and the Nazis was always difficult and it was conservatives from the aristocracy and clergy that made up much of the group involved in the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler. That's not to imply that the conservatives were always anti-Nazi. However, their relationship was always more tolerance than affinity.

Nationalist movements come in all kinds of flavors that don't necessarily fit into the left-right spectrum. An example of this would be to compare the Nazi party with the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs of more recent history. Whereas the Nazis combined nationalism with socially-oriented welfare and economic policies, the FPÖ combine their nationalism with liberal economic policies (less government, lower taxes, the free market, individualism). The Nazis also were anti-democratic, whereas the FPÖ works within the democratic system and oppose imposition of a totalitarian regime. In many respects, the FPÖ bears little resemblance to the Nazis, yet it gets lumped in with them as a far right party because of its anti-immigrant stance.

Nobody is equating Nazism with conservatism, merely that Nazism is by definition a ultra-right wing ideology and is considered as such by pretty much every reputable source that I've ever seen. The fact that the vast majority of conservatives in Nazi Germany disagreed with the policies of the Nazi state isn't surprising, the Nazis were far, far to the right of these groups so it's no surprise that there was friction. The fact that such friction existed doesn't mean that Nazism wasn't an ultra-conservative ideology.

This isn't a political opinion, it's an almost universally recognized fact.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by nmculbreth

Nobody is equating Nazism with conservatism, merely that Nazism is by definition a ultra-right wing ideology and is considered as such by pretty much every reputable source that I've ever seen. The fact that the vast majority of conservatives in Nazi Germany disagreed with the policies of the Nazi state isn't surprising, the Nazis were far, far to the right of these groups so it's no surprise that there was friction. The fact that such friction existed doesn't mean that Nazism wasn't an ultra-conservative ideology.

This isn't a political opinion, it's an almost universally recognized fact.

Just because it's listed as such in popular culture doesn't make it fact. It's merely a designation made using an inadequate measuring stick. Political scientists have been proposing alternative means for classifying political movements since the 1950s precisely because the traditional left-right spectrum fails to take into account elements of movements such as Nazism, which exhibit some right and some left wing characteristics. It also causes people to tend to think of Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist Communism and Nazism as diametrically opposed, even though they exhibit some of the same basic characteristics of single-party rule, politicization of all aspects of society, heavy reliance on a state police apparatus to keep the public in line and subversion of the free press to suppress dissent.

David Nolan's chart you mentioned before is but one alternative. There are others. If you use a single linear spectrum, the problem becomes, what really distinguishes the end points? You could have a spectrum based on political freedom where free and open democracy stands at one end and totalitarian undemocratic systems stand at the other. In that spectrum, you'd have the Communists and the Fascists sitting at the undemocratic end for their undemocratic single-party rule, just shy of absolute monarchies and despotism, where no voting takes place at all, diametrically opposed to a liberal democracy where voting takes place often and there are no barriers for entry for particiption.

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by Rojo

It was called the Third Reich. They may have been trying to resurrect a past that didn't really exist, but they were thoroughly anti-modern.

My European history is a bit rusty but didn't Hitler try and portray himself as sort of a resurrection of Charlemagne and hence the THIRD Reich?