There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
This is why I said in my OP I wasn't comfortable with calling Stalin right-wing, even though he was among the conservative faction of the Communist party. Even the conservative communists are still relatively left wing, simply based on their goals and how they view the structure of society. In other words, even the conservatives are actually radicals, just not as radical as the radicals themselves.
Hitler was undoubtedly right-wing, though. He hated the socialist part of National Socialism, and that's why he purged it.
I think it’s a nuanced conversation.There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
This is why I said in my OP I wasn't comfortable with calling Stalin right-wing, even though he was among the conservative faction of the Communist party. Even the conservative communists are still relatively left wing, simply based on their goals and how they view the structure of society. In other words, even the conservatives are actually radicals, just not as radical as the radicals themselves.
Hitler was undoubtedly right-wing, though. He hated the socialist part of National Socialism, and that's why he purged it.
Nazism and fascism (and avant- guard in their time) were radically different forms of govt that sought to change a lot of the status quo—upending religion and the family in favor of the State was as radical as it gets—and Nazi morality was radically anti Christian, reversing the notion of the last shall be first and the first shall be last. None of those types of things were traditionally conservative.
I think it’s a nuanced conversation.There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
This is why I said in my OP I wasn't comfortable with calling Stalin right-wing, even though he was among the conservative faction of the Communist party. Even the conservative communists are still relatively left wing, simply based on their goals and how they view the structure of society. In other words, even the conservatives are actually radicals, just not as radical as the radicals themselves.
Hitler was undoubtedly right-wing, though. He hated the socialist part of National Socialism, and that's why he purged it.
Nazism and fascism (and avant- guard in their time) were radically different forms of govt that sought to change a lot of the status quo—upending religion and the family in favor of the State was as radical as it gets—and Nazi morality was radically anti Christian, reversing the notion of the last shall be first and the first shall be last. None of those types of things were traditionally conservative.
Yes, it is nuanced! We are finally using that word correctly!
Nazism itself is not inherently conservative. Lots of very non-conservative aspects to it. But once Hitler purged the left, Nazism really became just a vehicle for German fascism, and fascism is undoubtedly right-wing.
His take on religion is definitely an interesting wrinkle in the conversation, though. I think that's ultimately rooted in Nazi racial theory rather than anything else, though. I think to a truly committed Nazi, Christianity is just too...Jewish.
fascism is undoubtedly right-wing.
People are sovereign in a conservative world. That is not fascist.
There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).
They both shared a centralized authoritarian government used to control people to achieve an end that was decidedly anti freedom and individual liberty. We can argue which end was worse than other, but both resulted in millions of deaths of people they deemed unworthy of being part of their plans.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
? So if you believe conservatives are on the right, fascism cannot also be on the right. Everything begins with the view of sovereign authority.
? So if you believe conservatives are on the right, fascism cannot also be on the right. Everything begins with the view of sovereign authority.
No, it doesn't. You continue to try to redefine "right" as "everything I like" and "left" as "everything else." It's stupid. That's not what conservatism and liberalism are. You don't get to just take over words to make you feel superior about your own opinions.
I think it’s a nuanced conversation.There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
This is why I said in my OP I wasn't comfortable with calling Stalin right-wing, even though he was among the conservative faction of the Communist party. Even the conservative communists are still relatively left wing, simply based on their goals and how they view the structure of society. In other words, even the conservatives are actually radicals, just not as radical as the radicals themselves.
Hitler was undoubtedly right-wing, though. He hated the socialist part of National Socialism, and that's why he purged it.
Nazism and fascism (and avant- guard in their time) were radically different forms of govt that sought to change a lot of the status quo—upending religion and the family in favor of the State was as radical as it gets—and Nazi morality was radically anti Christian, reversing the notion of the last shall be first and the first shall be last. None of those types of things were traditionally conservative.
Fascism emphasizes nationalism (conservative attribute), militarism (conservative attribute), national supremacy and success over the individual (anti-conservative), overthrow of traditionalism (anti-conservative), to name a few.
It doesn't seem like Fascism, Communism or other extreme forms of government/politics are going to fit squarely on one side of aisle or the other. Said differently, there could be some commonalities, despite more obvious distinctions with which side of the political spectrum they are ascribed to.
In thinking about it further, I do find it interesting that Individualism can be both a conservative (freedom, liberty, libertarianism) and liberal (individual rights, freedom of religion) principle of sorts.
this makes no sense. Conservatives being considered on the right isn’t my definition, and conservatives believing people are the sovereign authority isn’t my invention either.
this makes no sense. Conservatives being considered on the right isn’t my definition, and conservatives believing people are the sovereign authority isn’t my invention either.
Well, whoever came up with it is an idiot. Throughout history, there has been no correlation whatsoever between conservatism and popular sovereignty. Monarchists weren't liberals.
I think it’s a nuanced conversation.
There were things Soviet Communism and Nazi Fascism shared—police state, authoritarian leaders, devotion to the state/people uber alles etc. But the two societies were not the same in reality or goals—the Soviets stated goals were radical egalitarianism (leftist) while the Nazis goals were highly hierarchical (rightish).So many things I could respond to individually, but I will reply more generally.
Anarchy is the complete absence of government. How can fascism be the equivalent of anarchism when fascism is a form of govt control? I'd make the same argument about socialism and communism.
Communism, socialism, and fascism all have the commonality of a strong central government that seeks to control people and the economy. The only difference is the levers and knobs they use to seek that control. That's how they can all end up on the same side of my horizontal line.
This is why I said in my OP I wasn't comfortable with calling Stalin right-wing, even though he was among the conservative faction of the Communist party. Even the conservative communists are still relatively left wing, simply based on their goals and how they view the structure of society. In other words, even the conservatives are actually radicals, just not as radical as the radicals themselves.
Hitler was undoubtedly right-wing, though. He hated the socialist part of National Socialism, and that's why he purged it.
Nazism and fascism (and avant- guard in their time) were radically different forms of govt that sought to change a lot of the status quo—upending religion and the family in favor of the State was as radical as it gets—and Nazi morality was radically anti Christian, reversing the notion of the last shall be first and the first shall be last. None of those types of things were traditionally conservative.
“avant-garde”
.
No, it doesn’t. You continue to try to redefine “right” as “everything I like” and “left” as “everything else.” It’s stupid. That’s not what conservatism and liberalism are. You don’t get to just take over words to make you feel superior about your own opinions.
Having thought about this (and a similar point made by @bradstevens) for a day, there is much more to say.
First of all, of course I see conservatism as something I like. I agree with much of it and generally accept its tenants.
Since the 60’s, Conservatism has seen many decades of unrelenting derision and falsehoods from academia, the media, and the general commentariat. (McCarthyism and “conservative” officials brought this on) This has resulted in substantial misunderstandings if not outright misrepresentations of conservatism. The academic and media elite see conservatism as something morally and intellectually inferior to liberalism. My posts are intended to bust this false paradigm. Instead of me defining conservatism as something I like, I think the fairer view is your tendency to view conservatism as something you dislike.
The epicenter of conservatism, as explained by Burke and others, is that any society is its own organism to evolve and change as conditions demand. This is the right wing for those who wish to think about politics in those terms.
Opposite is fascism, communism, socialism and other isms which see society as a body to be engineered, molded and shaped to conform to beliefs and objectives imposed by sovereign authority. All of this would be left wing.
The founding fathers gave us a decidedly conservatively-designed national government. The people are sovereign with inalienable rights. The government is only given specific and limited authority. This is a good thing right? This is the good part of conservatism— as Burke frequently pointed out.