The Glade 4.0

just which part of this do you have problems with?

Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least that's an ethos.

_________________
The Dude abides.

The fact that this doesn't fit in a common "line" of political dichotomy is problem number 1 here.



The fact that this entirely disproves your "moderate = preserve status quo" by effectively creating a synonym is problem 2.



The fact this references uses "small letter" liberal and progressive in its definition is problem 3.



The fact that this has nothing to do with "the left", "leftism", or anything similar is problem 4.




Finally, the fact that you're using the adjective definitions for all these, rather than the noun definitions is incredibly problematic. So that's problem 5.

In other words, everything you just wrote has a problem with it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Because the words are colloquial in use and reality? Conservative in the United States is not synonymous with Conservative in the United Kingdom; nor, for that matter, are either synonymous with Conservative in post-Perestroika Russia. Indeed, the primary flaw, which DFK misses, is not that the dictionary definitions you chose are inadequate, it is that they are reductivist, simplistic, and completely devoid of the fluidity necessary to discuss to political epistemology.

_________________

in other words the words are defined by their current usage?

Doesn't that the negate the 'revisionist' argument then? If currently "right" is used to define nazism or any other term, then by your standard, it is accurate. If the popular definition includes it, then your screaming that it doesn't fit the definition is pointless and circular.

To those of you who think fascism is on the ideological/political Left, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that view. Hopefully it's more complex than noting that the Nazi's had the word socialist in their name or that Mussolini said a bunch of stuff about workers in his Manifesto. What groups in society did fascist parties draw their power from? What elements of their philosophies, symbolism, mythology, and actual governing practice were consistent with those of the Communists and Socialists, and how do you account for the elements that were contrary and in fact aligned with conservatives and corporatists? And so on. Stop taking cheap shots from the wings and ante up with your own analysis.

Not really. Even so, were we to use the language you seem to think defines these terms, Nazism and Fascism and Stalinism and Leninism would all still end up on the Left. And that's kind of curious ...

RangerDave:

You mean other than being broad populist movements that attempted to divest all landed gentry or equivalents of their power and monetary base in both countries? Because, honestly, all we have to do is look at all the wonder propaganda footage from both countries to see the mass appeal advertising going from day one. The same applied to Franco in Spain, which I know you like to ignore.

_________________

So your argument, Khross, is that fascism belongs on the left because it was revolutionary (in the sense of opposing the existing power structure and its lingering aristocratic elements) and populist? Was the American Revolution therefore a fascist and leftist endeavor as well? More complexity please.

It isn't something we think, so I'll ask you to take your condescension elsewhere. It's fact vis a vis their stated purposes. Have you ever even read Mussolini's manifesto (or perhaps even the critical portions thereof)? What about Mein Kampf? Perhaps you've examined the non-genocidal platforms of the National Socialist Party? Socialization of industry, the workforce, wage-setting, etc. All hallmarks of "leftist" governments and policies, RD.

The fact that there are, to quote you "elements that were contrary and in fact aligned with conservatives and corporatists" would, without even challenging the definition of "conservatives" you're applying, prove absolutely nothing except that National Socialism and Fascism are not synonymous with Communism. To create an analogy, you're effectively stating that the Democratic Party in the United States supporting the Afghan war (initially) would make them synonymous with the Republican Party. More simply: Some elements of A are C and some elements of B are C, but neither A nor B are C.



This is uncalled for, as no "cheap shots" "from the wings" are being put forward. What's being put forward is the idea that the assumptions coming from those of you in the discussion whom I'd classify as generally "left" are based upon either revisionist history or broad/flawed use of language. Either explicitly define the terms prior to entering into the debate or be prepared to defend your use of language once in the debate, but either way don't cry about it when your usage is challenged.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Did it seek to divest all landed gentry or their power and monetary base?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

More complexity? You mean, the basic observable facts about the political changes in Spain, Germany, and Italy aren't enough? I mean, what do you want? Want me to make up history to make it more palatable for you? Or, should I point out that the authoritarian regimes in all 3 countries followed in footsteps of the French Revolution, too? Would that help?

Do you even know ANY of the platform and policy positions of the nations in question except they were NOT Allies in World War II?

_________________

So your argument, DFK, is that fascism belongs on the left because it involved state management of the economy?



Quite right. So, why is state management of the economy, all by itself, sufficient to place fascism on the left for you? Can you explain why you think the elements that are different than other leftist ideologies are so completely outweighed by the economic policies (e.g. nationalism, militarism, glorification of the strong/elite, cult of the leader, etc.)?

Since when did nationalism, militarism, "elitism", and cults of personality because solely the province of the right? Does this mean that ...

Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Ho Chi Minh, ...

Holy **** ...

I get it NOW.

I just look at that list, and it suddenly makes sense.

_________________

Which facts?



How so?

Come on man, make an actual argument.

You mean the one you've been ignoring for six years? The one wherein I provided all the links to translations, papers, books, and other things for you to read that you've ignored a dozen times over? Yeah, I'm beyond that now. You dismissed everything that didn't conform to what your politically biased high school and undergraduate teachers told you. You didn't read anything. It was different and must be wrong.

So, no ... I'm done with that. You start reading and start looking at the things you're so casually dismissing as NOT on the LEFT, you know, like that list of all the Authorian, Genocidal Nations of Note in the last Century ...

And maybe, just maybe I'll start taking your queries seriously.

_________________

This starting to be very sad.

The more forced collectivism which is used the more left an ideology is.

Divorcing liberty into economic and social exists ONLY to blur elements that are equally leftists but choose to infringe on different areas.

It is a shell game where you lose if you presume the rules of the game are fair. RD - you are still playing by the rules of the shell game.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I don't recall you doing so on this subject, Khross. I recall you posting the Fascist Manifesto, and a couple excerpts of Nazi policy papers, but that's about it. But that aside, I'm not asking for primary sources or a dissertation here. I'm just asking for a couple of paragraphs explaining what you think the key factors are that place fascism on the left rather than the right. So far, it seems like everyone's position boils down to the claim that any ideology involving collectivism, particularly as it relates to the economy, is automatically leftist. That's an ahistorical oversimplification, so I assume there's more to your view than that, and I'd like to hear it. That's all.

Amongst other reasons, yes.



It, and a number of other elements of its ideology, place it on the "left" because of similarities with socialism and communism, which evolved as being on the "left" following the French Revolution, as Khross has already stated. In other words, its on the left because the definition of the left places it there.



1) Nationalism is at its core collectivism, and as such is at best moderate and not rightist. Militarism, depending upon how you define it, could effectively fall either way. Personality politics have nothing to do with right or left whatsoever, and historical evidence would place them as having stronger ties to totalitarian leftist regimes than to the right.

2) The elements they share with "traditional" leftist regimes are far stronger than with moderate or rightist ideologies.

3) Economic policies wholly dictate individual liberty, and as such are the over-riding concern of any given ideology. You cannot, in my opinion, point me to core elements of Communism that are more important than economic ideology. This is true of all ideologies across the spectrum (of those containing economic concerns whatsoever) to Libertarianism.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

RangerDave:

Then you aren't reading at all. How did Mussolini achieve power? What promises and actions did he take to cement the populism of his leadership with the people of Italy? What changes did he make to the systems of governance and economics and rights in that nation? You seem to think that because "collectivism" was trotted out that it's the only thing. And, it's not.

As for what you remember and don't remember, that's your problem. The posts were made. You didn't read them. And now you're claiming plausible deniability.

_________________

How do you figure that's 1) ahistorical and 2) oversimplified?

Given the evolution of the use of the terminology, leftist ideologies are those more strongly holding collectivist ideologies, and those more rightist are those with less collectivist ideologies. Essentially Utopian Communism --> Anarchism. (though I'd argue that Anarchism doesn't involve enough economic aspects to truly be considered a governmental ideology).

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Can you explain why the things in your parenthetical statement are necessarily right wing/conservative?

_________________
The Dude abides.

So everyone who's not extremely libertarian is on the left? Every political ideology, from ancien regime monarchists in the 1700s, to the socialists of the 1800s, to the Communists, Fascists, Islamists, secular dictatorships, American liberals and conservatives, etc. of the 1900s, despite all their varied philosophies and bitter differences, all of them are lumped together on the left while libertarians sit out there alone on the right, totally divorced from any history, because "collectivism" is the end all be all of political categorization? Not a particularly useful or nuanced taxonomy, Elm.

His statement allows for a large amount of nuance. Usefulness? Probably not, given that there is not true benchmark for where the "central" line falls, and is merely a matter of opinion.

After all, our former poster of renown considered himself a moderate and believed in the communalization of property.

Elmo has merely stated, in concordance with the current and traditional definitions of "leftist politics" that greater collectivism [via force] = further left. No absolutes are stated there in terms of what is "left" and what is "right", and ultimately then what is "central."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yes in various degrees - except communism in theory and anarchy (since communism in theory is a brand of anarchy).

It is a sliding scale RD, the nuance comes from placing ideologies on the scale - not some assorted grab bag list of unrelated terms used to discredit political enemies of the far left shortly before WW2.

Let me ask you if Monarchy is on the left.
Classical Liberalism?
Modern Liberalism?

Why or why not?

Do you know from whence the terms Left and Right originated in respect to political ideology? Do you understand the original meaning of Conservative and Liberal in regard to politics were pulled directly from standard lexicon usage? Do you know that the two terms have migrated over that time to complete replace each other in the US? - Do you know why it happened? Do you know what happened to those terms in Europe pre WW1 - Post, Post WW2?

These are all things that have been discussed in great detail on the glade and likely have had profound impact on the labels that many of the people you are arguing with attach to themselves but somehow you missed all of this? I don't know RD it just sounds a bit implausable to me that you actually honestly missed these discussions. Maybe you did and I don't see any reason for you to lie about it - but wow it would be really hard to.

Hell I even posted a small paper (5ish pages) on how all of the above evolved.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Who claimed that Fascism included "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists", and that the economic model could be defined as either state capitalism or state socialism?