Are Nazis on the Right or Left?

[USU78]

Fascisti in Italy were to the right of the Socialist spectrum because they were Italians first, not internationalists. Same with their Jew-hating political brothers in Germany and Austria and Hungary.

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you define fascism?

I do not have an esoteric personal definition.

[Wade Englund]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you made up your own spectrum and are arguing everyone else is wrong because it matches the general model and not the one you made up? Maybe don’t do that?

Evil dudes like me can't do otherwise. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I do not have an esoteric personal definition.

I’d settle for an easy general definition. If I label someone, I generally want to have some idea of what the label means.

Quote

“The few scholars who have ventured their own definitions provide a glimmer of insight as to why consensus is so elusive. Griffin, a contemporary leading light in the field, defines fascism as “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.” Roger Eatwell claims that fascism’s “essence” is a “form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way.” Emilio Gentile suggests, “A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy.”

While these are perfectly serviceable definitions, what most recommends them over others is that they are short enough to reprint here. For example, the social scientist Ernst Nolte, a key figure in the German “historians’ dispute” (Historikerstreit) of the 1980s, has a six-point definition called the “Fascist minimum” that tries to define fascism by what it opposes—that is, fascism is both “anti-liberalism” and “anti-conservatism.” Other definitional constructs are even more convoluted, requiring that contrary evidence be counted as exceptions that prove the rule.”
Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg
 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Wade Englund]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The whole concept of this thread feels like a category error to me. The idea that right and left reflect some binary state in the world? Can someone be anti-abortion rights but pro gun control? Pro immigration, but against big government? What makes us think we can transplant a whole movement from a different time and environment and think it will align with “right” and “left”. It’s absurd. Same with comparing soviet Communism with Western Europe social market economies. 

You make a valid point.

However, humans are even more complex and diverse than human politics, and yet we come up with useful and practical, though not exacting binary categories (young/old, rich/poor, tall/short, I was going to say male/female but there is a culture war ragging over that one, etc.). 

Could the category error be the result of the presumed  "general model" (as @The Nehor calls it), itself,  being overly complex and having  way too many variables (only a handful of which you listed)?

For practical purposes, particularly within informal discussions, might a relatively simple model avoid the category error by limiting  the variables to just one --i.e. say, little/big government? (Though, doing so runs the risk of accusations of making things up.) 

Granted, even that single variable can present some defining problems (centralized vs local,  guns vs butter,  fiscal vs social, etc.),  but not sufficient to render the Right/Left, single variable category entirely useless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 4, 2019 by Wade Englund

[MiserereNobis]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. It has nothing to do with Mormonism and is about a topic that got a previous thread locked.

I hope the mods are off hiking with their families, or getting ready for a picnic, or sitting around the lake where they camped last night. It's a beautiful day out where I'm at. I'd love to be outside doing said activities, but alas, I'm stuck inside administering the SAT.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

You make a valid point.

However, humans are even more complex and diverse than human politics, and yet we come up with useful and practical, though not exacting binary categories (young/old, rich/poor, tall/short, I was going to say male/female but there is a culture war ragging over that one, etc.). 

Could the category error be the result of the presumed  "general model" (as @The Nehor calls it), itself,  being overly complex and having  way too many variables (only a handful of which you listed)?

I think it's difficult to divorce the "general model" from the complexities of our societal situation. Left and Right work just fine as short hand in our current American context, though of course no one individual will line up completely with in it. The problem comes when taking the short hand "left and right" and trying to fit some other really complex object into it.

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

For practical purposes, particularly within informal discussions, might a relatively simple model avoid the category error by limiting  the variables to just one --i.e. say, little/big government? (Though, doing so runs the risk of accusations of making things up.) 

I think it's fine to break it into smaller variables, but for simplicity you could just say little or big government instead of left vs right? I mean if that's the variable you care about? Even big vs little government doesn't split left vs right. The right wants big government when it comes to defense infrastructure, wants federal control when it comes to sanctuary cities, drug laws etc. The Utah state legislature (one of the most right states in the nation) passed a law a couple of years ago to take away local control of sex ed in schools. Rather than big vs small government, I think the divide you want is could be more appropriately labeled authoritarian vs non-authoritarian government (I don't think the Nazi's were too concerned with a welfare state or environmental/financial regulations - I think they were mainly interested in furthering their own interests in whatever way possible by using the power of the state). Left and right entails so much more than the little / big government divide though, or do you disagree? As Nehor points out, right in America is synonymous with conservative or conserving past traditions and structures. 

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Granted, even that single variable can present some defining problems (centralized vs local,  guns vs butter,  fiscal vs social, etc.),  but not sufficient to render the Right/Left, single variable category entirely useless.

I entirely agree, but only within certain limits

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

-John

[Wade Englund]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm surprised this thread is still going. It has nothing to do with Mormonism

Mormons haven't been accused of being Nazis? 

There aren't Mormons who consider themselves on the Right or Left, and argue on this discussion board from those opposing positions?

Of course I am being facetious, and I wouldn't mind the thread being closed.

I just hope it remains open long enough for you and @The Nehor to get in parting shoots like the previous locked thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-