Philosophy National Socialism: Far Right or Far Left

[Deleted member 88]

Marxism and Fascism/National Socialism have very different objectives and values.

Their subject is different, as is their object.

Fascism is concerned with the nation, the people, the race. Communism/Marxism with the international working class.

One is nationalist, the other internationalist.

Conflating them is ignorant and simply false.

 

[Aldarion]

Marxism and Fascism/National Socialism have very different objectives and values.

Their subject is different, as is their object.

Fascism is concerned with the nation, the people, the race. Communism/Marxism with the international working class.

One is nationalist, the other internationalist.

Conflating them is ignorant and simply false.

TO be specific: Fascism is nationalist, Nazism is racialist. Communism is internationalist. But all are genocidal, all are authoritharian/totalitarian, and internationalist nature of Communism means that it is by far the most dangerous and evil of the three.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I don’t disagree. I’m simply saying they are vastly different ideologies with vastly different values and objectives.

It’s like saying “Abrahamic religions are the same because they all have the same fundamental God”.

Yes...but no. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship a supreme being the God who revealed himself to Abraham, but believe very different things about Him.

Fascism and Marxism are both 20th century revolutionary ideologies(well not Marxism) but they’re also very different.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

That doesn't exist.

Yes it does. Dont conflate right wing with classical liberalism.

 

[Deleted member 88]

The american right(and Anglo) is mostly classical liberals. With some social conservative Protestantism mixed in.

The actual right is in line with the Third Position.

 

[Aldarion]

I don’t disagree. I’m simply saying they are vastly different ideologies with vastly different values and objectives.

It’s like saying “Abrahamic religions are the same because they all have the same fundamental God”.

Yes...but no. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship a supreme being the God who revealed himself to Abraham, but believe very different things about Him.

Fascism and Marxism are both 20th century revolutionary ideologies(well not Marxism) but they’re also very different.

That is indeed true. Most accurate description I think might be that they are different, but equivalent.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Marxism and Fascism/National Socialism have very different objectives and values.
Their subject is different, as is their object.
Fascism is concerned with the nation, the people, the race. Communism/Marxism with the international working class.
One is nationalist, the other internationalist.
Conflating them is ignorant and simply false.

"The soviets weren't socialist"

The Nazis spent inordinate resources meddling in other countries affairs, and the affairs of other races distant from their own (the Arab and the Japanese).

 

[Deleted member 88]

The soviets weren't socialist"

Well they claimed to be. Some other communists said otherwise.

The Nazis spent inordinate resources meddling in other countries affairs, and the affairs of other races distant from their own (the Arab and the Japanese).

That’s a non sequitur.

That’s likely saying the US isn’t really a republic because it backed dictatorships.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The Soviets actually were, rhetorically, genuine Socialists as Marx saw it for the whole of their time in power, as they never ceased the talk of surrendering power once Capitalism was gone.

The thing to note is that Socialism, in Marxist theory, is the intermediary state tasked with dissolving the previous world order and getting the general public prepared for transition to Communism.

The Soviets continued the attempt to devise a roadmap to global Communism with their introduction of Vanguardism, in which their "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would leverage its available resources to support revolutionaries in other countries.

The Russo-Sino split is the point the USSR became just another dictatorship for political theory, as it deprived them the groundwork of their philosophical legitimacy because there was no longer any presumptive global unity among Communist revolutions, which they'd hitched their horse to with Vangaurdism.

---

As for the thread question, there's a lot of questions about how Left and Right are being defined, though many of these can be resolved with the secondary Authority/Liberty axis.

In general, the social policies of the Nazis would be considered Right-wing with the extensive focus on an insular race as beneficiary, but the economic policy's direct controls for community benefit would largely be considered Left-wing.

The "third position" rhetoric stems from the abandonment of the pretense of liberty. Communism, as a philosophy, focuses on notional volunteerism; the dictatorial states were always supposed to be setup for a later low-authority result. Fascism and Nazism tie their legitimacy to Statism openly, abandoning the Marxist pretext of benefit to the people as individuals as the end goal.

 

[Grimn]

Aren't Nazism and Fascism explicitly "third way" centrist ideologies? I recall reading something like that...

They are in that they reject the class warfare of marxism and they rejected free market capitalism that results in economic chaos that gives rise to class warfare. From what I understand they were both more left wing in economic policy in their populist stage when they were appealing for votes, but once in power that leftist side withered as they needed the conservatives, military, etc on their side.

The question of nationalism vs internationalism on the other hand seems really funny to me in how thoroughly nationalism won that dichotomy.

The Soviets actually were, rhetorically, genuine Socialists as Marx saw it for the whole of their time in power, as they never ceased the talk of surrendering power once Capitalism was gone.

The Bolsheviks collectivised industry very soon after they gained control over the cities and industrial areas and eliminated free markets in their sphere of control. But they couldn't do that outside the cities because there were a hundred+ million peasants* and just a few million workers in the cities. So hence the NEP that allowed a mixed economy with socialism in the cities and free markets and private property and enterprise in agriculture. Until Stalin judged the time had come to end that and forcibly collectivised agriculture, abolished private property, ended free markets where they remained. Thus socialism was achieved within the USSR, by their definition. No doubt disagreement over ideological matters existed where it was allowed.

*edit to add: the peasants had seized the lands they worked and had no interest in communism nevermind abolishing private property that their now landownership was. That's a major reason the Bolsheviks lost the elections in 1918, but even so after the Bolsheviks seized power they had to recognise the peasants' seizure of land de facto (but not de jure) because they were deathly afraid of them.

 

[Navarro]

They are in that they reject the class warfare of marxism and they rejected free market capitalism that results in economic chaos that gives rise to class warfare. From what I understand they were both more left wing in economic policy in their populist stage when they were appealing for votes, but once in power that leftist side withered as they needed the conservatives, military, etc on their side.

Socialism =/= Marxism. From an objective POV, we can look at National Socialism as a form of socialism which rejected the idea of class warfare in favour of race warfare. Even they themselves defined it as such.

The question of nationalism vs internationalism on the other hand seems really funny to me in how thoroughly nationalism won that dichotomy.

Even the supposedly internationalist Communist regimes in practice promoted their own national interests and used nationalist rhetoric in propaganda. The USSR did the same things every Russian regime has done since Russia became a great power, for instance - try to hold down Russia's neighbours and get access to a warm-water port.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Interesting fact, Trotsky criticizes Stalin precisely on this basis. He was a genuine internationalist. Through and through.

 

[Navarro]

Interesting fact, Trotsky criticizes Stalin precisely on this basis. He was a genuine internationalist. Through and through.

Trotsky also was never burdened by actually having to be in power.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Hitler was a fucking commie, there is no such thing as right wing socialism.

Commies tend to be militantly atheist. A legion of fedora tippers basically. The whole thing about the NDSAP was that they were dynamic neopagans who preached a return to the glorious culture of the mighty Aryo-Germanic peoples.

Thats sort of the antithesis of communism. Mind ye he was a colossal welfare junky and his fetishizing of teen moms and animal rights and the marginalized sounds like modern commie rhetoric

But Modern commies aren't really communist. They're Baubeufist or late era French Revolutionary Deconstructivsts

 

[Navarro]

Commies tend to be militantly atheist. A legion of fedora tippers basically. The whole thing about the NDSAP was that they were dynamic neopagans who preached a return to the glorious culture of the mighty Aryo-Germanic peoples.

The Nazis were a mix of neopagans and atheists IIRC.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The Nazis were a mix of neopagans and atheists IIRC.

And hardcore drug addicts who did that Joe Rogan style atheistic DMT "secular spiritualism" clap trap.

But the leadership was ardently neopagan. IIRC well before Hitler got there.

 

[Deleted member 88]

The Nazis varied in religion. In general, Nazi theorists were hostile to Christianity. Considering it an alien religion imposed on the aryan spirit. A Jewish invention, something that weakened the aryan race, and left it fit to be ruled over.

 

[Grimn]

Socialism =/= Marxism. From an objective POV, we can look at National Socialism as a form of socialism which rejected the idea of class warfare in favour of race warfare. Even they themselves defined it as such.

"race warfare" instead of class warfare is pretty well put for National Socialism. And obviously workers ownership of means of production was never on the menu for nazis.

Even the supposedly internationalist Communist regimes in practice promoted their own national interests and used nationalist rhetoric in propaganda. The USSR did the same things every Russian regime has done since Russia became a great power, for instance - try to hold down Russia's neighbours and get access to a warm-water port.

Lenin was against nationalism but had to accept it. Like in the case of Poland: the Polish workers didn't recognise the Russian workers as their people on the basis of class but rather identified with things like language, culture, religion, shared heritage and fought those who should have in marxist terms have been their people, ie 'nation'.

To be sure, 'nationalism' as a term means that there are peoples (which is co-terminous with things like language, religion, shared heritage, culture, all of which overlap), ie 'nations' who should have sovereignty over their own matters. Stalin as the Comissar of Nationalities pushed for that kind of USSR to some extent, as a union of nationalities rather than only class.

Edit: and the things other than nationalism is internationalism and imperialism. It's like a points of a triangle sometimes in opposition, sometimes overlapping. It's pretty obvious that nationalism won by far and is the default way people look at the world on international level. That's why nationalism is now defined as "hatred of all other countries" or "xenophobia", because it won and lost most of its' overt meaning. And that's great, but it does give rise to some disgusting hypocricy too.

 

[ATP]

If we had socialism,then they must be far left.Becouse we nationalist could be left or right,but socialists MUST BE left.
So,do not accuse comrade Adolf of being far right,you could hurt his leftist feelings.

 

[Navarro]

"race warfare" instead of class warfare is pretty well put for National Socialism. And obviously workers ownership of means of production was never on the menu for nazis.

I mean, in the USSR it was never on the table either. What seems to have been the case for the Nazis is that they tolerated a semi-capitalistic model (though the owners of the companies in question were de facto reduced to State employees who served as managers) because they believed they needed to first win the war and obtain autarky to actually enact full socialism.

To be sure, 'nationalism' as a term means that there are peoples (which is co-terminous with things like language, religion, shared heritage, culture, all of which overlap), ie 'nations' who should have sovereignty over their own matters. Stalin as the Comissar of Nationalities pushed for that kind of USSR to some extent, as a union of nationalities rather than only class.

Edit: and the things other than nationalism is internationalism and imperialism. It's like a points of a triangle sometimes in opposition, sometimes overlapping. It's pretty obvious that nationalism won by far and is the default way people look at the world on international level. That's why nationalism is now defined as "hatred of all other countries" or "xenophobia", because it won and lost most of its' overt meaning. And that's great, but it does give rise to some disgusting hypocricy too.

This could be defined partially as the conflation of imperialism with nationalism in the popular mindset.

If we had socialism,then they must be far left.Becouse we nationalist could be left or right,but socialists MUST BE left.
So,do not accuse comrade Adolf of being far right,you could hurt his leftist feelings.

The issue is that what we define the Nazis as being "far-right" on was considered unambiguously a thing of the socialist progressive movement at the time.