Communism vs. Fascism vs. Socialism
Extreme right-wingers seem to be bandying about these terms interchangeably these days. I really don’t get it. Why does the media focus on the idiots at the fringe? Why do they get so much airtime? They annoy me just as much as the extreme left-wingers who claim that 9/11 was the work of the Bush government. Then there’s the comparison with Hitler (for both presidents). But that’s another matter. Seriously. Why don’t we hear more about people like this guy?
Anyway, so I keep hearing about how the Obama government is turning America into a Socialist nation… or maybe it’s a Communist nation… no wait… it’s Fascist. Either way it’s apparently undermining the foundations of our republic and turning us into Russia… or maybe it’s China… no wait… maybe it’s Nazi Germany. Oh yes, before I get accused of being a crazy liberal let me say (as a disclaimer) that yes, I do lean a little bit left-of-center, but I don’t agree with everything the left says. I’m also not a fan of big government. That being said, let’s analyze three different political ideologies and see what they actually mean.
Communism
Communism: It's a party!
Communism is a political ideology as well as an economic system. Communism aims to create a classless society where everybody is equal. In an ideal communist-society, there is no government and everybody owns everything. People are nice to each other and no one really has any desire for power. It’s one big party. Communism sounds pretty nice in principle. But since human beings are far from perfect and since there are many who are power-hungry and greedy, communism is impractical. Now obviously the United States is quite far away from being a communist nation. Firstly we are neither classless nor egalitarian. Finally, we have a government. Those who accuse the Obama government of turning America “communist” do so because they say that the government is getting too big – which contradicts what communism is about. Besides this main point, there are numerous other points that make America not communist, and that also show that it is not moving in that direction. Anyone who takes the time to look up what Communism really means, can see that. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant, deceitful, or fear-mongering.
Fascism
OWW!!
Fascism isn’t a party. Actually it’s kinda like a party except the hosts tell you exactly what you have to do. You are also supposed to have fun even if the party consists of just knitting and cutting colored paper into random shapes. If you don’t have fun, you can be killed or put in prison. Hell, even if you are having fun but the hosts don’t think you are, you can still be thrown in prison… or killed. Also, don’t even think of saying that the party sucks. You will be killed. Oh yeah, you also go around trashing other people’s parties and killing them also. Fascism is a radical ideology. It advocates a nationalistic and authoritarian single-party state. Fascists believe that a nation (or people) can only advance by being in perpetual conflict with other nations (or people). The weak perish and the strong survive. Fascist governments are authoritarian and dictatorial. There is suppression of free speech, and opposition against the government is not tolerated. It’s rather obvious that the United States if far from being a Fascist nation. Also, in no way is the current administration “Fascist” in any way (neither was the Bush administration). “Fascist” has turned into an adjective that people use, to label governments whose policies they do not like. The fact that those on the extreme right can speak and make their (ridiculous) theories heard points to the fact that the Obama administration is far from “Fascist”. If the administration truly was Fascist, we wouldn’t be hearing these dissenting (and downright crazy) opinions. So if you hear anyone use the term “Fascist”, ask them what it actually means. You’ll find that they really don’t know what they’re talking about.
Socialism
OMG SOCIALISM!!!
Socialism isn’t a concrete doctrine or ideology like Communism or Fascism. It’s a set of theories of economic organization which advocate a society where the public or workers directly own and administer the means of production and its distrubtion and allocation. A socialist society is characterized by equal access to resources through an egalitarian method of compensation. Sounds nice, but once again, impractical. Human nature prevents a practical implementation of socialism. Finally I think most people are averse to a system where everything is publicly owned. People want something that they can call “theirs”. Socialism in its purest form results in Communism. Now most rational people will look at Socialism and think of it as an idea that’s nice and utopian, but ultimately impractical. Although socialism tries to address the inequalities between people, human nature will always get in the way. You either end up with free loaders living off those who work, or you end up with the ones with resources opressing everyone else. The fact remains that the United States is committed to being a capitalist nation. Forgive me for being cynical here, but the coporations and the politicians will never allow anything else. There’s simply too much money in being Capitalist. Furthermore, if you analyze the Obama administration’s policies they’re not really Socialist. They’re actually anti-worker and pro-corporate. Ironically, the final act of the Bush Administration was more Socialist than anything else: bailing out Wall Street. So if you hear more extreme right-wing nonsense about “OMG SOCIALISM”, ask them exactly what it means and how these policies are Socialist. They may come back with vague statements about how Obama is “redistributing the wealth” or “promoting Government interference” or something like that. Redistribution of wealth by itself is not a “Socialist” policy. It will alleviate some problems, but it’s not going to cause true economic change. For the United States to actually turn Socialist, a lot of things have to change. None of that is happening. The American people won’t let it happen. “Socialism”, like “Obama is Kenyan” is another red herring thrown out by the extreme-right. Rational folks, on the left and the right, don’t take such things seriously.
No government is universally accepted by the people. There are always critics and detractors. What I’m generally sad about is the current state of political debate (if it can even be called that) in our country (and it’s not limited to the current “debate”. It dates back to the early days of the Bush administration). It’s full of vitriol, fear-mongering, and hyperbole. In general I wish the media would focus on rational views from the moderate left and the moderate right. There is very real rational opposition to the Obama administration’s plans, and there are very real concerns. These are the things American people need to hear instead of garbage like “Bush planned 9/11″ or “Obama is not actually an American and he wants to kill all the old people!”.
Yes, I agree IE really sucks! 
The polarization of editorial by news organizations is nauseating at best. Some fringe conservative pundits immediately claim the mainstream media is “liberal.” But, they immediately cease their antics the moment they cover their divisive topics. News today is not journalism — you know, that thing that news was once respected for.
News has become more sensational, doing anything for the Sweeps. It’s no wonder that the most distasteful, editorialized, pure bleeding-edge (pun intended) is placed first in priority pushing out mainstream issues. If you watch the news during Sweeps weeks versus non-Sweeps periods, you’ll notice the snark is considerably edgier so people watch. (Nielsen Sweeps Weeks – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings#Sweeps ). Page Views are the equivalent to Ratings in the broadcast industry, and the adage, “Do anything for a page view,” is apropos for the broadcast media — but for ratings.
It’s not that I necessarily refute anyone that questions government, but when personalities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (this pretexts that they posses souls and conviction) rise to mainstream power, this is when people need to check their own moral standards and check their opinions at the door. If FOX News would invest their investigative journalism resources into /all/ government officials, it would be fair. Interviews are loaded whenever they stage them … how can someone adequately explain their logic and perspective if they are given a total of 90 seconds of air time in a show that’s an hour long?
On the other side of the polarizing matters is the Michael Moore crowd who blame capitalism for the problems of many. Many of Moore’s points are well articulated, but give rise to his motive. If capitalism was as perplexing as he make it out to be, how would Flint, MI ever become industrial, giving thousands of residents jobs in factories. If anything, he should be all over Capitalism, attracting — not attacking — General Motors and other domestic car manufacturers to his city for socioeconomic growth. I’m a fan of his documentary style, but I never leave a solid supporter (and hopefully no one else).
It’s shameful when organizations such as ACORN pour salt on their PR damage and fail to internally address the lack of education, corruption and other immoralities they seem to be doing. They should know, take care of problems internally, before it requires an act of Congress to shut things down and everyone’s down and out. I think it’s reflective of their desperation to salvage the damaging footage as they file suit with the videographers under a MD state law requiring mutual consent for recording. When the footage itself contains possible criminal acts they’re just asking for more damning media coverage. Oh and their spokesperson is rather polarizing — speaking from emotion, not the issue at hand. That doesn’t help either.
The claims of socialism, communism, fascism are purely used to hook viewers who haven’t heard of anything other than capitalism. For an administration that’s allegedly becoming socialist; juxtaposed to the PATRIOT acts of the previous one makes them seem rather conservative.
This is a great post. Thanks for taking the time to share it. I know I’m rather critical of both ends of the political spectrum, and I seem to hold the mainstream media to a high regard. I can only hope that real people don’t possibly believe the spin, hype, opinion-enriched vitriol that’s being spewed. Maybe.
~Joe
Thankyou for this, really helped me understand what all these terms meant…
Now I have to just look up capitalism! lol, I can already see you rolling your eyebrows at how stupid I am…
@Chris Allan
Haha, no worries Chris. I don’t think you’re stupid! These terms are somewhat nuanced and it is hard to get them exactly right. I don’t think I have it completely right either!
I think you did a great job describing these political and economic systems. I agree with you almost completely. The only part I would comment on is about communism. You say communism intends to move towards a stateless society. For Marx, this is an accurate statement. However, as you said, the ideology is impractical and has not yet succeeded. I would stress that although Marx’s ideal was a move to a stateless and classless society, in practice communism has resulted in a very large government that controls everything. In other words, calling something communist can pertain to the ideals of the theory, or the reality of the experienced outcomes. (USSR, Cuba, China, all with big dominant government and dominant single party politics.)
I was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed with \This Guy\, the Reagan campaign director. I forget his name. The article you linked to was a breath of fresh air. I agree that the level of polemics has gone to far. I agree that Olbermann is biased, as are all of the commentators on MSNBC. We are all biased. However, there is a difference between being biased and distorting the truth and or intentionally creating a high level of mistrust and animosity. Yes, Olbermann rants and gets angry and has a strong opinion, or at least he pretends to, but to what degree does he misrepresent the news? I can agree that his show may not add much intellectually, he may not further the debate in a meaningful or constructive way, but he is still much different than what we see on FOX and what we hear on right wing radio. (In my opinion)
Yes I am a liberal, but I like to try and be fair. I think there is a very big difference between being biased, as are Rachel Maddow and Olbermann, and being dishonest and engaging in disinformation, as do Beck and Hannity. In my opinion, what we see on FOX goes much further than what we see on MSNBC. The level of distortion, disinformation, and use of fallacious arguments goes far beyond bias. So does the level of blatant support for right wing agendas. (Tea Party organization, anti-health care rally organization, Becks 9-12 organization, calling for voters to elect Republican in New Jersey and Virginia to make a statement…) For the most part, what I get from Maddow is news with her biased liberal/progressive opinion and commentary. What I get from FOX is manufactured garbage to back up an invented and over hyped story and consistent promotion and campaigning for the right. Not just opinion, but serious promotion and endorsement, such as with the tea parties.
For example, I may be wrong, and I would like to be corrected if I am, but the comparison offered is that of the \extreme left\, who promoted the \Bush 9-11 conspiracy\ with the \extreme right\ who promote the \Obama Nazi/Fascist/Muslim/Ayers/Wright/Terrorist/Acorn/socialist/Kenyan where is your Birth certificate conspiracy\ , does not seem to be a fair comparison.
It seems to me that the \conspiracy\ of Obama and the Nazi/Fascist/socialist/etc. rhetoric is mainstream, in that it appears regularly on FOX and right wing mainstream radio and even to some degree on other shows not on FOX such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. MSNBC is undeniably biased and left leaning in general, but the degree of difference seems to be large and important to me.
When did mainstream media, such as MSNBC or the NY Times, which is constantly declared to be \left wing media\, promote a Bush government involvement with 9-11? When did any mainstream media, such as FOX is, (and the highest rated), engage in the kind of \news\ that FOX does with the level of fear and hate mongering that we see today on FOX? FOX appears to be often based on factually false and evidence free \news.\
My point is that I do not see a fair comparison. The Left wing Conspiracy theorists of 9-11 were far left fringe, and these views were not broadcast regularly over mainstream news outlets, or even over most left wing radio shows, such as Thom Hartman or Al Franken.
However, the Right Wing conspiracy theory news is broadcast daily, on the highest rated news channel, full of animosity and generally based on fabricated nonsense. One would have to go out of their way to hear 9-11 conspiracy theories about Bush yesterday. One can not escape the right wing accusations today.
I see a big difference in degree and a big difference in the type of bias. But then again, I am rather biased myself.
@Patheticus
Ah, I see your point about communism – I guess they’re clamoring about the attributes of communist societies that we’ve seen over the past 60-70 years. As always theory is different from practice.
You make a good point about bias versus wanton distortion. FOX News is guilty of both. I’m not sure if you’re aware of FOX vs. Akre. You can take a look at here. Essentially FOX successfully won the case by stating that:
They essentially were defending their right to make up any news they see fit. Perhaps I wasn’t completely fair in my comparison; I wrote my post on the spur of the moment and I was pretty annoyed with media bias at the time and I simply lumped everything together. But I do agree with you. FOX’s “doom and gloom” and “extreme right-wing conspiracy theories” do get much more airtime than the extreme-left conspiracy theories ever did.
I enjoy listening to Rachel Maddow as well. I sometimes listen to Keith Olbermann but his ranting gets to me sometimes. Yes, I also think that these commentators are different from Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity. Beck is probably the worst of the three.
I will admit, I am also left-leaning (left-of-center libertarian) and so I do see your point. The comparison is not completely fair. Right-wing news today is dominated by the conspiracy theories which is probably due to FOX (they make the loudest noise). It truly is unfortunate that FOX has turned out to be the mouthpiece of the Republican party. For example, there are valid, mature, and reasonable right-leaning news sources; The Wall Street Journal being one of them. You can get the Republican viewpoint without the sensationalism, distortion, and fringe theories that you hear on FOX.
When I started becoming politically conscious, I was definitely left-leaning but I’ve had an opportunity to be in touch with “the other side” (so to speak) due to my service in the military (largely conservative) and also where I work (most of my co-workers are conservative). Of course, my conservative friends have their right-leaning bias but I’ve heard valid concerns and logical arguments from them regarding their disagreements with Obama’s policies. This, I can understand. But I have also heard conspiracy theories and hyperbole from some of them, largely in part due to FOX’s disinformation and distortion. Once upon a time (as you saw from Stuart Spencer a.k.a. this guy) debate seemed to be cultured, rational, and valid. That time seems to have passed. I guess it wouldn’t be an issue if FOX news was simply biased. Too bad they’re so far from a cultured, valid, or rational news source. They simply seem to be a breeding-ground for crazy conspiracy theories and hate.
So in a nutshell, I agree with you! Thanks for your comment!
@vivin
Thanks for the info on FOX vs. Akre. I had no idea. I do not believe in censorship or infringement on free speech, but legal intentional falsification of the news is just scary!!! I am glad to see that someone agrees with me. Often, I feel I must be crazy, as many people I express the above opinions to argue vehemently that FOX and Beck are no different than MSNBC and Maddow. Personally, I think her liberal/progressive bias is blatant and open and she does not try to conceal it and that feels honest. And, she is brilliant. Again, my own bias, but she really is quite intelligent.
Something I am interested in looking into further is what you allude to as the once upon a time rational and cultured debate that existed in the past, as did Stuart Spencer. It seems like this idea may be a bit primitivist. Part of me believes (or wants to believe) that this is true to an extent, but another part wonders how true it is. I will concede that the level and amount of irrational debate, invalid arguments, and disinformation feels like it has increased dramatically very recently and it feels dangerous.
I agree that some news seems to have taken on a new exaggerated level of unenlightened discourse, but I think the difference is not that this unenlightened and dishonest discourse exists, but that it has to a large degree managed to replace enlightened discourse. I mean to say that it has always existed, but now it is more accepted and prominent and thus more influential.
I hope it is limited, though it appears to increasingly make up what is mainstream. We have a large and increasing number of radical opinion pundits and commentators who masquerade as news anchors. People go to them for news, and forget that they are actually getting entertainment driven opinion injected with hi jinks, hi drama, and scandal instead of real news. And they buy it because it is easier than forming opinions on ones own. In other words, people are ignoring the available cultured, valid, rational news sources because they do not provide the entertainment or combativeness that so many have come to depend on.
What I meant to say is that I really wonder to what extent the level of polemics is really that much different from what it has been in the past. I think it has always existed, but today it seems to be making a bigger impact because it is more widespread. More people accept it. Maybe because of technology, maybe because education is suffering. Maybe the media is getting more effective with propaganda and so it is having a bigger and bigger impact.
I am going out on a bit of a limb, and I would like to do a lot of research on this, but irrational and crazy conspiracy theory politics have existed to different degrees since our founding. Jefferson was labeled an atheist and greatly disparaged. Jefferson retaliated both against the clergy and against Adams. Nixon destroyed McGovern. FDR and Huey Long. There are countless examples, many more than I am aware of, I am sure. The media has always played an integral part.
Sometimes I wonder if what has really changed is not so much the existence of the exaggerated and fabricated conspiracy theories but the amount of people susceptible to them and their prominence in mainstream thought. I hate to make this comparison, but with a population such as that of the U.S. in which 40% of the population rejects evolution, it appears that there may be a relationship to the lack of critical thinking ability and an increased susceptibility to propaganda. Or an increased dependency on entertainment style news that depends on creating us vs. them controversy and a constant state of fear and danger. Hence all of the Nazi/fascist rhetoric. I have actually heard Michele Bachmann on FOX warn against participating in the 2010 census and relating it to WWII Japanese American interment camps.
We all need to enroll in a critical thinking course.
I am sorry this is so long and drawn out. I can be rather long winded. Thanks for responding to my last post. You wrote a great article outlining the political systems.
The first time I read about FOX vs. Akre, I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Like you, I do not believe in censorship either but there is something very unsettling with the legal distortion of news.
Like you said before, I guess there is a difference between outright bias and distortion. Bias doesn’t necessarily make you dishonest, but it makes you subjective and will probably make you cherry-pick your facts, or see things the way you want to see them. But distortion and lying is something else entirely. It is sinister and insidious. You’re right about seeing more of this from the FOX side (and like I mentioned before FOX == right-view view these days, unfortunately).
I might be a little naive about the cultured debate. It seems that times that have passed always seem more cultured when compared to the present. It might be true, but then again it’s probably idle romanticism. For example, I was just reminded of the fact that paranoia and hate-mongering was rife during the McCarthy era. I think the reason for the level of irrational debate and disinformation is due to the fact that communication is so much faster these days, and [dis]information also travels faster. Furthermore, enlightened discourse is nowhere near as profitable or sensational as some idiot on a talk-show claiming that he’s “only asking questions”.
You bring up an excellent point about people looking at radical opinion pundits and commentators for news. The line between “news” and “political commentary” is getting increasingly blurred today. I will admit that I don’t watch news on TV that much these days (I get my news from the BBC and NPR) but when I do I often find that I’m not sure whether I’m watching the news, or whether I’m watching some commentator talking about his opinions on some political point. It’s intertwined.
As far the the level of polemics, perhaps there is always an average or baseline level, which goes up during times of war or political turmoil. But, as you said, the effect of polemic these days is much greater because more people are able to hear it.
Research on this topic would be very interesting; I don’t know if anyone has devised a metric for measuring polemic or media impact! I guess what it comes down to is, no matter how vicious or aggressive the debate, as long as they based on sound logic, fact, and information, it remains a debate. Once it devolves into hate-mongering, conspiracy theories, or outright distortion and lying, we’ve left the realm of rational debate and entered something else. So a good metric might be to measure the percentage of radical opinion in mainstream media. Using that metric, it looks like polemic has gone up seriously, especially with FOX news.
I also wonder why so many people are susceptible to disinformation. FOX news isn’t successful simply because of what it says, it’s because there are people out there who are willing to believe in what FOX news says. Your point about evolution is also interesting. While I completely disagree with creationism, I understand that some people believe in it. It’s fine with me and I look at it as a matter of faith. The problem is when they try to claim it is science and then want to push it down our collective throats. The evolution vs. creationism debate is a great example of the generation of the “us vs. them” complex. I’m sure there is a very strong correlation between lack of critical thinking and being susceptible to manipulation by disinformation. You’ll find that the ones who shout the loudest about the crazy conspiracy theories are not the people who actually came up with them, but they’re actually their fans or followers. Oh, and I had no idea Michelle Bachmann made that comment. This is seriously why I cannot stand more than a few minutes of FOX news. The amount of stupidity, idiocy, and hyperbole on that channel is staggering.
Yes, I agree there is a significant lack of critical thinking. It really doesn’t take a genius to pick apart the stupid theories floated by Glenn Beck or any one of the commentators on FOX. I’m just surprised that people accept what they say so blindly. What’s even more telling is also how duplicitous certain people can be. I was watching Jon Stewart the other day and he was playing clips of Giuliani in the context of the terrorism trials. He played clips of Giuliani from 2006, praising the Bush administration for carrying out the trial of Moussaoui on American soil. He then spliced in Giuliani’s comments denouncing the Obama administration for carrying out the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad on American soil. I’m not sure you can even call this an extreme case of bias. It’s nothing other than hypocrisy.
On a slightly related note, I read somewhere that The Daily Show is actually ranked one of the highest in terms of actual news content.
Oh, I don’t mind that your response is long and drawn out! I enjoyed reading it, and I’m glad you enjoyed my article!
I have enjoyed conversing with you as well. You are clear and interesting and you make good sense. Rare these days… I do not have much time to continue at present, but I will respond to what I can.
As far as your romanticism, that is completely normal. We always tend to think the past was more simple, more honest, safer, better….It is hard to keep perspectives and make rational comparisons that look at the whole picture. You bring up the McCarthy era, and that is a great example for seeing past divisions and extremism. The scary thing is that we seem to be hearing a similar level of vindictiveness from certain pundits, and that is greatly amplified, as you said, in the fan base, without the specter of communism. This is all based on the policies of a president who has been in office less than 12 months. At least with McCarthy communism was seen as a very real threat by many. Today it seems to be completely fabricated.
You said “Research on this topic would be very interesting; I don’t know if anyone has devised a metric for measuring polemic or media impact!” That is really funny. No, I know of no polemic metric either!. However, we can document the level of polemics in print media (and more recently film coverage) from ages ago and get an idea of how common it was and to what level it went to. It would be a historical analysis of political coverage in the media. I am sure there are already good documentations of it. I will look for some info when I have time.
You mentioned Jon Stewart. I will have to look for that clip. I absolutely love when he puts before and after clips of people demonstrating their lack of truthiness and utter hypocrisy. He needs to do it more often and I should try and see his show more often. Here is a link to one that I loved, you have probably seen it. It is a little bit petty, but fun nonetheless.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-3-2008/sarah-palin-gender-card
I must say, one probably does get more accurate news from Stewart, even if it is not higher in content. That is scary, which brings me to another thing you said.
You get your news from NPR and BBC. It is a little sad, but it is likely that the BBC is the most reliable place to get info on U.S. politics. It makes some sense, since they can be more objective. But it is still sad that much of our media and much of our population has been so hijacked by shows and stations more concerned with sensationalism, as you said, that they seemingly intentionally create this propaganda filled fantasy world. Fear sells, and they have mastered the art.
As far as Giuliani and Stewart’s clips, and being surprised that people accept what they say so blindly, I too am shocked. People seem to have no memory. Concepts, ideologies, and positions taken a very short time ago and accepted and promoted by “the people” as dogma seem to disappear with one charismatic re-claim. The Orwellian references have been overused, I am sure, by both sides. But I can not help but see the correlation. (As a side note, I hate it when the right, especially Beck, tries to use Orwell against Obama and the left, as Orwell was a socialist who argued against the far right fascist movements. I also hate it when he invokes Thomas Paine, who also had very leftist tendencies.)
Any way, back to the point, beyond the political correlation between Orwell and modern politics, there is a scary popular correlation. When someone like Giuliani makes their overtly obvious hypocritical claims, the torch is picked up by their followers and the old slogan is completely erased from memory. We are at war with….We have always been at war with…. They do not even blink (you can’t blink, Charlie) when the party slogan changes into an opposite chant. How do they not remember praising the Bush admin. for the trial of Moussaoui on American soil? How do they adapt…so eagerly and complacently?
Anyway, I must get going. I want to clarify that Michelle Bachmann did not directly accuse the present administration of having sinister Japanese American interment objectives, she only slyly and sinisterly made a possible correlation. You know, like “only asking questions.”
Concerning the Creationist Evolutionist debate, I can also appreciate choice and faith. Like you, I can not appreciate creationism, or intelligent design, dressed up as science. And, I can not tolerate anything being shoved down my throat, especially that. My biggest problem is when people take a dogmatic approach to denying evolution, not just based on faith, but based on the denial of scientific evidence. To me, this seems dishonest. Ignorance of the science is forgivable. Denial of it without attempting to get educated is another matter. Even worse, is the bold faced distortion of the science and the intentional disinformation that is used against evolution by creationists to levels that make FOX look like amateurs.
Got to go.
Mad props man!
So OK i agree with the analysis but help me out here. There is an ongoing (repeated by Glen Beck in his historic video last week) that Hitler was not right wing but a socialist. It seems that nobody wants to claim poor \Dolph.\ About a year ago, there was a Newsweek article about WWII and the right or left of Hitler came up it screamed out in bold type that he was a Right-Wing extreme something or other. So right or left. I know the party was National Socialist but he moved away and from what I see adopted the Fascist model of Italy. Help me out/
@Jim Bob
. But that aside, “Right Wing” generally refers to politics that stands for a return to traditional and historical cultural values as opposed to more progressive ones. In that sense, Hitler was definitely on the “right” since he always hearkened to Germany’s traditional and historical values. The “right” also has a strong sense of nationalism and militarism. If you carry these to the extreme, you end up with Hitler’s nationalistic and militaristic fanaticism.
I wouldn’t take Glenn Beck’s word at face value since he seems to be an ignorant buffoon and a personality, rather than an educated and intelligent individual
Since the Nazis were “Nationalist Socialists”, it is easy to assume that they are left-wing. But saying that the Nazis were socialist is quite far from the truth. The name itself is a misnomer and it was for political reasons than to be implemented in practice. Germany during the Reich was pro-corporate and militaristic. Power definitely rested in the hands of an elite few. Workers had no power. Prior to the Reich, there were demonstrations across Germany by the workers in response to the Great Depression. Hitler used this to his advantage to get more supporters for his Nationalist Socialist Party. Of course, once he came to power he was anything but Socialist. Hitler abolished trade unions, and gave employers more rights over employees. Hitler’s Germany was a very capitalistic society.
Hitler’s writings make it very obvious that he was against Marxism. It therefore follows that he was against Socialism. Like I said before, he said the party was “Socialist” purely for political reasons.
Wikipedia’s entry on Nazism says:
Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism. (emphasis mine).
Note that Nazism was against communism and also against political liberalism, which fall on the left of the political spectrum. So to sum it up, Hitler was on the right. I’m not sure why some of the right in America seem to take offense to that. It’s simply a historical fact and has no bearing on them.
What a great article. Thank you, it has helped me out a lot.