Posted on 02/22/2014 2:49:10 PM PST by Sherman Logan
::Sigh:: By continuing to confuse the American and European concept of rightism, you show you paid no attention to what I said.
In Europe this organic collectivism is right wing. American-style individualism is not.
Look dude, Fascism is a leftist ideology, period. You aren’t paying attention bozo.
Try reading Balint Vazsonyi. It might change your mind. He was a brilliant pianist who lived under both Nazism and then communism. He concluded that there was no difference between the two. His writings are mind-opening.
Cheers.
But I must ask one non-hostile question: do you see any connection between this syndicalist/fascist corporatism and the ideology of the Catholic Middle Ages or of Rerum Novarum?
It sounds sort of left-wing to me.
But your write-up on Corporatism is very good. Most Americans, I think, are not familiar with the concept.
“The Nazis could hardly be called Marxist since unlike the Communists in Russia they didn’t abolish private property, didn’t abolish the Church, in fact they invented their own church...”
Marxism is not about abolishing private property. That’s communism. Marxism is about controlling private property. With communism, you abolish private property to control it. With fascism, you control private property via the bureaucracy. Both communism and fascism attain the same goal - giving government control of private property, whether through government control or abolishment.
It’s nuanced, for sure. But either way - through communism or fascism - individuals have no property rights.
Take care, jmacusa.
It sounds sort of left-wing to me.
To an American it sounds "left wing." The European left was at one point very anti-state and anarchistic.
There are left and right wing statists, left and right wing anarchists.
You really need to go beyond Jonah Goldberg's sound bites and learn some history.
The very definitions of "Left" and "Right" go back to the French Revolution, when the radical anti-monarchists with their mantra of liberte, egalite, fraternite sat on the Left aisles of the National Assembly while the conservative monarchists sat in the Right aisles. From then on, "Left" and "Right" were not defined in terms of the size of government, but by whether the political movements worked to overthrow the traditional hierarchy of the aristocracy, the Church, and the landowner classes vs. upholding them in some form. By this and any reasonable historical definition, fascists were reactionary right-wing movements while Communists and Socialists were radical left-wing movements.
The first thing Bolsheviks and other Communists did when they came to power is line up aristocrats, military officers, and clergymen in front of firing squads. In contrast, fascists presented themselves as defenders of the aristocracy, the Churches, the military officers, as well as the bankers and industrialists.
If, as you and Goldberg argue, Communism and Fascism are "the same," perhaps you could explain why it is that when Fascists came to power, the first thing they did was crack down on labor unions and restore property to landowners and noblemen, while the first thing Communists did was to seize the property of aristocrats and landowners and give them to "worker's communes."
Now, as to the counterargument that Fascism and Communism are both anti-individualistic and authoritarian, the response is that this has nothing to do with Left or Right-wing ideology. The military in general and the Marine Corps in particular are profoundly anti-individualistic. Does that make the USMC a "Left Wing" institution? Theocratic governments and absolute monarchies from the 17th and 18th centuries were authoritarian, but I've yet to hear Louis XIV or Frederick the Great called "left-wing radicals." I doubt they'd have much in common with Karl Marx.
There are left and right wing statists, left and right wing anarchists.
That's right. Anarchism was historically considered a Left Wing movement, because it sought to overthrow the aristocracy, the clergy, and the landowners/industrialists. Nobody of sound mind considered Mikhail Bakunin a reactionary or a conservative because he was anti-government, because he and other radicals saw the government of their times as tools of the hated upper classes. Come to think of it, didn't Marx and Engels write that the state would "wither away" once independent worker's communes were established? Does this make them "conservatives"?
The Left opposed the king and they opposed the clergy.
I look at the Left today and my primary observation is that the Left opposes Christianity. All else that the Left supports, flows from this primary fact. Therefore, I say that the Left of 2014 is largely the same as the Left of 1789.
One can claim that Fascists of the WWII era voiced support for the Church, but their actions generally did not follow their words. Much of the anti-Nazi movement in Germany was based in Christian opposition. The Pope did not support either Mussolini or Hitler, though people who oppose the Church like to disparage the Pius and claim he did.
The Left is all about secularization and the growth of State Power over individual power. I have a hard time seeing Fascism as anything other than this.
I argue that fascism is different in that it gives the pretense of private ownership where communism doesn’t. And I know the origins of ‘’Leftist’’ and Rightist’’ thank you. Learn some manners while you’re at it.
Check out the Concordat the Vatican signed with Nazi Germany in 1933.
The faint connection rests on the medieval idea of the estates and their relation to one another.
Under the medieval ideal, the peasants, merchants, nobles, and clergy (like the corporatist bodies under syndicalism/fascism) all occupy different but complimentary roles in society. The noble's job is to defend the land the peasant and the monk work and the towns and roads the merchant uses from invasion and bigandage. In exchange for agreeing to pledge his life and honor, he earns the income of the lands and the right to collect taxes from peasants and merchants. Each class depends on the others, each class has responsibilities toward the others, society is an organic whole.
However, this ideal is based on the notion of subsidiarity. There is no absolute ruler or state - power is a web of personal allegiances, treaties, inheritances, contracts, etc. There is no "nation" and there is no "leader" and there is no notion of unitary power or what we would call sovereign government in the modern sense.
The medieval Church was radically libertarian in many ways, and highly authoritarian in others - but the emblem of medieval government was the Emperor: an almost powerless figure whom everyone in theory swore allegiance to.
You know pretty much nothing about that Concordat. You certainly can’t read it.
That's right. Anarchism was historically considered a Left Wing movement, because it sought to overthrow the aristocracy, the clergy, and the landowners/industrialists. Nobody of sound mind considered Mikhail Bakunin a reactionary or a conservative because he was anti-government, because he and other radicals saw the government of their times as tools of the hated upper classes. Come to think of it, didn't Marx and Engels write that the state would "wither away" once independent worker's communes were established? Does this make them "conservatives"?
I heartily agree with your posts 49 and 50 (and I would have pinged you to my own posts if I could have remembered your name from last time we conversed). American conservatives simply refuse to wrap their heads around the fact that the American right is different from the right in Europe because the traditional social structures America and Europe are different.
The Birchite "totalitarian to anarchist" spectrum is incorrect and dishonest and does our side no credit. The original Right (in France) was certainly not individualistic or classical liberal (in fact, American right wing hero Frederic Bastiat sat on the Left side of the Assembly while he was a member). The terms "right" and "left" were confined to France until the early twentieth century, so the French Right is the Original Right. I'd be very careful about re-defining what "right wing" means apart from that authority.
It was French rightist Maurice Barres who said "the individual is nothing; society is everything." Furthermore it was the original French Right that advocated a sort of Spartan society of "warriors and monks." I've attempted to locate this last quote but have been unsuccessful.
Anyway, thanks again ek, for keeping us honest.
Fascist are heavily armed socialists.
Thank you again, wideawake.
More like cousins. - jmacusa
National Socialism and International Socialism are just two different denominations in the same “church” - alloy steel
Al Capone vs Bugs Moran - Ditto
Reading The Road to Serfdom about how similar the two are, and how brutally they fought in WWII, I was struck with the comparison to a costume drama I saw at the movies, but cannot now recall enough about to be able to Google it up:Two counselors to the sultan are in the palace talking, and two youths - both princes - are fighting. One of the counselors says to the other, “They fight as only half-brothers can."
Your observations are those of an American conservative. But the "right" began in Europe and the European right is at once statist (even totalitarian) and anti-Communist. In fact, European rightists see American-style individualism and classical liberalism as leading to Communism. The fact that this makes no sense in the American political spectrum doesn't mean that it makes no sense elsewhere.
You'll never understand this until you learn to step outside your own head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.