The myth of the far right

It is interesting that a far left organization would imprison and execute communists, socialists, and intellectuals, isn't it?

Not really. One's greatest enemies can be closely related, politically. Nazis and Socialists were competing for the same supporters. They (rightly) viewed each other as their most powerful and dangerous rival, each one offering a version of "socialism" which was slightly different than (and therefore a threat to) the other. And since neither was above using violence and oppression to destroy political enemies... that's what happened. It doesn't mean they were on opposite sides of "the political spectrum", just that they were rivals. Why does this confuse you?

Not to mention abolish trade unions, allying with monarchists and Nationalists, receiving most of their funding from large corporations, building a huge military, etc.

As if USSR didn't build a huge military. Anyway, we can agree of course that fascists attempt to build their socialist state by slightly different means (in cooperation with business, etc), if that helps.

Just because the Nazi's called themselves a 'socialist workers' party, doesn't mean they were one.

Heck, just because Socialists call themselves a "workers' party" doesn't mean they are one, either. I'd rather go by the definition of socialism (collective use of property) anyway, and ignore what they call themselves for PR purposes. In any event, just because Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies doesn't mean their political programs were all that different. Why do you think it does? Are Coke and Pepsi hugely different beverages?

Left-wing parties were abolished.

For that matter probably all parties were abolished (except of course the Nazi party). What else is new?

The right to strike was abolished.

How much of a right did slave laborers in Kolyma have to strike?

Why is it that Mein Kampf is so studded with hatred for the USSR and communists?

Because Hitler hated them for offering a kind of socialism he despised (as opposed to the kind of socialism he preferred, national socialism).

Don't you think Hitler would have been allied with leftists if he was a leftist?

Not necessarily, because of the rivalary I've explained (competing for the same supporters - people to whom one flavor of socialism or another has appeal). But as a matter of fact he was allied with even Communists, for a time (that's how he came to power - the Communists of Germany helped to vote him in, rather than side with a less extreme socialist party).

However, what characterizes the right as opposed to the left?

It depends. In a generic historical sense, "left" meant radical or revolutionary (people who wanted "change") whereas "right" meant "conservative" (let's keep things the way they are). But this definition is not all that helpful because then "right" and "left" vary from state to state and cannot be meaningfully compared (a "rightist" in 1985 USSR would be a hard-line Communist).

There is also a moral dimension; sometimes "right" means those who want strict moral guidelines, while "the left" are more libertarian. But that's not very helpful in this context either. In fact, in a sense, by this definition socialists often would have to be considered "right-wing"; after all, they have a complete moral program for how everyone ought to live their life and share their property, and are willing and eager to use the state to enforce it.

Another, more meaningful, usage is to simply define them in terms of their relation to socialist ideas. Denote by "leftists" those who tend to socialism (collective use of property) in their economic and social outlook, and "rightists" those who don't (individual property rights).

For the average person living in a fascist regime there are no individual "property rights" as such, because the state ultimately decides for all what is the best use of property/resources. In that sense it's a socialist system.

Are you saying that dictatorships are confined exclusively to the left?

Getting warmer. Since dictatorships or near-dictatorships are required to enforce collectivization of property or property usage, then this has the ring of truth to it. A truly "rightist" state (by this definition) would protect individual property rights as much as possible, robbing any would-be "dictator" of most of his power.

The only true distinction between the right and left is economic.

But hey, what about "nationalism"? Sometimes people try to characterize anyone who is "nationalistic" (cf. Haider, Buchanan) as "right-wing". (Of course, this is yet another problematic definition - wasn't Stalin nationalistic?)

Societies that practice capitalism (private capital) are to the right, those that practice socialism (state capital) are to the left.

You're closer to the truth again, I suppose. The key is to recognize that the "private capital" which is nominally allowed under fascist regimes is nothing of the sort. For bigwigs, sure, (like Party members of "Communist" regimes) they are allowed to have/control lots of capital. For the average Joe, however, the result is the same (few to no property rights).

Hitler and Mussolini were proponents of private ownership

For bigwigs. And only the ones who would do the government's bidding, at that. (And of course not for undesirables, like Jews.)

"Proponents of private ownership", indeed. An illusion.

Stalin and Mao were for public ownership.

Yes, and they called themselves and their Party-member buddies "the public" or "the people" or "the proletariat", then proceeded to take everyone's property away in the name of "the public" and do as they pleased with it (just like the so-called "capitalists" who are in bed with fascist regimes). Same result for the average person.

However, the very definition of a right-wing versus a left-wing government in the 20th century is whether that govt was pro-socialist or anti- socialist

Right! And national socialist governments are pro-socialist. (They might be against this or that particular party calling itself a Socialist Party, but that's just natural for them to eliminate rivals; don't confuse that with being anti-socialist in general. Surely you'd agree that the Bolsheviks in Russia were socialists (in the generic sense); the fact that they fought against the so-called "Mensheviks" (also socialists!) doesn't change this, does it?

Communist dictators jail capitalists, capitalist dictators jail communists,

Uh, sorry, no. Dictators jail whoever they want, they don't have an economic-theory litmus-test; if you cross a leftist dictatorship then reciting some Marx isn't necessarily going to be a get out of jail free! card for you.

The dictatorship is the same, only the economy is different.

Actually not even the economy is different (much). Forced full employment, jail and/or slave labor for dissidents, state control of industry to fund military conquest and state power. What exactly is the big difference, from the perspective of the average man?

Among other likely absurditites in the article is this statement:

'Who, in 1928, with a Europe returning to prosperity…could have predicted that only five years away Germany would be plunged into the most criminal dictatorship of the century?

First, it was easily predictable. Germany was in a state of economic and political chaos well into the 20s following WW1, which is precisely why Hitler was able to gain power. Second, Stalin's USSR was almost certainly the most criminal dictatorship of the century, overriding even Hitler's slaughter.

So a socialist can be either right or left? I ain't buying it. Hitler would have eventually got around to nationalizing all private industry if he had been in power long enough.

Good points all.

The problem in this debate seems to come down to the fact that neither side of the political spectrum is willing to admit that their own brand of extremeism can be turned into a dictatorship.

I see both sides using this tactic on a fairly regular basis. Both sides clinging to their own "wing" and denouncing the other "wing" as being the root of all evil. Let's face facts, a Religious Theocracy would be just as repressive as a Socialist Haven. Unrestrained both wings are capable, and in many cases more than willing, to become tyrannical regimes, all the while denouncing the other "wing" as the object of fear and loathing, and proclaiming themselves to be only of the purest intent.

It seem to boil down to a system of demonization. Using Hitler as an example is easy, because he was fairly forthcoming about those he hated, and what he thought should be done with them. He provided the rational to using Government to destroy those he demonized. So, he and his fellow Nazis appear to be identifying the "disease" and through deception of the weak minded, he identified themselves as the only true provider of the "cure" to those "diseases".

What's scarey today is the idea that BOTH "wings" are attempting to do that same sort of demonization now. I've seen it here, I've seen it on the Liberal boards. You can see it in statements like "All Liberals believe _____" or "All Conservatives believe ______". It boils down to a mass generalization of people based solely on political viewpoints, and demonization based on disagreements. Neither side of this political spectrum, try as they will, is capable of attaining the "high ground" because they've both sunk to this level of discourse. Liberals use the same tactics as Conservatives, and boths sides whine and snivel when the other side uses the same tactics against them. Example? Look at the Clinton Defenders versus the Bush Defenders. Both sides refuse to give quarter to the other, no matter how much evidence is put on the table. The spinning just keeps on going.

Sadly, this is how people like Hitler gained power. He fostered that sort of hatred, distrust, and discontent, and merely capitalized on it for his own benefit.

Let's face facts, does it really matter, in the big picture, when a Tyrant steps forward, if he is a Left Winger, or a Right Winger?

Thanks for a great post. Bumping for later!

The political spectrum of Right and Left is deliberately false. By the definition of total govt, Nazism, Communism, Dictatorships and Kingdoms all belong on the same side of the spectrum, the other extreme, would be anarchy, or lack of govt. There is no such thing as a right wing dictator, or a left wing anarchist, unless we assign the right as total govt, and the left as anarchy. The current assignations are but phantoms created by men to divide up the spoils(electorate)

I think 'most' Germans had no trouble with property rights (excepting, of course, Jews and other 'enemies of the state').

And I know Russians whose grandparents somehow still retained the dachas their families owned, despite the "socialist" USSR. Of course neither socialism achieved perfectly the ideal of making all property subject to state whim, but one can't say that it was for lack of trying ;)

If you say it was socialist just because the govt had a say in the ultimate use of the resources, well, then every govt in world history has been socialist

In a sense, this is true. Every government in world history has been socialist to some extent, yes (because there's never yet been a perfectly libertarian utopia :).

But some governments are more socialist than others. USSR and Nazi Germany were both more socialist than is, say, the USA (though the gap is lessening). Make sense?

It wasn't until Speer took over as Minister of Armaments that anything approaching a 'planned economy' came into being,

OK.

so I don't think taxation or appropriation of assets for military spending is necessarily indicative of socialism.

No argument there.

I would tend to label Stalin as non-nationalist (you know, world socialism and all),

Lip service.

he certainly became nationalistic when the Nazis rolled in and it came time to defend 'Mother Russia'.

This is what I was talking about.

Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." It is not state control of industry, but private industrial power merged with state authority.

Six of one.....

If the dictator leaves private property intact, he's right wing

If he truly does this (i.e. not merely for "corporations"), then what exactly is left for him to "dictate"? And how will he enforce it (since the people, owning property, surely will own some guns...)? Best,

Bump.

Well, if I was the dictator of the US, and didn't touch any private property, I would still have control over $1 trillion in federal taxes,

That's because currently the USA is socialized to such an extent that something like 40-50 percent of GDP is taken and then controlled by the government. In other words private property is not left "intact", as was required by the hypothetical we were discussing. Sure, we're not as socialist as the USSR or even current Scandinavian countries, but our socialism is still nothing to sneeze at.

So again, it's difficult to be dictator without a significant amount of socialism.

I would think most any dictator would be quite happy with that. $1 trillion or more a year, and an army to keep him in power.

Indeed. Most dictators would be quite happy with that amount of socialism, yes.

What more could a dictator want?

He could always want more. ;)

Sorry for my delay in responding to you, but... you're nuts. There is a difference between totalitarianism and freedom. We can agree, however, that, the arbitrary branding of left and right does not change the essence of what is being described. The political spectrum still runs from the "Moderates" on the extreme left (read "Communism/Socialism/Collectivism") to "Right Wing Extremists" on the extreme right (read "lovers of liberty and opponents of Leviathan"). The point of my prior post was merely to dispute the Left's definition of Fascism: it may be to the right of Communism, but it is far to the left of liberty.