Thoughts on Nazis being “right wing” or “conservative.” It’s nonsense, of course. They were revolutionaries who wanted to, and briefly did, utterly remake society.
[Update early afternoon]
This seems related, somehow: the fairy tale of the “Progressives”‘ own history. Jonah Goldberg has some thoughts as well. And there’s a fascinating and convoluted discussion in comments at the initial link above.
The 2007 book, Three New Deals, does an interesting job of comparing Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and New Deal America. in the 1930s. It quotes many articles from the time, and the rough consensus among America’s intellectuals and elites of the day was that Fascist Italy was an inspiration, while Nazi Germany was too radical in the Bolshevik-style. Needless to say, political scientists of all stripes back then at least seemed smarter than our own, in that they saw the futility of the left-right classifications. Stalinism, Fascism and Nazism were all seen as revolutionary ideologies that somewhat awkwardly combined romanticism and progresssivism through the prism of their respect national identities (i.e. Russia, Italy, Germany, respectively).
Also, the book argues that to his credit, Roosevelt was repulsed early on by the Nazi’s racism and anti-Semitism.
Christopher Hitchens expands on this last point further in a great 2008 discussion with Victor Davis Hanson on the Hoover Institution’s Uncommon Knowledge show, wherein Hitchens argues that by the late 30s Churchill and Roosevelt were certain that Nazism was not something to be admired for its efficiency or success in taking Germany out of the depression, but was rather something “evil and pornographic.”
In the late twenties and early thirties wasn’t either Hayek or Mises somewhat sympathetic towards Italian fascism too?
That’s news to me, if true. FWIW, Wikipedia doesn’t seem to think so.
That’s what I found too when I googled. I vaguely remember reading something like this though, it struck me at the time. Of course the general context was that fascism had saved western Europe from communism, not that it was a good idea. And once the regimes showed how truly revulsive they were the sympathy disappeared. Still, a blemish. I’ll try to dig up a reference.
Here’s a link:
http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/mises-and-the-merit-of-fascism/
“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.“
The eugenics aspects were “Progressive.”
For more embarrassing history look up the Bellamy salute.
The Bellamy salute is embarrassing, to be sure, but only due to the coincidences of history.
The NRA Blue Eagle on the other hand, smacks of 30s statism run amok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration
Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, was an unrepentant Socialist his entire life. His form of socialism was a nationalist socialism which was a reaction to the internationalist flavor of socialism ran to in the years before WW1. The government controlled the economy, but left day-to-day management of the companies to the owners/managers, strictly controlling their incomes.
Hitler adopted this form himself for the Nazi organization of Germany (NAZI – A German Acronym for National Socialist Workers Party). Reading old newspapers from the 1920’s and 1930’s from the Newspaper Archive, both were considered to be socialist by all the other socialist movements. Mussolini was held in high regard by many socialists who were uncomfortable giving up their national identity. Both movements was considered somewhat deviant for their nationalist ideas, but were generally accepted by the Socialist movement as genuine.
Nazism took some elements that were considered left-wing (anti-capitalism, collectivism) and combined them with some elements that were considered right-wing (nationalism, militarism) and added a huge dose of Germanic racial mysticism. The result was a unique hybrid that doesn’t fit neatly into the traditional belief systems of left or right.
The correct answer to the question “were the Nazis left-wing or right-wing?” is “neither”.
What is it that’s “right wing” about militarism? Or nationalism? Was Joe Stalin a right winger?
The Nazi’s were overwhelmingly left wing. Government control at the expense of personal freedom is ALWAYS left wing.
“What is it that’s “right wing” about militarism? Or nationalism? Was Joe Stalin a right winger?”
Similarly, collectivism isn’t necessarily left-wing. The book, “An Anatomy of American Nationalism” makes the interesting argument that parts of Texas and the Scots-Irish/Ulster Irish South have a strong politically collectivist streak owing to their militarization, Baptist religion, and tribal beginnings back in the British Isle. Nevertheless, these areas would hardly be considered “left-wing Democratic” on our modern spectrum.
Again, that spectrum is bunk, especially when we try to lay it over European politics.
Right wing got attached to the Nazi’s thanks to Uncle Joe Stalin. He labeled any opposition to him as “right wing”. After the start of Operation Barbarossa, that included Hitler.
And the Western media went right along with the ploy. Plus ça change…
Read this interview Alex. The author, Anatol Lieven, is as “progressive” and as anti-American as any western historian I’ve read about. He does a nice job of conflating opinion and fact and judiciously leaving out important facts to prove his case.
He also knows nothing about Texans.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Lieven/lieven-con0.html
Alex must live very very far from the South – and from Baptists. We are hyper-independent sorts down here – the opposite of collectivist. Baptists are the same, which figures for a congregational (as opposed to hierarchical) religion. We want to do our own thing and be left alone.
Collectivists want to be in your face all the time. They want to be everyone’s nanny and mother-in-law. That’s the Puritans, not the Southern rednecks.
I’m well aware of Anatol Lieven’s politics, just as I am of Peter Robinson’s, VDH’s, and Hitchens’s — all of whom I also cite above, and not out of wanting to make any political statements, but only out of a desire to direct readers to interesting opinions on this subject of political spectrums.
Based on my experience and research, I do happen to think there is merit in Lieven’s observation (even a broken clock is right twice a day) that militarism results in its own collectivist strain in politics. How can an organization that demands a certain level of authority, uniformity and discipline *not* be a kind of collective?
Alas, this observation/definition of “collectivism” is not a good or bad thing. It’s just a thing.
Right wing got attached to the Nazi’s thanks to Uncle Joe Stalin. He labeled any opposition to him as “right wing”. After the start of Operation Barbarossa, that included Hitler.
The international communist movement led by Moscow (i.e. Stalin) was against both fascists and nazis a long time before that. In the Spanish Civilian War, where did the allegiances lie? In the election where Hitler came to power, were did the allegiances lie? How about when Mussolini was elected? Fascism and nazism were reactions to the labor union movements associated with the communist party. These differences were irreconcilable.
The Nazis were a radical party, so they cannot be named conservative. However conservative just by itself, in my opinion, has always been a lousy way to classify politics. It merely means you defend what is the current political view. Today’s radicals are tomorrow’s conservatives… I am more interested in the actual policies themselves.
What the international “conservative” movement cannot shake however is that when Hitler came to power, it was thanks to an alliance with the German conservatives (e.g. Franz von Papen) plus a conservative President (Paul von Hindenburg).
As for the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact it was borne of realpolitik rather than any ideological concerns. Nixon visited China and thawed relations with them as well. Is this ideological support for the Communist regime?
The Nazi’s were against labor unions? What part of National Socialist German Workers Party sounds anti-union to you? Yes, the communists and the Nazi’s were against each other, as competitors for the workers vote. On an ideological level, neither had much taste for free market (as opposed to crony) capitalism.
Alex,
How do you define “militarism,” and how does that definition characterize Texas or the South?
For that matter, how do you define “collectivism?” I can imagine some folks overextending the definition to encompass various sorts of non-collectivist social activity. Gotta make sure we’re using the same dictionary.
Chris L. – the Nazis banned strikes. North Korea is officially the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” Does that mean they are a democracy?
Chris L. – the Nazis banned strikes.
Did Joe Stalin allow them? Was he a right winger?
We can play this game all day, Chris.
Rand – Chris L. said “What part of National Socialist German Workers Party sounds anti-union to you?” To which I said – “they banned strikes” and provided a link.
Actually, the Communists came to power in Russia because of labor strikes. There were labor strikes in Russia through the 1920s, one of which forced Lenin to introduce his New Economic Plan in 1923. I’m not sure they ever banned strikes – what they did do was take control of the workers’ committees that owned the factories, thus preventing strikes.
Chris G.
Exactly what union did the gulag prisoners belong to?
What the international “conservative” movement cannot shake however is that when Hitler came to power, it was thanks to an alliance with the German conservatives (e.g. Franz von Papen) plus a conservative President (Paul von Hindenburg).
As far as I understand it, it was also the conservative (and increasingly senile) Hindenburg, encouraged by the Prussian general officer corps, who pressured Hitler into acting against the more socialist wing of the Nazi party, the SA, by threatening to dissolve the government and to impose martial law. In retrospect it might have been better if he had actually done that.
Chris L. – the Nazis banned strikes.
So the Nazis weren’t totally against market freedoms.
Why don’t union strikes constitute a form of racketeering? They monopolize a profession and coerce employers to do their bidding by threatening to remove employers’ access to said profession.
Hayek correctly noted that wartime socialism leads to peacetime socialism.
I quote from memory: “The Texans being entirely a warlike people not only fight but drink in platoons” (A German visitor to early Houston, in a letter home, as recalled from McComb’s “Houston, the Bayou City”)
That doesn’t mean collectivist per se, does it?
Heh, Germans and Texans have a lot in common.
Collectivism is a form of coercion whereby the allocation of resources is ruled by committee. Public schools, Britain’s National Health Service, NASA, and home owner associations are all collectivist entities. A bar full of rowdy Texans is not collectivist because assembly is chosen by each individual.
“Militarism” describes a conquest-oriented society (most nations throughout history), a military-dominated government (Myanmar), an insurgency (Sendero Luminoso), or an armed vigilante group (KKK, Earth First!). Unprovoked military interventionism such as UN police actions could also qualify as “militaristic.”
Collectivism and militarism are two different trains of thought, but sometimes the two double-date. HOAs aren’t organizing militias, and the average tinhorn dictator doesn’t care what the collective is doing as long as it’s not getting in the way of his/her taxpayer-funded luxuries.