Is Mein Kampf the most Woke work ever?

[Consul]

Fascism is collectivist, which means it's Left wing.

No, since there is both left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism.

[Immanuel Can]

Fascism is collectivist, which means it's Left wing.

No, since there is both left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism.

I'm trying to figure out what entities people mean when they claim there's "right wing" totalitarian states, because "right wing" is nowadays a far more nebulous term than "left wing." Collectivism is the hallmark of the Left...Socialism, Communism, and so on absolutely require it.

But on the right, things are more diverse. Libertarians get called "right wing," but they're adamant individualists. Free market advocates get called "right wing," but they're definitely opposed to both big government and collectivism. So if Veggie wants to say that some "right wing" totalitarian exists, then it shouldn't be hard to point one out.

But of course, all totalitarians need collectivism. They can't control the populace if they remain diverse and independent; they must be herded together, unified, and managed into the direction the totalitarian desires. So all totalitarianism is really biased toward the left wing. So Socialism, whether national or international, is the sine qua non of tyrants.

[Consul]

I'm trying to figure out what entities people mean when they claim there's "right wing" totalitarian states, because "right wing" is nowadays a far more nebulous term than "left wing." Collectivism is the hallmark of the Left...Socialism, Communism, and so on absolutely require it.

But on the right, things are more diverse. Libertarians get called "right wing," but they're adamant individualists. Free market advocates get called "right wing," but they're definitely opposed to both big government and collectivism. So if Veggie wants to say that some "right wing" totalitarian exists, then it shouldn't be hard to point one out.

But of course, all totalitarians need collectivism. They can't control the populace if they remain diverse and independent; they must be herded together, unified, and managed into the direction the totalitarian desires. So all totalitarianism is really biased toward the left wing. So Socialism, whether national or international, is the sine qua non of tyrants.

Fascism and nazism (national socialism) have resulted in tyranny and a totalitarian state, and they are properly called right-wing (even far-right) ideologies.

The traditional right-wing spectrum: conservatism (including centre-right, moderate conservatism as embodied by Christian democracy and economically libertarian conservatism) —> fascism (including national socialism).

If collectivism means the rejection of liberal individualism (egoism), then we do find it on the right side as well. Fascists and Nazis are clearly collectivists in this sense.

Libertarian conservatives, who are anarcho-/minarcho-capitalists, affirm liberal individualism (egoism) in the economic sphere; but they are less liberal and less individualistic (egoistic) in the transeconomic sphere. In libertarian conservatism we find a mixture of economic liberalism and social conservatism.

"Collectivism is, broadly, the belief that collective human endeavour is of greater practical and moral value than individual self-striving. It reflects the idea that human nature has a social core, and implies that social groups, whether social classes, nations, races or whatever, are meaningful political entities. However, the term is used with little consistency. Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76) used collectivism to refer to self-governing associations of free individuals, describing his form of anarchism as collectivist anarchism. More commonly, collectivism is treated as the opposite of individualism, on the grounds that it implies that collective interests should prevail over individual ones. Collectivism in this sense is often linked to the state, as the mechanism through which collective interests are upheld against the individual interests of civil society. This suggests, in stark contrast to Bakunin’s use of the term, that the growth of state responsibilities marks the advance of collectivism. It also explains why collectivism is often confused with collectivization, the extension of state control over the economy (though collectivization may be seen as a means of advancing collectivist goals).

Significance: Collectivism has been one of the key components of socialist ideology. The socialist case for collectivism is both moral and economic. Morally, collective endeavour in the form of co-operation fosters social solidarity and a responsibility for fellow human beings, based on their common humanity. Economically, collectivism enables the collective energies of society to be harnessed in a rational and efficient fashion, by contrast with self-striving, which results in wasteful competition. This emphasis on collectivism is evident in a traditional socialist belief in equality, welfare and common ownership. Marxism indeed subscribes to a form of methodological collectivism, in that it treats social classes rather than individuals as the principal agents of historical change. However, collectivism is by no means linked exclusively to socialism, and forms of collectivism can be identified in, for example, nationalism, racialism and feminism. Two basic objections are usually made to collectivism, both rooted in the ideas of liberal individualism. The first is that collectivism stifles individuality and diversity by insisting on a common social identity and shared human interests. The second is that collectivism is necessarily, and not accidentally, linked to statism and the erosion of freedom, as there is no effective means to advance collective interests except through political authority."

(Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. pp. 26-7)
——————

"Libertarian conservatism:
Although conservatism draws heavily on pre-industrial ideas such as organicism, hierarchy and obligation, the ideology has also been much influenced by liberal ideas, especially classical liberal ideas. This is sometimes seen as a late twentieth-century development, neoliberals having in some way ‘hijacked’ conservatism in the interests of classical liberalism. Nevertheless, liberal doctrines, especially those concerning the free market, have been advanced by conservatives since the late eighteenth century, and can be said to constitute a rival tradition to conservative paternalism. These ideas are libertarian in that they advocate the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life. Libertarian conservatives have not simply converted to liberalism, but believe that liberal economics is compatible with a more traditional, conservative social philosophy, based on values such as authority and duty. This is evident in the work of Edmund Burke, in many ways the founder of traditional conservatism, but also a keen supporter of the economic liberalism of Adam Smith (see p. 34).

Libertarian conservatives are not, however, consistent liberals. They believe in economic individualism and ‘getting government off the back of business’, but are less prepared to extend this principle of individual liberty to other aspects of social life. Conservatives, even libertarian conservatives, have a more pessimistic view of human nature. A strong state is required to maintain public order and ensure that authority is respected. Indeed, in some respects libertarian conservatives are attracted to free-market theories precisely because they promise to secure social order. Whereas liberals have believed that the market economy preserves individual liberty and freedom of choice, conservatives have at times been attracted to the market as an instrument of social discipline. Market forces regulate and control economic and social activity. For example, they may deter workers from pushing for wage increases by threatening them with unemployment. As such, the market can be seen as an instrument that maintains social stability and works alongside the more evident forces of coercion: the police and the courts. While some conservatives have feared that market capitalism will lead to endless innovation and restless competition, upsetting social cohesion, others have been attracted to it in the belief that it can establish a ‘market order’, sustained by impersonal ‘natural laws’ rather than the guiding hand of political authority. Nevertheless, the relationship between conservatism and economic libertarianism deepened further as a result of the emergence of neoliberalism."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. pp. 61-2)

"NEW RIGHT: The New Right is a marriage between two apparently contrasting ideological traditions. The first of these is classical liberal economics, particularly the free-market theories that were revived in the second half of the twentieth century as a critique of ‘big’ government and economic and social intervention. This is called the liberal New Right, or neoliberalism. The second element in the New Right is traditional conservative – and notably pre-Disraelian – social theory, especially its defence of order, authority and discipline. This is called the conservative New Right, or neoconservatism (see p. 67). The ideological coherence within the New Right stems from its defence of a strong but minimal state: although it seeks to ‘roll back’ the state in the economic sphere, it aims to strengthen it in the social sphere."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. p. 62)

[Consul]

Hitler wasn't just "open to" Socialism: he was the chief proponent of a particular kind of Socialism, a Socialism based on national identity and genetics. And "fascist" comes from the Latin word meaning "a bundle of sticks tied together for strength," which is the core idea behind Socialism, i.e. collectivization.

Given the common understanding of these political terms, national socialism cannot properly be subsumed under socialism. Any similarities between them are outweighed by striking dissimilarities. For example:

"PERSPECTIVES ON . . . EQUALITY
…
* SOCIALISTS regard equality as a fundamental value and, in particular, endorse social equality. Despite shifts within social democracy towards a liberal belief in equality of opportunity, social equality, whether in its relative (social democratic) or absolute (communist) sense, has been seen as essential to ensuring social cohesion and fraternity, establishing justice or equity, and enlarging freedom in a positive sense.
…
* FASCISTS believe that humankind is marked by radical inequality, both between leaders and followers and between the various nations or races of the world. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the nation or race implies that all members are equal, at least in terms of their core social identity."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. p. 82)

[Consul]

That's because the excuse-making for Socialism's abundant and horrific historical failures is absurd. It deserves the back of a hand, no more. There's simply too much data to the contrary to make any of those excuses plausible.

Socialism killed, by kind estimates, over 100 million people so far. And it's still doing it in places like China and North Korea. The Socialism of the Nazis was actually one of the least-bad failures of Socialism: both Stalin and Mao were statistically far worse.

But what do today's pathetic Socialists say? "That wasn't real Socialism." And then you ask them, "Then point out where a Socialist state has worked?" And they cannot. They say, "Socialism's an ideal that has not been realized yet." And perversely, they want you to believe that the only flaw in Socialism has been that THEY, personally, were not in control of it last time. What arrogance!

It's all absurd. None of it deserves to be taken seriously. The historical facts, however, are very, very serious.

First of all, it should be mentioned that the history of socialism (communism) doesn't begin with Marx. There is a pre-Marxian, pre-Communist-Manifesto socialism, which Marx calls "utopian socialism" (Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, Robert Owen).

There is a relevant difference between socialism and fascism/nazism: The latter is inherently authoritarian, antidemocratic, and extreme/radical, whereas the former is not. For there are both authoritarian and libertarian, both antidemocratic and democratic, and both extreme/radical and moderate forms of socialism. Socialism in the form of Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist communism means mass-murderous tyranny, but socialism as such does not. For example, socialism has given us social democracy as a democratic and moderate form of socialism.

It is inaccurate to count the horrendous Nazi crimes among the "failures of socialism," since national socialism isn't a species of socialism (given the usual meaning of "socialism").

[Consul]

* Were the Nazis Socialists?: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-t ... socialists

* The Nazis Weren’t Socialists – They Were Hypercapitalists: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-german ... liberalism

* The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... ocialists/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

* Were the Nazis Socialists?: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-t ... socialists

* The Nazis Weren’t Socialists – They Were Hypercapitalists: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-german ... liberalism

* The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... ocialists/

It's falling on deaf ears. The likes of IC aren't interested in facts. The Nazis were Nazis. End of story.

[Immanuel Can]

Fascism and nazism (national socialism) have resulted in tyranny and a totalitarian state, and they are properly called right-wing (even far-right) ideologies.

You should prove that, then. What makes any form of Socialism "right wing"?

Libertarian conservatives, who are anarcho-/minarcho-capitalists, affirm liberal individualism (egoism) in the economic sphere; but they are less liberal and less individualistic (egoistic) in the transeconomic sphere. In libertarian conservatism we find a mixture of economic liberalism and social conservatism.

And the relevance is...?

"NEW RIGHT: The New Right is a marriage between two apparently contrasting ideological traditions. The first of these is classical liberal economics, particularly the free-market theories that were revived in the second half of the twentieth century as a critique of ‘big’ government and economic and social intervention. This is called the liberal New Right, or neoliberalism.

This would be individualistic conservatism. It would be non-collectivist, then. It would be against big government, and opposed to centralization of power. It would be what a totalitarian tyrant would hate.

The second element in the New Right is traditional conservative – and notably pre-Disraelian – social theory, especially its defence of order, authority and discipline. This is called the conservative New Right, or neoconservatism (see p. 67). The ideological coherence within the New Right stems from its defence of a strong but minimal state: although it seeks to ‘roll back’ the state in the economic sphere, it aims to strengthen it in the social sphere."

Same problem. A "minimal" state does not serve the interests of a dictator.

But Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Maduro, the Kims, Mugabe, Castro, etc. These are the Leftist dictators. Where are the right-wing ones?

[Immanuel Can]

Hitler wasn't just "open to" Socialism: he was the chief proponent of a particular kind of Socialism, a Socialism based on national identity and genetics. And "fascist" comes from the Latin word meaning "a bundle of sticks tied together for strength," which is the core idea behind Socialism, i.e. collectivization.

Given the common understanding of these political terms, national socialism cannot properly be subsumed under socialism.

That "common understanding" is clearly mistaken.

…
* SOCIALISTS regard equality as a fundamental value and, in particular, endorse social equality. Despite shifts within social democracy towards a liberal belief in equality of opportunity, social equality, whether in its relative (social democratic) or absolute (communist) sense, has been seen as essential to ensuring social cohesion and fraternity, establishing justice or equity, and enlarging freedom in a positive sense.

This is pretty much everything the Left has never delivered...freedom, equality, positivity, fraternity, social cohesion...Instead, they've universally delivered poverty, oppression, rule by elites, suffocation of individuals, confiscations, starvations, persecutions, gulags and death.

That's just a historical fact. If you think it's not, point to the place where Socialism has delivered something else. I can point to all the places where it's delivered exactly what I've said above...you should be able to find one to support your argument, I think.

And if you can't...

[Immanuel Can]

It is inaccurate to count the horrendous Nazi crimes among the "failures of socialism," since national socialism isn't a species of socialism (given the usual meaning of "socialism").

Then let's play that game. What do we find?

Stalin killed well over 20 million...far worse than Hitler. Mao killed more than anyone, at least 45 million. Both were Socialists. And let's add the countless killed in Pol Pot's killing fields, or starved by the Kims, or shot into a ditch by Castro and Guevara...

There is nothing in human history that has caused so much death as Socialism has. And that's by orders of magnitude, actually. Well over a hundred million, total, in the last century alone, by even the most charitable estimates.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The fact remains that there are many good ideas that came from the age of enlightenment that modern democracies have adopted. I can't think of any good ideas that have come from a 'kristian konservative' point of view.

[Consul]

Alfred Rosenberg, the leading NSDAP theorist, writes:

"Die nationalsozialistische Bewegung hat ihr eigenes Gesetz, wonach sie angetreten ist, von den ersten Tagen ihres Daseins an erfahren: Blut und Boden die Voraussetzung allen Wirkens, Persönlichkeit die Krönung eines Volkes, Führung gegenüber demokratischer Gleichmacherei, Endkampf dem Gesamtmarxismus, d.h. der Sozialdemokratie ebenso wie dem Bolschewismus, Ablösung der unfähigen Bürgerschicht durch eine neue Auslese der Nation…"
—
"The national-socialist movement has experienced its own law, on whose basis it started, since the first days of its existence: Blood and soil the presupposition of all action, personality the culmination of a people, leadership against democratic egalitarianism, final battle/struggle against Marxism in its totality/as a whole, i.e. social democracy as well as Bolshevism, replacement of the inept civil class by a new national elite…"
[© my translation from German]

(Rosenberg, Alfred. Das Wesensgefüge des Nationalsozialismus. [The Essential Structure of National Socialism.] 7th ed. München/Munich: Franz-Eher-Verlag, 1933. p. 7)

"Endkampf dem Gesamtmarxismus" ("final battle/struggle against Marxism in its totality/as a whole") – So much for the socialism in national socialism! (Note that the accentuation of "Gesamt-" is part of the original text!)

[Consul]

But Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Maduro, the Kims, Mugabe, Castro, etc. These are the Leftist dictators. Where are the right-wing ones?

Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Antonescu (Romania), Pavelić (Croatia), Pinochet (Chile). How about Putin? How about Orban?

See: Fascism in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe

[promethean75]

FFS does Rosa gotta do everything around here?

https://www.quora.com/Is-fascism-left-o ... chtenstein

IC go sit in the corner. Go.

[Immanuel Can]

But Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Maduro, the Kims, Mugabe, Castro, etc. These are the Leftist dictators. Where are the right-wing ones?

Mussolini, Hitler, Franco,

These aren't undisputed cases. They called themselves "Socialist." As for Mussolini, the History Channel reports,

"Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.

Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I. By 1919 a radically changed Mussolini had founded the fascist movement, which would later become the Fascist Party."

Antonescu (Romania),

Fascist and Socialist. Left.

Pavelić (Croatia),

Fascist and Socialist. Left.

Pinochet (Chile).

Now you may have something. He was a militarist, for sure. He was a dictator, for sure. Was he "right wing"? Can you show he was?

How about Putin?

KGB strongman, raised and trained under extreme Socialism.

How about Orban?

Victor Orban? He's "right wing," perhaps, but he's an elected official, not a dictator, and one currently involved in yet another democratic election, I understand. We were looking for "right wing" tyrants, were we not?