Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:01 pm Fascism is collectivist, which means it's Left wing.

Consul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:01 pm Fascism is collectivist, which means it's Left wing.

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

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:58 pmI'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.

"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)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:55 pm 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.

"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)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:43 pmThat'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.

Consul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:21 pm * 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/

Consul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:27 pm Fascism and nazism (national socialism) have resulted in tyranny and a totalitarian state, and they are properly called right-wing (even far-right) ideologies.

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.

"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."

Consul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:55 pm 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.

…
* 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.

Consul wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:29 pm 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").

"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)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:56 pm 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?

Consul wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:56 pm 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?