Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

1. Fascism is right-wing. (false claim)

You will see this claim being made not only on this site, but on many others as well that fascism is a right wing ideology. But this claim isn't true.

One of the reasons given for this claim that fascism is right wing is nationalism. But nationalism is not inextricably inherent just on right wing ideology. It can also be found in socialist, and even communist movements and nations. After all, left-wing nationalism was/is a fundamental part of many socialist movements throughout history, such as "Mahatma Gandhi's Indian National Congress" which promoted the independence of India.

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand
...
Gandhi brought together the major strands in India's nationalist movement—the reform objectives of political moderates, an activist technique that proved more effective than revolutionary violence, and a mode of revitalizing traditional ideals that provided sanction for fundamental change. He exercised his influence through a set of principles emphasizing identification with the impoverished, through constructive work on behalf of the disadvantaged, and through creative, supportive effort in winning over opponents.
...

teacher.scholastic.com...

Nationalism is not contradictory to socialism.

Difference Between Socialism and Nationalism

Socialism vs Nationalism

Among the many political philosophies that center on communal affiliation, Socialism and Nationalism would probably be the most relevant in the contemporary era. They are not only viewed as theories, but also considered as modern phenomena that root back as early as the 16th century. They are not necessarily contradictory to one another. In fact, these philosophies can co-exist even in a single political or national group. They are the same in such a way they advocate a sense of community. That is Nationalism, promoting distinct identification with a solid political and national entity and Socialism, highlighting the importance of communal property with each member of the group partaking in it equitably. What differentiates them from one another, nevertheless, is their economic impact and flexibility or interdependence when combined with other types of political viewpoint.
...
Nationalism, on the other hand, is a socio-political framework that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, or in simpler terms, a nation. It emphasizes collective identity – a ‘people’ must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture. It maintains that an ethnic group has a right to statehood, or that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic group, or that multi-nationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities. Another one of its principal advocacies is that the state is of primary importance.
...

Read more: Difference Between Socialism and Nationalism | Difference Between | Socialism vs Nationalism www.differencebetween.net...

Both socialism and nationalism have in common a collective identity, or collective unity. In both the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. Or in other words, the collective is more important than the rights of the individual. This is an essential structure in both nationalist, and socialist movements. To emphasize that the needs of the whole of society is more important than individual rights.

This leads us to fascism, which has been wrongly labeled as a right-wing ideology, mostly by very liberal professors and scholars, which has given a false image of what fascism is, and it isn't.

2. Fascism/aka National Socialism in Germany.

Before Hitler rose to power in Germany the "social democratic party" had been gaining a lot of power and influence by the "progressive minds of the German people." But after two failed assassination attempts on Kaiser Wilhelm I by extremists Max Hödel and Dr. Karl Nobiling, "Anti-socialist" legislation was implemented which was later reversed by Otto von Bismarck in 1888. In fact, that wasn't the first time that Bismark had changed his mind. In the 1870s he had sided with the Liberals, but after the Catholic Church was able to form a strong center party and it won the elections, Bismarck changed his policies and tried to pass legislation that would ban all socialist, liberal and progressive groups/movements to align himself with the center party. But in the end he once again changed his stance, because more and more the German people turned towards socialism, and in his mind in order to stop a more virulent form of socialism from taking over, he agreed to implement "some socialist policies".

...
[Bismarck protests against assertions by the left liberal Reichstag delegate, Eugen Richter, and the Social Democrat, August Bebel, that he had cultivated ties with the leaders of social democracy early in his career.] I was rather surprised, as I read this in my rural retreat, that Representative Richter only pays attention to the external label “social democracy,” that he does not distinguish between honorable efforts to improve the lot of workers, and that which we are today compelled, sadly and reluctantly, to call social democracy. I cannot agree with Representative Richter if he wants to throw out the baby with the bath water and urges us, if we want to suppress the machinations of the present sect that does not shrink from regicide, to combat simultaneously every effort to improve the lot of the worker, to improve his income and his share in the community’s life. I am determined to resume these efforts, for which I am sometimes reproached, as soon as I have time and opportunity....

web.grinnell.edu...

3. National Socialism against Marxism.

Another of the many claims used to decry the fact that National Socialism was a branch of socialism, was the fact that Hitler waged a war against communists and other left wingers. But does that mean he was not a socialist?

What many people seem to forget is the fact that there are many branches of socialism, and between these different branches of socialism, discord and even war and assassinations against members of different socialist branches was not out of the question.

HItler did not incarcerate, and even execute other left wingers because they were so different, but because they challenged his own authority and his own view on Socialism.

As another example, Stalin was a national communist who implemented the idea of "socialism in one country". Meanwhile Stalin was in favor of national socialism, Lenin and Trotsky wanted to implement "international socialism/communism". This difference caused enmity between Stalin, and his socialist/communist opponents to the point that Stalin ordered the incarceration and even deaths of many socialists and communists, including Trotsky. That difference in opinion did not make either side any less socialist, or communist.

Back to Germany. A lot of people don't know, or even realize that despite Hitler's claims, and actions against other socialists, and communists, he was a socialist and so were his policies.

The 25 points of Hitler's Nazi Party demonstrate that they were socialists.

The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
...

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
...
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
...
24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

www.historyplace.com...

Perhaps people should remember that Marx, Engles, Neitsche, Hegel, etc, were all German philosophers.

Nazi Germany was a socialist dictatorship. A National Socialist dictatorship known as "fascism".

4. But Hitler Was in Favor of Businesses.

Another of the many false claims made about Nazi Germany. Meanwhile Hitler did indeed allow business owners to keep their businesses, he still ruled them. Hitler was not an idiot, he knew that if he simply took away businesses they would all go bankrupt, so instead he allowed business owners to keep their businesses as long as they worked for the common good of Germany. Businesses of minorities were appropiated for the common good, and the rest were only allowed to keep their businesses as long as they did what he told them to do. As long as they made what he told them to make for the good of the fatherland.

Of course, there were many business owners that also loved to work with Hitler because he provided cheap labor, and even profits. But Hitler also had a disdain for "the bourgeois".

...
I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois (capitalist) meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.
...

democraticpeace.wordpress.com...

5. Hitler Was Against Minorities, Hence Was not Socialist.

Yet another false claim since Karl Marx who came from a Jewish family, and was one of the founders of communism, was also an anti-semitist.

Marx even wrote about the emancipation of humanity from what he saw as the "Jewish problem". What that means is that he wanted to free humanity from Judaism.

...
What truth is there in this argument? Marx’s essay, On the Jewish Question, originally published in 1844 contains the following:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Marx argues that, “[In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” Larry Ray explains, “Marx’s position is essentially an assimilationist one in which there is no room within emancipated humanity for Jews as a separate ethnic or cultural identity.” Dennis Fischman puts it, “Jews, Marx seems to be saying, can only become free when, as Jews, they no longer exist.”
...

www.philosophersmag.com...

As we see, there are a lot of misconceptions about Hitler, and his NAZI Germany. The name NAZI itself is composed of two abbreviations of the words Nationalsozialismus.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It is a huge problem and one that frankly surprises even me.

To believe that national socialism wasn't socialism is the epitome of revisionist history and is an assault upon truth, the only recourse we have as human beings to critically inspect our past behavior.

S&F

So there's this... "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy.

What does this mean for our topic? We know that when corporations have too much power, like in the USA right now, we have rampant government corruption, less rights and freedom for the common man, laws that favor big corporations over poor people and a political system where money is king.

The question is, who is more likely to cater to big corporations...democrats or republicans? It would seem that, recently...with big oil money and Haliburton and big pharma companies that don't want ObamaCare (not because they think it hurts our freedoms but because they might lose money) and big industrial/military corporations and a few other things...it just appears that republicans want more power with corporations and are more in favor of Fascism or Corporatism.

Who can stop it? Paul maybe...Trump? He's the poster child of rich corporate overlord...Sanders...at least his socialism would swing us back to normal maybe.

I could be wrong...thoughts?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As another example, Stalin was a national communist who implemented the idea of "socialism in one country". Meanwhile Stalin was in favor of national socialism, Lenin and Trotsky wanted to implement "international socialism/communism". This difference caused enmity between Stalin, and his socialist/communist opponents to the point that Stalin ordered the incarceration and even deaths of many socialists and communists, including Trotsky. That difference in opinion did not make either side any less socialist, or communist.

....Socialism and Communism are not synonymous terms.

Facism is and will always a right wing ideology

I find these quotes by Goebbels to enlightening.

It is rotten and dismal that a world of so many hundred million people should be ruled by a single caste that has the power to lead millions to life or to death, indeed on a whim...This caste has spun its web over the entire earth; capitalism recognizes no national boundaries...Capitalism has learned nothing from recent events and wants to learn nothing, because it places its own interests ahead of those of the other millions. Can one blame those millions for standing up for their own interests, and only for those interests? Can one blame them for striving to forge an international community whose purpose is the struggle against corrupt capitalism? Can one condemn a large segment of the educated Sturmer youth for protesting against the greatest ability? Is it not an abomination that people with the most brilliant intellectual gifts should sink into poverty and disintegrate, while others dissipate, squander, and waste the money that could help them? … You say the old propertied class also worked hard for what it has. Granted, that may be true in many cases. But do you also know about the conditions under which workers were living during the period when capitalism “earned” its fortune?

We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”

Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.

While National Socialism brought about a new version and formulation of European culture, Bolshevism is the declaration of war by Jewish-led international subhumans against culture itself. It is not only anti-bourgeois, it is anti-cultural. It means, in the final consequence, the absolute destruction of all economic, social, state, cultural, and civilizing advances made by western civilization for the benefit of a rootless and nomadic international clique of conspirators, who have found their representation in Jewry.

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood. . . .It poisons our own values and subjects us to the service of low and base instincts.

en.wikiquote.org...

There IS more there.

But in my opinion the LEFT has more in common with fascism than the right.

Although some people love to live next the the river of denial in Egypt.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

First off, a well written and researched thread. Star and Flag.

Second, despite all evidence, the socialists will continue to paint that ideology as nothing more than a sweet altruistic ideology meant to help all people everywhere. And if you disagree with it, then you are a terrorist.

So I will watch this thread with great anticipation.

a reply to: neo96

At least your honest enough to say its your opinion, history tells a different story, fascism is oposite to socialism.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: neo96

At least your honest enough to say its your opinion, history tells a different story, fascism is oposite to socialism.

What I quoted WAS history.

originally posted by: greencmp

It is a huge problem and one that frankly surprises even me.

To believe that national socialism wasn't socialism is the epitome of revisionist history and is an assault upon truth, the only recourse we have as human beings to critically inspect our past behavior.

S&F

And to not commit again the same errors as past generations made.

What makes the differences/contrasts in government is the authoritarian policies necessary for a government's "success".

The more authority needed to keep a population in check is the problem.

Genuine Conservatives (not the Left Wing definitions of "Conservatives") don't rely or condone massive oppressive authoritarian policies.

Read Marx and figure it out.

But here's the problem as it's usually defined. If Fascism is Corporatism and Corporatism is rich people and powerful corporations controlling the rest of us, don't we want a little socialism in there to counter balance that? No? Or if not Socialism, how do we contain rampant fascism?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Facism is and will always a right wing ideology

Twice now you've made a couple of declarative sentences--and that's all. Compare what you wrote to the research the OP did in several posts. There isn't much of a comparison, is there? You provide ZERO evidence to back up your whopping two sentences. Just saying Fascism is right wing, especially given the OP's massive amount of data, doesn't make it so. It doesn't dismiss it. It doesn't contradict it because it's completely lame in comparison.

If you can provide a well-researched counter-argument, rather than an ill-formed opinion, by all means do so. If you believe you have already done that, you're wrong. OP gets an "A" You get an "F" You have provided nothing substantive at all.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What makes the differences/contrasts in government is the authoritarian policies necessary for a government's "success".

The more authority needed to keep a population in check is the problem.

Genuine Conservatives (not the Left Wing definitions of "Conservatives") don't rely or condone massive oppressive authoritarian policies.

Read Marx and figure it out.

How sad that you actually believe your quaint chart. You do realise any idiot can make stuff up like that.........like the author of the chart.

Black is white and up is down. I would quote Eric Arthur Blair but there really seems to be no point.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Well jump on it and prove all of it wrong.

That's what you are here for.

Get the definitions right first however.

The word "fascism" itself is derived from the word for "bundle of sticks" which is a popular analogy with socialists.

originally posted by: amazing
So there's this... "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy.

Benito Mussolini was also a socialist since his youth. His father had imparted the ideas of socialism on him, and he made those ideas shape his life, and Italy's.

Mussolini's ideas on socialism were in between socialist doctrine and communist ones.

Instead of "class struggle" he thought that a collective of all working classes and rich classes could be the only way to make Italy stronger once again.

The corporate economic model he implemented was based on "class collaboration" in which employer and employee syndicates were linked together to represent the collective and create a strong economy.

Being bellicose, and pro-war for the benefit of their country doesn't make anyone any less socialist or even communist. Do i need to point out to all the pro-war "revolutionaries"?... Even Gandhi was at first a socialist who was in favor of armed conflict.

How many socialists are also industrialists? Without industry no nation can sustain itself, even socialist and communist nations.