Metatron | Was Nazism Right Wing or Left Wing? An Answer From History @metatronyt | Uploaded September 2024 | Updated October 2024, 3 hours ago.
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! Support freedom and get your preferred content!:
youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw/join
Check out my new interactive adventure!
youtube.com/watch?v=AeHThdbAgJA
patreon.com/themetatron
1 - Prysm of Evaluation
This question is a form of ahistorical syllogism: You'll see several people giving you an answer today in the comments down below. People will not watch this video and they will type either "obviously it was right wing" or "of course it was left wing".
Now there are in my opinion, two major problems here.
1 - They use the American left right dichotomy or political spectrum and they focefully apply it to historical European political regimes an ideologies, hence the first problem is spacial or geographic/cultural in nature.
2 - They use 21st century political spectra and juxtapose them over 20th politics. Thus the second problem is temporal.
The incongruence between modern and 20th-century political definitions within the right-left dichotomy is a complex phenomenon rooted in evolving socio-economic shifting of global dynamics. This discrepancy necessitates a nuanced analysis of the factors contributing to this conceptual divergence.
Within these dynamics the correct and coherent answer is going to be fractal as there is no clean definition overlap. History is a multidimentional phenomenom.
Expecting therefore 21st century American political ideas to overlap neatly and perfectly with 20th century European political factions in order to come out with an aswer is a flawed analytical method.
So the people who are categorically stating "it was left wing" or "it was right wing" are not answering to present a comprehensive analysis of policies, ideologies, historal actions, military conduct, economic, religious and social positions pushed by said regimes, they are just insulting the other side. They are free to do it, but just so we are clear as to what that is.
Make no mistake, Nazi is a slur and so people want to use it to identify and describe their political opponents. That's why it works I will argue as a conduit to the detriment of the way public opinion perceives the other side. In this framework, 'fascism' and 'Hitler' currently have negative valence — they are derogatory, not complimentary. With that established the following coarsely represents the train of thought leading to this usage.
It's a simple process, clearly this doesn't require any deep empirical analysis grounded in historical political science. That's why the media uses this word constantly.
You see once you take that leap then the historical vision will be irreversibly tainted.
The question is flawed to begin with because its basis, namely the expectations and the prism of evaluation are not in alignment. This has rendered the traditional unidimensional political spectrum increasingly inadequate for capturing the complexity of 20th century political parties.
This reflects the evolution in political taxonomy.
First we need to ensure objectivity to our analysis. Focus on: attitudes toward private property, individual freedom, and wealth redistribution if needed even implementing a mathematical apparatus.
Also we should explore the political alligiances and oppositions within the historical frame to correctly define these political regimes. Let's do that. Welcome to our qualitative comparative analysis.
2 - Inconsistent Nomenclature
Some people will use nomenclature as a gotcha moment to place the Nazis within the political spectrum. In other words Nazim stands for National Socialism, so they were socialist, hence left wing.
Nomenclature alone cannot be used as the basis for classification. It's too shallow and unscientific as a parametre. Let me prove it to you. If the name chosen by the party is the basis of the argument, then is the Communist Party in China republican in the American sense? I mean it's the People's Republic of China.
Similarly, is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) democratic?
In the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism and a liberal is a left winger, but in Europe simple liberalism often means classical liberalism which can be a centre right position, particularly for those right-wing populist movements that may advocate for protectionist economic policies traditionally associated with the left in recent US history, while embracing cultural and social conservatism. Moreover since we are talking about how they named themselves, then note that Hitler himself enied that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing: instead, they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement. Yeah let's ditch the name argument shall we.
#history #ww2 #mythbusting
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! Support freedom and get your preferred content!:
youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw/join
Check out my new interactive adventure!
youtube.com/watch?v=AeHThdbAgJA
patreon.com/themetatron
1 - Prysm of Evaluation
This question is a form of ahistorical syllogism: You'll see several people giving you an answer today in the comments down below. People will not watch this video and they will type either "obviously it was right wing" or "of course it was left wing".
Now there are in my opinion, two major problems here.
1 - They use the American left right dichotomy or political spectrum and they focefully apply it to historical European political regimes an ideologies, hence the first problem is spacial or geographic/cultural in nature.
2 - They use 21st century political spectra and juxtapose them over 20th politics. Thus the second problem is temporal.
The incongruence between modern and 20th-century political definitions within the right-left dichotomy is a complex phenomenon rooted in evolving socio-economic shifting of global dynamics. This discrepancy necessitates a nuanced analysis of the factors contributing to this conceptual divergence.
Within these dynamics the correct and coherent answer is going to be fractal as there is no clean definition overlap. History is a multidimentional phenomenom.
Expecting therefore 21st century American political ideas to overlap neatly and perfectly with 20th century European political factions in order to come out with an aswer is a flawed analytical method.
So the people who are categorically stating "it was left wing" or "it was right wing" are not answering to present a comprehensive analysis of policies, ideologies, historal actions, military conduct, economic, religious and social positions pushed by said regimes, they are just insulting the other side. They are free to do it, but just so we are clear as to what that is.
Make no mistake, Nazi is a slur and so people want to use it to identify and describe their political opponents. That's why it works I will argue as a conduit to the detriment of the way public opinion perceives the other side. In this framework, 'fascism' and 'Hitler' currently have negative valence — they are derogatory, not complimentary. With that established the following coarsely represents the train of thought leading to this usage.
It's a simple process, clearly this doesn't require any deep empirical analysis grounded in historical political science. That's why the media uses this word constantly.
You see once you take that leap then the historical vision will be irreversibly tainted.
The question is flawed to begin with because its basis, namely the expectations and the prism of evaluation are not in alignment. This has rendered the traditional unidimensional political spectrum increasingly inadequate for capturing the complexity of 20th century political parties.
This reflects the evolution in political taxonomy.
First we need to ensure objectivity to our analysis. Focus on: attitudes toward private property, individual freedom, and wealth redistribution if needed even implementing a mathematical apparatus.
Also we should explore the political alligiances and oppositions within the historical frame to correctly define these political regimes. Let's do that. Welcome to our qualitative comparative analysis.
2 - Inconsistent Nomenclature
Some people will use nomenclature as a gotcha moment to place the Nazis within the political spectrum. In other words Nazim stands for National Socialism, so they were socialist, hence left wing.
Nomenclature alone cannot be used as the basis for classification. It's too shallow and unscientific as a parametre. Let me prove it to you. If the name chosen by the party is the basis of the argument, then is the Communist Party in China republican in the American sense? I mean it's the People's Republic of China.
Similarly, is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) democratic?
In the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism and a liberal is a left winger, but in Europe simple liberalism often means classical liberalism which can be a centre right position, particularly for those right-wing populist movements that may advocate for protectionist economic policies traditionally associated with the left in recent US history, while embracing cultural and social conservatism. Moreover since we are talking about how they named themselves, then note that Hitler himself enied that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing: instead, they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement. Yeah let's ditch the name argument shall we.
#history #ww2 #mythbusting
