re: Is an anarchist on the left or right of the political spectrum?

quote:

---

What is the distinction between ultra-nationalism, moderate nationalism and light nationalism?

---

I'd argue that there has to be a national myth, based on the notion that one state has priority over others, and to the detriment of other peoples. This is exemplified in Germany with "lebensraum" and the notion of that there would be a thousand-year Reich. In Italy there was the notion that the Roman Empire would be rebuilt, and Italy would again be the center of the world. The Iron Guard developed an idea that they would be guided by their "big sister" France, as Francophilia was strong in the country since French diplomacy helped the Romanians achieve independence. In each version though, it was about a specific group of people rising up above others, and in many cases subjugating others.

The national myth idea also relies on a notion of weaponized nostalgia, by pretending that the problems of the nation, whatever they are, are due to the entrance of peoples who aren't bound to the soil, like the "true" peoples are. Again, this was seen in pretty much every version of fascism.

The easiest contrast to make is the degree to which Stalin quashed nationalist movements in the USSR, and had severe "de-nationalialization" programs for groups he thought were too committed to their nations cause.

quote:

---

Nationalism is an aspect of every nation. Nationalism is not a meaningless term. Fascism is meaningless. Hitler was a leftist. He wanted massive govt control over individual freedom. But Hitler is bad so we call him a 'fascist.'

---

Again, I've defined nationalism quite narrowly, as in the ethnonationalism that developed after the Peace of Westphalia, where the idea developed, in contrast to the imperial systems of the time, that there should be one nation, with one language, and one religion or one sect of a religion. The imperial system before the first WW allowed a great deal of regional autonomy, though after the revolutions of 1848, you saw massive centralization efforts through education (a process called normalization) which saw the standardization of many Romantic languages. These reforms were so uneven that there were still people speaking Breton in France during the first WW, and there came large dialect gaps in places in Italy and Germany (as the Bavarian dialect of German is nearly unintelligible to modern Standard German).

This was essentially the guiding light of the nationalists in the 20th century, and why they determined nationality based on ethnicity alone. Allowing religious freedom undermined the Westphalian notion to a degree they couldn't allow.

quote:

---

You just proved that the term has no meaning.

---

No. The term reactionary in the 1920's was developed in response to the revolutionary fervor in Russia and Germany. It has a specific history, which for some reason you are refusing to accept.

quote:

---

Leftists have the unifying value system of egalitarianism which is the opposite of freedom.

---

Fascists were anti-egalitarian in the most explicit form you can be anti-egalitarian, which was by denying the rights under the law of minority interests. They also believed that society would be naturally unequal and the strong were the only ones fit to rule.

quote:

---

The word 'conservative' in those days did not mean 'limited govt and personal freedom'. It meant 'opposed to change.'

---

It took on different meanings in different countries. In England, it developed in an interesting way, as the landed gentry opposed the new industrial class. Eventually the conservatives promoted free trade and mostly laissez-faire economic programs, as the industrial class discovered they could gain the powers of the old aristocracy by buying peerages and estates. They continued this economic program until the Keynesian compromises after the second WW, a consensus known as Butskellism. Just an interesting aside.