Nazism-Communism-Progressivism (preliminary overview)

[Aldarion]

Thoughts?

IDEOLOGY	NAZISM	COMMUNISM	PROGRESSIVISM
FAMILY	Traditional family	Rejects family	Rejects family
SOCIETY	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life
TRADITION	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition
IDENTITY	Identification with race	Identification with class	Identification by race and class as a common denominator
RELIGION	State paganism	State atheism	Combination of pagan and atheist elements
ENEMIES	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: Jews as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race	Defines enemies in class terms: bourgeoisie and capitalists as an oppressive class	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: white people as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race
STATE	Supranational state based around racial "Lebensraum"	Supranational state based around class	Supranational state based around ideal of globalism

 

[Proxy 404]

Thoughts?

IDEOLOGY	NAZISM	COMMUNISM	PROGRESSIVISM
FAMILY	Traditional family	Rejects family	Rejects family
SOCIETY	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life
TRADITION	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition
IDENTITY	Identification with race	Identification with class	Identification by race and class as a common denominator
RELIGION	State paganism	State atheism	Combination of pagan and atheist elements
ENEMIES	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: Jews as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race	Defines enemies in class terms: bourgeoisie and capitalists as an oppressive class	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: white people as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race
STATE	Supranational state based around racial "Lebensraum"	Supranational state based around class	Supranational state based around ideal of globalism

Families wrong
Society probably wrong or too broadly defined to be useful
Religion not applicable
Enemies: wrong
STATE probably wrong or too broadly defined to be useful

 

[Aldarion]

Families wrong
Society probably wrong or too broadly defined to be useful
Religion not applicable
Enemies: wrong
STATE probably wrong or too broadly defined to be useful

What, exactly, is wrong, then?

 

[Proxy 404]

as I understand it they don't reject family they all redefine it
Enemies
Nazism fails when it can no longer expand it's enemies list
the fact communism sounds right even to me suggest it's probably wrong
progressivism? da fuck did you get that idea

 

[Aldarion]

as I understand it they don't reject family they all redefine it

That is the same as rejection to me.

progressivism? da fuck did you get that idea

You have never debated a progressive, have you?

Look at what progressives claim: white people are the only imperialists in history, and so have to pay reparations to blacks and accept immigrants into their own countries (all of that is bullshit). Africa is only poor because it was colonized by Europe. White people need to feel guilty because they were keeping everybody else down and enslaved...

These are literally Marxist arguments against capitalists, except they replace "capitalists" and "bourgeoisie" with "white people", and "proletariat" with "people of color".

 

[Abhorsen]

Progressive 'stated' enemies are broader than race. It's really reverse intersectionality. The further you go in, the more enemies you find. For example, cis het white old men are obviously the worst, but you can also blame white women for stuff, gays (considered the white men of the LGBT, even the black ones), lesbians get a lotta flack for opposing dicks of trans girls, etc.

The same problem with identity, progressives get more specific with gender identity and sexuality added on to it.

Also, going by stated goals (which the rest of your post admirably sticks to), Fascism claims to be about a return to a previous tradition (obviously, not really, but I think how they frame themselves is important, because of the demographic they target).

Other than that, I think it's a solid comparison.

 

[Proxy 404]

we haven't been talking to the same progressives

 

[Bacle]

Thoughts?

IDEOLOGY	NAZISM	COMMUNISM	PROGRESSIVISM
FAMILY	Traditional family	Rejects family	Rejects family
SOCIETY	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life	State controls all aspects of life
TRADITION	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition	Rejection of tradition
IDENTITY	Identification with race	Identification with class	Identification by race and class as a common denominator
RELIGION	State paganism	State atheism	Combination of pagan and atheist elements
ENEMIES	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: Jews as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race	Defines enemies in class terms: bourgeoisie and capitalists as an oppressive class	Defines enemies in both class and ethnic terms: white people as an oppressive class and an inherently evil race
STATE	Supranational state based around racial "Lebensraum"	Supranational state based around class	Supranational state based around ideal of globalism

I think this is...not wrong, but is missing extra dimensions of the difference, and how they impact each other.

For one, both Nazi's and progressives are varying degree's of...nature focused, while commies just see nature as resources for the Party's use.

Also, this misses how the both monarchy, and democracy, impact the operations of these groups/causes them to chose different methods of attack.

 

[Abhorsen]

Also, this misses how the both monarchy, and democracy, impact the operations of these groups/causes them to chose different methods of attack.

I think it's fine to skip them, as that's basically an added model of complexity that isn't really needed, and mostly dependent on the status quo prior to the authoritarian attempt, not really dependent on the type of authoritarian.

As my applied math teacher liked to say, "all models are bad, some models are useful." Basically, it'll be impossible to get a perfect breakdown, but this is a useful model for showing the similarities and how they differ. Personally, I'd have put communism as the first column, because it came first, and it's also the least dependent on identitarianism (being rich isn't inherent to a person and unchangeable, basically), but that's a minor quibble.

For one, both Nazi's and progressives are varying degree's of...nature focused, while commies just see nature as resources for the Party's use.

This, however, I do think is a useful distinction.

 

[Aldarion]

I disagree.
In 1944/45 Poland Stalinism was an IMPROVEMENT over the German occupation.
But as this is a derail, EOT for me.

Keep in mind that without Communism, there probably would have been no Nazism either.

Karl Marx and his ilk were probably the worst evil to happen to humanity like, ever.

 

[Buba]

Post moved?
Jolly good show, moderators!

Keep in mind that without Communism, there probably would have been no Nazism either.

Please note the date I am referring to.

Karl Marx and his ilk were probably the worst evil to happen to humanity like, ever.

Yes.

 

[Aldarion]

Post moved?
Jolly good show, moderators!

Eh, I'm not a moderator. I just chose to reply here.

Please note the date I am referring to.

Yeah, I did. I just don't think you can use that as an argument that Communism isn't the worst evil because, as noted, if there had been no Communism there likely will have been no Nazism. Granted, things are a bit more complex than that, but well...

 

[Marduk]

I think this is...not wrong, but is missing extra dimensions of the difference, and how they impact each other.

For one, both Nazi's and progressives are varying degree's of...nature focused, while commies just see nature as resources for the Party's use.

Interesting. Seems like this is true for aspiring industrial communist countries... but if you look at the marxist movements of South America, those often share the pro-nature position, possibly even more so than all the others.

 

[Bacle]

Interesting. Seems like this is true for aspiring industrial communist countries... but if you look at the marxist movements of South America, those often share the pro-nature position, possibly even more so than all the others.

That is an interesting...commie subcultural difference?

I guess I would chalk it up to a few differences; living in S. America versus Russia (jungle is harder to preserve than fields or normal forests, due to thin soils, and is crap for most agriculture for the same reason), the legacy of Bolivar (I'd almost call most S. American Commies more like Marxist-Bolivarians, than OG Soviet commies, and there were still nature-friendly native influences on the people in S. America that were not present in Russia), and possibly not being stuck behind the Iron Curtain's info blockade (S. American commies had more access to western media and news).

It would be a fansinating deep-dive to look at the ways S. American commie thought/practice has diverged from the OG Soviet stuff out of Russia/the USSR.

 

[Aldarion]

Few more notes:

• left-right spectrum is in its most basic a spectrum of top-down versus bottom-up control
• leftism relies on laws and governmental dictates, while rightism relies on custom and tradition
• to gain inspiration for its mythological ideal society, leftism often looks to the mythological idealized past – Karl Marx did it when writing the Communist Manifesto and The Kapital, and Adolf Hitler did it with racial aspects of Nazism
• politically, leftism is top-down and centralized while rightism is bottom-up and decentralized
• in terms of social control, leftism places greater emphasis on outgroup, while rightism places greater emphasis on ingroup
• thus the left-right spectrum goes species – race – ethnicity – tribe – clan – family
• Nazism is leftist because it negates tribe and ethnicity in favor of race, while Marxism negates even race in favor of the species; both of them however separate their primary grouping into classes
• "extreme right" thus is not Nazism, but rather feudalism

 

[Abhorsen]

• politically, leftism is top-down and centralized while rightism is bottom-up and decentralized

I got some disagreements here. A lot of leftism, if you go into the weeds, claims to be bottom-up oriented. This even occurred in practice with the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, so it's not just them talking outta their ass. It also happens with a variety of communes and kibbutz's.

Feudalism is also top down control, albeit decentralized. The Peasants have little say over who rules them, and that goes upwards.

• Nazism is leftist because it negates tribe and ethnicity in favor of race, while Marxism negates even race in favor of the species; both of them however separate their primary grouping into classes

Nazism didn't dump family, and it definitely didn't dump ethnicity or Tribe (if by tribe we mean nationality). By the definition you use here, nazism would be of the right.

Look, I think what people forget is that Fascism was ultimately a perfect marriage between right and left. It used the tribalistic nature of humanity, replacing the internationality of communism, to appeal to many right wing parties.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Karl Marx and his ilk were probably the worst evil to happen to humanity like, ever.

And they were all the bastard children of one Jean Jaques Rousseau.

 

[Aldarion]

I got some disagreements here. A lot of leftism, if you go into the weeds, claims to be bottom-up oriented. This even occurred in practice with the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, so it's not just them talking outta their ass. It also happens with a variety of communes and kibbutz's.

Feudalism is also top down control, albeit decentralized. The Peasants have little say over who rules them, and that goes upwards.

It is an oversimplification, true. However, I would disagree with anarchism being a Leftist ideology - that is merely one of massive lies of the Left. Tolkien was an anarchist himself, after all.

And do note that the other Leftists slaughtered anarchists whenever and however they could during the Spanish civil war, so yeah. Leftism and anarchism don't go together in practice.

Nazism didn't dump family, and it definitely didn't dump ethnicity or Tribe (if by tribe we mean nationality). By the definition you use here, nazism would be of the right.

Look, I think what people forget is that Fascism was ultimately a perfect marriage between right and left. It used the tribalistic nature of humanity, replacing the internationality of communism, to appeal to many right wing parties.

I didn't mean that it completely dumped the ethnicity, but it considered it less relevant than race. Basically, Nazis weren't German nationalists but pan-Germanic racists.

I do agree that Fascism and Nazism were a mix of left and right ideas, but I'd still place them - and especially Nazism - more to the left. (And as a side note, Fascism and Nazism aren't the same thing).

 

[Abhorsen]

And do note that the other Leftists slaughtered anarchists whenever and however they could during the Spanish civil war, so yeah. Leftism and anarchism don't go together in practice.

Eh, leftists kill each other all the time. Yes, anarchism isn't necessarily of the left (I'm nearly an AnCap and not a lefty, for example), but it can be. The communes are a great example of this.

Progressivism, for example, has a lot of anarchism sprinkled throughout it (though I wouldn't call them anarchists), as they aren't so much idealists like pure communists, but nihilists who want every difference to be destroyed.

I'm not seeing the right as necessarily more not-centralist either (Theocracies, for example, are very right wing and also tend toward top down).

Really, tossing all ideologies onto a single spectrum of right and left has it's problems, and I don't know that it works well when it comes to comparing bottom-up vs top-down-ness.

I do agree that Fascism and Nazism were a mix of left and right ideas, but I'd still place them - and especially Nazism - more to the left. (And as a side note, Fascism and Nazism aren't the same thing).

The issue is figuring out what they were economically. Yes, they were very state controlled economy, but also they were on a total war footing. America's economy during WW2 looked semisimilar (minus the war loot and slavery of Nazism obviously).

And yes, Fascism and Nazism aren't quite the same thing, but are close enough for this model.

 

[Aldarion]

Eh, leftists kill each other all the time. Yes, anarchism isn't necessarily of the left (I'm nearly an AnCap and not a lefty, for example), but it can be. The communes are a great example of this.

Progressivism, for example, has a lot of anarchism sprinkled throughout it (though I wouldn't call them anarchists), as they aren't so much idealists like pure communists, but nihilists who want every difference to be destroyed.

I'm not seeing the right as necessarily more not-centralist either (Theocracies, for example, are very right wing and also tend toward top down).

Really, tossing all ideologies onto a single spectrum of right and left has it's problems, and I don't know that it works well when it comes to comparing bottom-up vs top-down-ness.

Agreed. Although I would not compare anarchism and nihilism.

The issue is figuring out what they were economically. Yes, they were very state controlled economy, but also they were on a total war footing. America's economy during WW2 looked semisimilar (minus the war loot and slavery of Nazism obviously).

And yes, Fascism and Nazism aren't quite the same thing, but are close enough for this model.

Economically, both ideologies were definitely leftist. You can see that from their writings; TIK over on youtube has some good quotes dug up, as does Arch:





And as a matter of fact, Germany specifically only went onto total war footing sometime in 1942/43, so saying that their economy being socialist due to being on total war footing is not correct.