History Split off derail: Discussion of Nazism vs Communism

[Aldarion]

See, I completely disagree with this definition. You've completely combined two axes into one. Right wing has very little reliance on being ground up. Frequently it is, frequently it's the other way around. It's utterly orthagonal to that.

Leftists also can do ground up stuff, like hippie communes and Kibbutzes. Those are still lefty though.

Hence, the ground-up/top-down is part of the Authoritarian/Anarchy axis. And I'd toss the human vs divine stuff as that's not useful for a discussion as it has the inherently different meanings based on the beliefs of the speaker.

Except if you want to be ground-up, you have to be right-wing, because Left-wing has literally nothing with which to replace the tradition and other things which allowed and allow for right-wing pseudo-anarchist communes to function.

All I have ever heard of lefty hippie communes and Kibbutzes is how they fall apart. Precisely because they have nothing with which to replace the state.

So even accepting your premise, Left is still inherently pro-authoritarian, because it is the only way they can ever function.

And authoritarianism is itself a consequence of modernism. Even early modern absolute monarchs have absolutely nothing on modern-day "free" and "democratic" governments.

No, I don't view centrists ideologies as good. I'm just saying that the only time debating about what sort of government to have matters (as opposed to more or less government), is when you are in the middle of the Anarchy/Authoritarian axis.

Basically, there is a lot of debate about what to teach in government schools, because we are somewhere in the middle of the Anarchy/Authoritarian axis (not right in the middle or even close, but definitely somewhere in the middle). If we were in an perfectly Authoritarian state, all that would be 'taught' is rigid obedience to the state, with no room for debate. In a perfect anarchist society, there would be no government run schools.

In fact, this is why I view centrism as bad: it causes political division. If we were further towards freedom, there wouldn't be so much political debates dividing the country as the government wouldn't have as much power to do stuff.

I wasn't talking about your beliefs, I was talking about the "horseshoe theory".

 

[Abhorsen]

So even accepting your premise, Left is still inherently pro-authoritarian, because it is the only way they can ever function.

Kinda. Yes, that is the only way they can function. But, and this is an important but, that doesn't make authoritarianism a tenet of leftism, just an emergent property.

And more importantly, it doesn't make anti-authoritarianism a property of Rightism. There's right authoritarians. And that's where'd I'd toss Fascism.

I wasn't talking about your beliefs, I was talking about the "horseshoe theory".

Ah, I thought this was in reference to my sorta agreeing with horseshoe theory.

 

[Aldarion]

And more importantly, it doesn't make anti-authoritarianism a property of Rightism. There's right authoritarians. And that's where'd I'd toss Fascism.

I agree that there are right-wing authoritarians, but not that Fascism is one of these.

Right-wing authoritarian would be Francisco Franco (who is often labeled a Fascist, but I don't think that label is correct). But Fascism specifically is an attempt at merging a disparate mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas, and therefore I cannot see it as a right-wing.

 

[DarthOne]

It is pretty ironic that he championed the fight against communism while championing partial-communism.

Not really. It socialists in a nutshell.

“You don’t follow my True Version of Socialism! Have at thee!”

Plus you know, weird racial superiority nonsense that Just So Happens to make Hitler’s group the Superior Race and ‘justifies’ them conquering the Slavic sub-humans and taking in their land. And blaming everything bad on the Jews, allowing for Wealth Redistribution without pissing off the Industrialists and Prussian Nobility that could have squashed Hitler like a bug.* Total coincidence there!

* and in a better timeline, did squash him.

Edit; darn it. Need to keep reading the thread before posting.

 

[Marduk]

Well, throwing away the poorly qualified left/right distinction, one could describe the national socialists as "culturally traditional socialists" and communists as the "culturally anti-traditional socialists". The degree of economic socialism varied, but later in history, you have China which at some point combined anti-traditional cultural stance with milder economic socialism kinda similar to what the national socialists did.

 

[mrttao]

Fascism is actually the Italian version, with Nazism being the German version, but Fascism also has become the general term for Nazi-like ideologies. I'm talking about fascism in general, including Spain under Franco, Mussolini's Italy, and the Third Reich.

As for it being right wing, specifically it's nationalism focus. This sort of grouping is a traditionally right wing idea. It's emphasis on restoring national identity, the Italian's roman larping and other lionization of past success. It somewhat likes tradition, but it picks and chooses what traditions to keep.

Meanwhile leftism is very much "the past sucks, we're going to make something new and better." Even communists always say the past wasn't real communism, their new idea will fix it.

In general, the 'leftist' parts of fascism usually fall under authoritarianism generally: control over the economy, etc. This isn't motivated by an attempt to get to equity (which is why Communism is of the left) but by nationalism, a rightwing concept.

I will grant you that nationalism is a conservative view.
But having one conservative value amongst many liberal ones does not a conservative make

Honestly the right/left divide is kinda silly as it is trying to put all the different things on a single axis.

 

[Aldarion]

Well, throwing away the poorly qualified left/right distinction, one could describe the national socialists as "culturally traditional socialists" and communists as the "culturally anti-traditional socialists". The degree of economic socialism varied, but later in history, you have China which at some point combined anti-traditional cultural stance with milder economic socialism kinda similar to what the national socialists did.

That is a much better definition, though I would argue that even Nazi cultural traditionalism is... rather limited. They had this weird mix of some very traditional ideas combined with some very progressive ones. Basically, they were all over the scale, but I would still say that they were far more progressive than they were traditionalist.

 

[Marduk]

That is a much better definition, though I would argue that even Nazi cultural traditionalism is... rather limited. They had this weird mix of some very traditional ideas combined with some very progressive ones. Basically, they were all over the scale, but I would still say that they were far more progressive than they were traditionalist.

Well, depends on how strictly and far into the past one defines traditionalism. Obviously they don't want to be absolute clowns they won't start trying to larp as some European equivalent of Saudi Arabia, practicality be damned, or do things that inherently mean them giving away power, like monarchy, just for the hell of it. They certainly did oppose most of the cultural initiatives of the contrasting anti-traditionalist competition in their time and place, and you have probably heard more about how far into cultural progress Weimar was than the average person. Same with Spain and Italy, their fascists were also traditionalists, not necessarily extreme ones in absolute terms, but certainly they were in the more traditionalist half by the standards of the local political scene (which in all cases was weighted by a bunch of crazy commies on the other side of the scene).

 

[Navarro]

That is a much better definition, though I would argue that even Nazi cultural traditionalism is... rather limited. They had this weird mix of some very traditional ideas combined with some very progressive ones. Basically, they were all over the scale, but I would still say that they were far more progressive than they were traditionalist.

They weren't really traditionalist at all, Nazi art was essentially just Socialist Realism like in the USSR (a lot of Nazi ideas, like state-developed plans for creation of industry, state-controlled unions, and concentration camps using political prisoners for slave labour, were basically modelled on Soviet Russia), and they wanted to replace traditional sexual morals with some sort of demented eugenic ideal extending to glorifying teen moms, Bormann even wanted to legalise polygamy.

 

[DarthOne]

They weren't really traditionalist at all, Nazi art was essentially just Socialist Realism like in the USSR, and they wanted to replace traditional sexual morals with some sort of demented eugenic ideal extending to glorifying teen moms, Bormann even wanted to legalise polygamy.

And again I want a vomit reaction. Mods, why aren’t you working on this?

 

[Navarro]

I will grant you that nationalism is a conservative view.
But having one conservative value amongst many liberal ones does not a conservative make

Honestly the right/left divide is kinda silly as it is trying to put all the different things on a single axis.

Even the USSR in practice was Russian Empire 2.0, which dominated lands Russia had traditionally conquered or sought to conquer, and practiced Russification policies similar to the Tsarist government (even intensifying them to outright genocidal levels, the Holodomor was intended to wipe out Ukrainian nationalism by wiping out the majority of Ukrainians).

 

[Aldarion]

Well, depends on how strictly and far into the past one defines traditionalism. Obviously they don't want to be absolute clowns they won't start trying to larp as some European equivalent of Saudi Arabia, practicality be damned, or do things that inherently mean them giving away power, like monarchy, just for the hell of it. They certainly did oppose most of the cultural initiatives of the contrasting anti-traditionalist competition in their time and place, and you have probably heard more about how far into cultural progress Weimar was than the average person. Same with Spain and Italy, their fascists were also traditionalists, not necessarily extreme ones in absolute terms, but certainly they were in the more traditionalist half by the standards of the local political scene (which in all cases was weighted by a bunch of crazy commies on the other side of the scene).

They weren't really traditionalist at all, Nazi art was essentially just Socialist Realism like in the USSR (a lot of Nazi ideas, like state-developed plans for creation of industry, state-controlled unions, and concentration camps using political prisoners for slave labour, were basically modelled on Soviet Russia), and they wanted to replace traditional sexual morals with some sort of demented eugenic ideal extending to glorifying teen moms, Bormann even wanted to legalise polygamy.

As I said: Nazis had a mix of traditional and progressive ideas. And by progressive ideas, I mean, "ideas that would not be out of place in the Communist party of the time". Difference is that Communists started out by wanting to destroy society itself (something taken up by modern-day progressives), and over time mellowed out into something somewhat sane. Nazis were never so extreme, but they still opposed most of traditional elements of the German society: they were very active proponents of ideals of equality (well, equality within the German Aryan group) and collective social action aimed at achieving said ideals. They introduced command economy similar to Communists, and wanted to create German Church (something both Pavelic and Tito tried over here, by the way).

At the same time however they were not as progressive as Weimar was (but then again, Weimar was frankly insane to the point of clownish retardation).

Spain and Italy are a separate issue. Italian Fascists had nothing to do with the Nazis, and Franco's Phalangites were just as removed from the other two.

 

[mrttao]

and over time mellowed out into something somewhat sane.

lol. lmao even.
communists wanted to destroy society then, they want to destroy society today.
communists wanted to destroy religion then, they want to destroy religion today.
communists wanted to genocide anyone who disagrees with them then, and they want to do so today.
Communists never mellowed out. they are the same pile of shit today as they were 100 years ago

 

[Marduk]

As I said: Nazis had a mix of traditional and progressive ideas. And by progressive ideas, I mean, "ideas that would not be out of place in the Communist party of the time". Difference is that Communists started out by wanting to destroy society itself (something taken up by modern-day progressives), and over time mellowed out into something somewhat sane. Nazis were never so extreme, but they still opposed most of traditional elements of the German society: they were very active proponents of ideals of equality (well, equality within the German Aryan group) and collective social action aimed at achieving said ideals. They introduced command economy similar to Communists, and wanted to create German Church (something both Pavelic and Tito tried over here, by the way).

At the same time however they were not as progressive as Weimar was (but then again, Weimar was frankly insane to the point of clownish retardation).

Spain and Italy are a separate issue. Italian Fascists had nothing to do with the Nazis, and Franco's Phalangites were just as removed from the other two.

Nazis were much closer to Deng\modern China in their dealing with economy and rich industrialists than the communists of their time, that's what leads to a lot of confusion and arguments, and also limited their socialist drive for the equality imperative.
If Nazis went full Soviet command economy the WW2 would have went very differently.
Church wise they were like modern China or even slightly more delicate, if not closer to modern Russia (mostly in agreement for domestic cultural policy, but very hostile towards Churches questioning power politics of the party and its foreign policy/war policy).

 

[Aldarion]

lol. lmao even.
communists wanted to destroy society then, they want to destroy society today.
communists wanted to destroy religion then, they want to destroy religion today.
communists wanted to genocide anyone who disagrees with them then, and they want to do so today.
Communists never mellowed out. they are the same pile of shit today as they were 100 years ago

I was talking specifically about Soviet Communists.

Stalin and especially Gorbachev were less evil than modern-day progressives.

Problem is that Progressivism is essentially original Communism of Lenin's vibe.

 

[StormEagle]

All this stuff about the communists and nazis is interesting. Very interesting.

…What does this have to do with SB, SV, or QQ?

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

All this stuff about the communists and nazis is interesting. Very interesting.

…What does this have to do with SB, SV, or QQ?

Well, SB is loaded with commies, so it's sort-of related.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Stalin and especially Gorbachev were less evil than modern-day progressives.

I can agree on Gorbachev but there is no fucking way I will concede Stalin anything especially when it's 100% subjective based on your opinion.

I mean it's basically a question of. "Would you rather" have the world remained permanently as it is now for the next hundred years or have a Stalinist world government for the same period of time?

I will be honest as flawed and as fucked up as this world can be at times, I would take it over an alternative Stalinist one.

 

[Navarro]

Gorby was a naive fool who actually believed in democratic socialism and thought by democratising the USSR he could save it.

 

[Abhorsen]

All this stuff about the communists and nazis is interesting. Very interesting.

…What does this have to do with SB, SV, or QQ?

Good point. Handled.

Right-wing authoritarian would be Francisco Franco (who is often labeled a Fascist, but I don't think that label is correct). But Fascism specifically is an attempt at merging a disparate mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas, and therefore I cannot see it as a right-wing.

The left wing ideas you attributed to it aren't left wing though. They are simply authoritarian.

Basically, I don't view total control over the economy as leftist. I view it as authoritarian. The purpose for which the total control is done is what makes it leftist or rightist. If it's for equity, leftist. For racial supremacy/tradition? Rightist.

I will grant you that nationalism is a conservative view.
But having one conservative value amongst many liberal ones does not a conservative make

Honestly the right/left divide is kinda silly as it is trying to put all the different things on a single axis.

The thing was, nationalism was the core view of the various strains of fascism.

I do agree that the left right divide is kinda silly, but really it's just noticing that a lot of axes are correlated, and combining them into one. It's not perfect, but it's useful.

Stalin and especially Gorbachev were less evil than modern-day progressives.

Stalin and Gorbachev are incredibly different. One could make a reasoned argument that Gorbachev made the world a better place by allowing the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Stalin meanwhile is up there in the top ten of worst humans ever. Progressives aren't creative enough to dream of the evil he did. From a Cannibal Island, to employing history's most prolific mass rapist (and pedophilic one as well) as his hatchet man for mass murders, it's really hard to match his evil.