History Split off derail: Discussion of Nazism vs Communism

[King Arts]

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.

I'm sorry, but only the last few things you said are non traditional the stuff with eugenics and polygamy.

The government/state making plans for building things was a thing from way back to Ancient Egypt, as well as using criminals for slave labor. Putting those who you see as threats against the government or society to death or slavery is not some new thing it was done all throughout history not a recent modern invention.

 

[Aldarion]

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.

If you remove "simply authoritarian" from Left, you are left with basically nothing.

Also, "racial supremacy" isn't inherently rightist value. Leftists can be racial supremacists as well.

Left-wing vs right-wing comes basically to acceptance vs rejection of modernism. Nazism has both, therefore it is both left-wing and right-wing at the same time:

• Nazi acceptance of modernism: scientific racism, socialism, "big state" / "nanny state", industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress, ideas about "ideal" prehistoric past...
• Nazi rejection of modernism: focus on family, "blood and soil"... and that's basically it?

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.

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.

I will just quote Tolkien here as it explains why, exactly, modern Progressives are in fact far worse than Stalin:

"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).

[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']

Letter 246
From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts)"

Stalin murdered people. Progressivism murders spirit. One you can recover from, the other, you cannot.

And "perpetual Stalinist world" is a strawman argument as Stalinism never could have lasted forever, simply due to its very nature. It is too obviously evil. Which is another reason why Progressivism is worse: it destroys society so thoroughly that it makes recovery nearly impossible.

 

[ATP]

If you remove "simply authoritarian" from Left, you are left with basically nothing.

Also, "racial supremacy" isn't inherently rightist value. Leftists can be racial supremacists as well.

Left-wing vs right-wing comes basically to acceptance vs rejection of modernism. Nazism has both, therefore it is both left-wing and right-wing at the same time:

• Nazi acceptance of modernism: scientific racism, socialism, "big state" / "nanny state", industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress, ideas about "ideal" prehistoric past...
• Nazi rejection of modernism: focus on family, "blood and soil"... and that's basically it?

I will just quote Tolkien here as it explains why, exactly, modern Progressives are in fact far worse than Stalin:

Stalin murdered people. Progressivism murders spirit. One you can recover from, the other, you cannot.

And "perpetual Stalinist world" is a strawman argument as Stalinism never could have lasted forever, simply due to its very nature. It is too obviously evil. Which is another reason why Progressivism is worse: it destroys society so thoroughly that it makes recovery nearly impossible.

1.True
2.Tolkien was right
3.Only partially true - soviets try to kill soul,too - Pawka Morozow cult is best example of it.
But,you are right that modern leftists are far worst in that regard - if Soviets take over the world,it would fall after 50 years or so,and there would be still normal people there to rebuild.

If leftists made world green gulag - it woud fall,too - but there would be nobody who could rebuild anything,only poor creatures unable to think or feel anything good.
Basically,worst animals.

 

[Abhorsen]

Stalin murdered people. Progressivism murders spirit. One you can recover from, the other, you cannot.

Stalin also murdered spirit. Far more than progressivism has done. You underestimate how evil Stalin was.

Stalin wasn't just presented as a good thing, he was the savior. So many people who were purged were sure that if Stalin knew of this they would be saved, even praising Stalin with their last words.

Left-wing vs right-wing comes basically to acceptance vs rejection of modernism. Nazism has both, therefore it is both left-wing and right-wing at the same time:

So first, this definition is better. Also, note that it doesn't put authoritarianism necessarily on the left: those campaigning for Sharia or a caliphate as existed in the past, or even absolute monarchy, would be right wing authoritarians.

But I don't know that accepting modernity makes one left wing. I'd say that rejecting tradition is leftwing, and rejecting progress is right wing.

 

[Aldarion]

Stalin also murdered spirit. Far more than progressivism has done. You underestimate how evil Stalin was.

Stalin wasn't just presented as a good thing, he was the savior. So many people who were purged were sure that if Stalin knew of this they would be saved, even praising Stalin with their last words.

Right.

So first, this definition is better. Also, note that it doesn't put authoritarianism necessarily on the left: those campaigning for Sharia or a caliphate as existed in the past, or even absolute monarchy, would be right wing authoritarians.

But I don't know that accepting modernity makes one left wing. I'd say that rejecting tradition is leftwing, and rejecting progress is right wing.

I never said that authoritarianism is inherently left-wing:

Right-wing authoritarian would be Francisco Franco (who is often labeled a Fascist, but I don't think that label is correct).

However, left-wing is necessarily authoritarian, as they have to be in order to reform the society in way they want.

 

[Abhorsen]

However, left-wing is necessarily authoritarian, as they have to be in order to reform the society in way they want.

A left wing society is. A left wing person doesn't have to be. In fact, there were some early left wingers who were some of the first to speak out against Stalin's horrors when many on the left didn't want to hear. Emma Goldman being a good example of this: very much a leftist, but also very anti authoritarian, standing up against the USSR.

I never said that authoritarianism is inherently left-wing:

This is what I'm objecting to (which I seem to have partially misread):

If you remove "simply authoritarian" from Left, you are left with basically nothing.

Emma Goldman was clearly left wing, but not authoritarian. Now did her positions work together at all? God no. But that's what she was.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

National Socialism and Communism are both cringe and “mass murdering tyranny” pilled.

I have spoken.

 

[Aldarion]

A left wing society is. A left wing person doesn't have to be. In fact, there were some early left wingers who were some of the first to speak out against Stalin's horrors when many on the left didn't want to hear. Emma Goldman being a good example of this: very much a leftist, but also very anti authoritarian, standing up against the USSR.


This is what I'm objecting to (which I seem to have partially misread):

Emma Goldman was clearly left wing, but not authoritarian. Now did her positions work together at all? God no. But that's what she was.

We were talking about societies, organizations and ideologies here, last I checked. None of which has anything to do with individuals. Also, when word "Left" is used, it typically means Left as a collective, not a leftist individual (had I meant that, I would have written "Leftist". In singular, not plural.).

My point was always that attempting to implement left-wing ideas in a society always results in authoritarian or even totalitarian state because left-wing ideas themselves are unnatural and thus require a complete top-down restructuring of the society to be implemented.

So no, left-wing individual is not necessarily authoritarian. But left-wing movements, organizations and societies necessarily are. Even if they try to avoid authoritarianism, they will always slip into it in the end, simply due to nature of leftism itself.

As you said:

rejecting tradition is leftwing

Thing is, if you reject tradition, you have to replace it with something new. And that something new has to be implemented somehow unless you want society to fall apart... and that "somehow" is typically top-down control. Which means that regardless of what individual leftists may be like, any large-scale leftist operation / organization / movement is necessarily authoritarian.

 

[Abhorsen]

We were talking about societies, organizations and ideologies here, last I checked. None of which has anything to do with individuals. Also, when word "Left" is used, it typically means Left as a collective, not a leftist individual (had I meant that, I would have written "Leftist". In singular, not plural.).

That's the thing. I was talking about an ideology. A leftist ideology or even a leftist organization need not be authoritarian. But large enough leftist societies are.

Thing is, if you reject tradition, you have to replace it with something new. And that something new has to be implemented somehow unless you want society to fall apart... and that "somehow" is typically top-down control. Which means that regardless of what individual leftists may be like, any large-scale leftist operation / organization / movement is necessarily authoritarian.

See, that's not true. Kibbutz and communes being a hallmark example.

Usually the ideology turns authoritarian when hit with the reality bat, but it isn't hit with the reality bat until they are in power. That's why I'm saying that leftist ideology isn't based on authoritarianism, but instead that's an emergent feature.

Basically, I'm trying to get across that arguing "X is leftist because X has authoritarian features" is not a valid argument. The USSR was left wing because it (tried to or claimed to) use a command economy to promote equity. The command economy itself is not necessarily leftist, though it certainly can be.

I think we actually agree on this, and are sorta talking past each other.

But this pushes Nazism, with it's core beliefs of past german glory and nationalism, as right-wing, IMO.

 

[Navarro]

I'm sorry, but only the last few things you said are non traditional the stuff with eugenics and polygamy.

I was referencing things Nazi Germany copied from the USSR.

 

[Aldarion]

That's the thing. I was talking about an ideology. A leftist ideology or even a leftist organization need not be authoritarian. But large enough leftist societies are.

Leftist ideology need not be authoritarian, but non-authoritarian leftist ideologies always develop into authoritarian practice anyway.

If you reject reality and decide to create your own, authoritarianism is the only possible outcome.

See, that's not true. Kibbutz and communes being a hallmark example.

Kibbutz and communes are not large-scale.

Leftism can work in societies that are not significantly above Dunbar's number. But anything more than that, you have to have something else.

Usually the ideology turns authoritarian when hit with the reality bat, but it isn't hit with the reality bat until they are in power. That's why I'm saying that leftist ideology isn't based on authoritarianism, but instead that's an emergent feature.

Basically, I'm trying to get across that arguing "X is leftist because X has authoritarian features" is not a valid argument. The USSR was left wing because it (tried to or claimed to) use a command economy to promote equity. The command economy itself is not necessarily leftist, though it certainly can be.

I think we actually agree on this, and are sorta talking past each other.

I actually do agree with this, but...

But this pushes Nazism, with it's core beliefs of past german glory and nationalism, as right-wing, IMO.

This I do not see as a valid conclusion.

As I said: Nazism has right-wing elements, but it also has left-wing elements as well. It is, overall, a centrist ideology.

Let me repeat:

Left-wing vs right-wing comes basically to acceptance vs rejection of modernism. Nazism has both, therefore it is both left-wing and right-wing at the same time:

• Nazi acceptance of modernism: scientific racism, socialism, "big state" / "nanny state", industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress, ideas about "ideal" prehistoric past...
• Nazi rejection of modernism: focus on family, "blood and soil"... and that's basically it?

Most of the elements of Nazism are leftist, and in fact, Nazi theory originated from Hitler's dissatisfaction with how current socialists were doing things.

Both Hitler and Mussolini began their movements because previous crop of socialists were not extreme enough for them. That, and they both rejected Communist internationalism.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

In all seriousness though, I would say National Socialism is more directly destructive/evil than Communism. The Commies, through their own ineptitude and ideology, wound up killing approximately a hundred million people, across multiple countries, for the better part of a century. They are evil because they kept hammering the square peg into a round hole even when it took the lives of so many, and shot everyone who noticed the square peg wasn’t going in.

Nazism, with one country, managed to bring European civilisation down in flames in twelve years, and piled up a good thirty million civilian bodies (because I do count the Third Reich’s actions in the Soviet as an extension of the Final Solution/Nazi racial policy). Could you imagine what a Third Reich with Communism’s reach and lifespan could have done?

 

[Aldarion]

In all seriousness though, I would say National Socialism is more directly destructive/evil than Communism. The Commies, through their own ineptitude and ideology, wound up killing approximately a hundred million people, across multiple countries, for the better part of a century. They are evil because they kept hammering the square peg into a round hole even when it took the lives of so many, and shot everyone who noticed the square peg wasn’t going in.

Nazism, with one country, managed to bring European civilisation down in flames in twelve years, and piled up a good thirty million civilian bodies (because I do count the Third Reich’s actions in the Soviet as an extension of the Final Solution/Nazi racial policy). Could you imagine what a Third Reich with Communism’s reach and lifespan could have done?

Thing is that Nazism was never going to have Communism's lifespan, so that misses the point.

You see, Nazism was pretty obviously evil. It was tried once, and nobody sane will ever try it again. Most neo-Nazis are basically edgelords who see that current world is in shit and are pulling to the other extreme.

Communism however is evil masked in humanist rhetoric. And that makes it worse. It has spread further, lasted longer, and is more likely to experience a revival. Even our own politicians are following many Communist tenets and unironically promoting them as the best thing ever... and people are buying that crap.

So yes, National Socialism is more directly destructive than Communism. But Communism is more dangerous, and I'd argue more evil as well, though latter can be debated.

 

[Poe]

Most of the elements of Nazism are leftist, and in fact, Nazi theory originated from Hitler's dissatisfaction with how current socialists were doing things.

No they aren't. Organacism, nationalism, traditionalism and privatization are not leftist

 

[Abhorsen]

Leftist ideology need not be authoritarian, but non-authoritarian leftist ideologies always develop into authoritarian practice anyway.

If you reject reality and decide to create your own, authoritarianism is the only possible outcome.

Agreed.

Kibbutz and communes are not large-scale.

Leftism can work in societies that are not significantly above Dunbar's number. But anything more than that, you have to have something else.

Sorry, missed that word. Doh, my fault. But agreed.

Let me repeat:
Most of the elements of Nazism are leftist, and in fact, Nazi theory originated from Hitler's dissatisfaction with how current socialists were doing things.

Both Hitler and Mussolini began their movements because previous crop of socialists were not extreme enough for them. That, and they both rejected Communist internationalism.

My issue with your list, though, is that some of elements you list as modernity are really just authoritarian, and others weren't modern for Germany, but instead a return to German tradition.

• Nazi acceptance of modernism: scientific racism, socialism, "big state" / "nanny state", industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress, ideas about "ideal" prehistoric past...
• Nazi rejection of modernism: focus on family, "blood and soil"... and that's basically it?

First, the "industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress": That was not leftist at the time. In Germany, that was if anything part of the nationalistic movement that had existed in Germany for quite some time. This was a rejection of the Weimar republics modernity.

More, they weren't socialist, at least not in ideology. Oh, they both believed more or less in a command economy, but the rationale behind it was entirely different. There wasn't supposed to be necessarily equity, even between aryans, but aryans were certainly better than everyone else. There was no illusion that Hitler was simply the first citizen, no equality in pay, etc.

As for the Nanny state, again, we need to look at the motivations. It was a return to Bismark's policies and elevating the state above the individual. So more authoritarian than anything.

 

[Aldarion]

My issue with your list, though, is that some of elements you list as modernity are really just authoritarian, and others weren't modern for Germany, but instead a return to German tradition.

"German tradition" beginning from when, exactly?

First, the "industrialism, militarism, worship of technology and technological progress": That was not leftist at the time. In Germany, that was if anything part of the nationalistic movement that had existed in Germany for quite some time. This was a rejection of the Weimar republics modernity.

Worship of progress is inherently leftist. Just because Weimar republic was even more to the left doesn't make Nazis "not leftist".

More, they weren't socialist, at least not in ideology. Oh, they both believed more or less in a command economy, but the rationale behind it was entirely different. There wasn't supposed to be necessarily equity, even between aryans, but aryans were certainly better than everyone else. There was no illusion that Hitler was simply the first citizen, no equality in pay, etc.

It is in the ideology that they definitely were socialist.

Let's see the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.​
   1. Nobody is allowed to own any land – all land will be owned by the State. Anyone who wants to use the land will have to pay a rent in order to use it – which is what has happened now with the tax on land.​
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.​
   1. People who earn more will pay progressively more tax. What this does is disincentivize people from earning more, ensuring that there is always a wide class of the State-dependent proletariat. The end goal is the destruction of the middle class.​
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.​
   1. You will own nothing and you will be happy. This point would make it impossible to pass one's own property onto children and grandchildren, as everything will belong to the State.​
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.​
   1. Nobody is allowed to oppose the Government by any means, nor to leave it should the oppression become too great. Anyone attempting to do so will have his property taken by the State.​
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.​
   1. Nobody is allowed to do business without permission from the Government, nor to create inheritance without permission of the Government. This would be done by a creation of a national central bank with a central State fiat currency and the State monopoly. This is literally the Fascist so-called "state capitalism".​
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.​
   1. Nobody is allowed to communicate with each other without permission by the State. This is clearly intended to prevent any resistance against the State.​
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.​
   1. All instruments of production are to be owned by the State, and State will organize projects according to the centrally-imposed plans made by the Government.​
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.​
   1. Individual is to be impressed into the State-managed industrial army (good example of such an organization is Organization Todt). Individual has no right to his own being and his freedom; everything he is belongs to the State.​
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.​
   1. There can be no escape from the State. Everyone is to become a slave of the State, with no distinction allowed. This point calls for central planning of agriculture and industries as well as control over the populace.​
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.​
    1. Children will be brainwashed in the State-run schools to serve as perfect little foot soldiers for the Glorious Revolution.​

Now compare this to Hitler's 25 Points:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, officeholding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that a: All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race b: Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language c: Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications or any influence on them and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration

So:
- Nazi Point 7 is basically a combination of Communist Points 7 and 8
- Nazi Point 10 is Communist Point 8
- Nazi Point 11 is Communist Point 8
- Nazi Point 13 is Communist Point 7
- Nazi Point 17 is Communist Point 1 and 3
- Nazi Point 20 is Communist Point 10
- Nazi Point 21 is Communist Point 10
- Nazi Point 25 covers Communist Points 4, 5, 6 and7

And these are only things that are actually 1-for-1. If you consider context and what these things will lead to, they are even more similar.

As for the Nanny state, again, we need to look at the motivations. It was a return to Bismark's policies and elevating the state above the individual. So more authoritarian than anything.

I'd classify Bismarck's policies as socialist / leftist policies, at least economically speaking.

EDIT:

No they aren't. Organacism, nationalism, traditionalism and privatization are not leftist

Nazis weren't traditionalists, quite the opposite in fact. Also, Nazi "privatization" was quite the opposite of the "privatization" as understood today. It was, in fact, socialization.

 

[Poe]

Nazis weren't traditionalists, quite the opposite in fact. Also, Nazi "privatization" was quite the opposite of the "privatization" as understood today. It was, in fact, socialization.

With all due respect you seem to not know what traditionalism is. It doesn't mean, "adheres to every tradition that existed before 1800," which you seem to think. It's a philosophy that believes in a perennial wisdom and a core tenant of it was that western civilization was a corruption and deviation from this, often Christianity was blamed. Fascists, especially Nazis, sought to create a traditionalist society that adheres to what they consider spiritual truths influenced by pagan and eastern beliefs. Things like caste systems and the building of an intellectual warrior class (united through conquest) are "traditional" and it's these things that make them traditionalists. These two things alone are their core principles and are the exact opposite of the core principles of the left.

Further Nazis weren't "progressive" at all. All ideologies of the time were influenced by Nietzsche and thus all of these people, both left and right, believed there was no going back to the feudal, pre-industrial, era and thus new institutions would be needed to provide stability and give people meaning. The Nazis attempting this, instead of being monarchists attempting to fight a long lost battle, doesn't make them left wing.

TL;DR Fascism isn't leftism, it's created as an exact opposite ideology with opposite goals and the only thing they have in common is both are industrial age ideologies.

 

[Aldarion]

With all due respect you seem to not know what traditionalism is. It doesn't mean, "adheres to every tradition that existed before 1800," which you seem to think. It's a philosophy that believes in a perennial wisdom and a core tenant of it was that western civilization was a corruption and deviation from this, often Christianity was blamed. Fascists, especially Nazis, sought to create a traditionalist society that adheres to what they consider spiritual truths influenced by pagan and eastern beliefs. Things like caste systems and the building of an intellectual warrior class (united through conquest) are "traditional" and it's these things that make them traditionalists. These two things alone are their core principles and are the exact opposite of the core principles of the left.

Further Nazis weren't "progressive" at all. All ideologies of the time were influenced by Nietzsche and thus all of these people, both left and right, believed there was no going back to the feudal, pre-industrial, era and thus new institutions would be needed to provide stability and give people meaning. The Nazis attempting this, instead of being monarchists attempting to fight a long lost battle, doesn't make them left wing.

TL;DR Fascism isn't leftism, it's created as an exact opposite ideology with opposite goals and the only thing they have in common is both are industrial age ideologies.

By that logic, Communists were also traditionalists. Communism itself is based on belief in perennial wisdom and that western civilization was corrupted from said wisdom; Communists basically wanted a return to idealized prehistoric society.

So no, what you are saying still doesn't make sense.

And Nazis are not Fascists. Those are two different things.

 

[Abhorsen]

By that logic, Communists were also traditionalists. Communism itself is based on belief in perennial wisdom and that western civilization was corrupted from said wisdom; Communists basically wanted a return to idealized prehistoric society.

But it wasn't. Marx didn't believe that, for one. He though communism would be a new thing (he literally wrote a history method as an example).

And Nazis are not Fascists. Those are two different things.

They're a subset. Fascism means both the Italians under Mussolini, and blood and soil Autacracies, usually European, with a fair bit of command economies and stated hostility to communism.

 

[Navarro]

Nazis weren't traditionalists, quite the opposite in fact. Also, Nazi "privatization" was quite the opposite of the "privatization" as understood today. It was, in fact, socialization.

It was just another element of Gleichstaltung, transferring state-owned assets to the Party as it subsumed the functions of the state into itself.