Fascism and communism have surface level similarities but they're fundamentally ideologically opposed imo.
Check out this interview with Tom Holland and Jonathan Pageau about the influence of Christianity on 20th century politics https://youtu.be/-qGfkFlZKgA?t=834
American leftism and communism is a sort of "counterfeit" Christianity where they take the principle of concern for the weak, concern for the victim, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and give the state absolute power to bring that result about - often to disastrous effect - instead of leaving it in God's hands.
That's really the fundamental animating principle of all leftism and communism. They think all hierarchies are unjust and don't just want to flatten them, but want to invert them for revenge. (since they're Christian-influenced atheists they don't believe "vengeance is God's alone" they trust the state to take vengeance)
Fascism was a kind of autistic reading of Nietzsche's rejection of Christian morals. They said screw the weak, screw the victims, "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must". The world is a power struggle and might makes right. It's natural for those on the top of the hierarchy to oppress those on the bottom.
Fascism was a knee jerk reaction to the excesses of communist egalitarianism so in a sense it was right-wing and anti-progressive. I'd say it was a modern distortion of traditional right-wing thought. For example monarchists were the original right wing and they were very Christian and accepted the Christian ethic of concern for the weak. They also believed in natural hierarchy but tempered with noblesse oblige and Christian charity. They opposed the communists for wanting to abolish or invert hierarchies but they didn't really like Hitler either because he went too far in the other direction and justified abusing the weak.
Anyway that's why the Liberal Allies and Communist USSR were able to unite so easily against the Fascists. Both were operating on the counterfeit-Christian-leftism ideology and recognized Fascism as the knee-jerk reactionary opposite of it.
One of Hitler's strongest points in Mein Kampf was his advocacy of educational aid for the gifted but loyal and lowborn. He even praised the American system for being more meritocratic than that in Europe. He seemed to recognize that nepotism was a problem with the traditional bourgeois conservatives, and this huge moral defect was driving otherwise loyal German workers to Marxism. Hitler was a leveler of the hierarchy of family connections that was leading to Germany's destruction in the context of universal suffrage and democracy in which Marxism was an option. No one can read Mein Kampf without remembering his very frequent condemnations of the useless bourgeois political parties who did absolutely nothing to stop the growth of Marxism in Europe.
As someone of Slav descent who has benefitted from the American system of somewhat meritocratic college admissions and financial aid, I have some sympathy for his concern for the lowborn Germans. But even here in the US we have people looking down their nose at the lowborn among us, calling us "white trash" openly and unapologetically in public and in front of children. You have to be a real piece of filth to make me sympathize with the famous Slav-hater Hitler, yet there you have it. I got the impression that he didn't want to abuse the weak, as long as they were loyal. But he had zero sympathy for the disloyal, the baselessly arrogant, and those who lacked all community spirit.
Yeah I was just talking in general trends. You're right National Socialism was egalitarian-ish for the in-group but hierarchies between nations and ethnicities.
Except even within the ingroup they had no problem getting rid of the weakest members like the disabled and very low IQ.
In Tom Holland's book Dominion he had an except from Hitler's writings (I don't remember which) where he was talking about how it's madness that Christian charities are helping the dregs of society breed and it's weakening the German race.
Thanks for the civil reply! I really have no problem with his criticism of the charities doing more harm than good as they virtue signal and collect precious donations from the people. Reproduction is a serious matter that far too many people do not take seriously enough, IMHO. We should not be helping anyone to have children that they cannot afford to raise, because we have intelligent but lowborn strivers that need those resources to get them to a position that they belong, in a profession or other high place. This world needs fewer people, and better ones, IMHO.
No I didn’t just get this from Jonah Goldberg or something, and I’m also talking about absolute left vs right rather than local relative terms.
Left vs right comes from the estates general in revolutionary France where the left wing was anti-traditional, anti-monarchy, and anti-aristocracy, but the core element there is anti-traditional. So in absolute terms, fascism isn’t as anti-traditional as communism, but there’s still tons of anti-traditional stuff in there so it’s still left wing just not as left wing as communism.
Traditional in the US at this point is liberal individualism and stuff like the bill of rights. (Around 1776 it would have been left wing but that term wasn’t in use outside of France.) Fascism in the US was definitely left wing relative to that because they’d burn all that traditional individualist stuff for the sake of totalitarian authoritarian collectivist Utopianism. That’s what Brave New World by Aldos Huxley was based on.
Are you getting that that from Jonah Goldberg?
Fascism and communism have surface level similarities but they're fundamentally ideologically opposed imo.
Check out this interview with Tom Holland and Jonathan Pageau about the influence of Christianity on 20th century politics https://youtu.be/-qGfkFlZKgA?t=834
American leftism and communism is a sort of "counterfeit" Christianity where they take the principle of concern for the weak, concern for the victim, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and give the state absolute power to bring that result about - often to disastrous effect - instead of leaving it in God's hands.
That's really the fundamental animating principle of all leftism and communism. They think all hierarchies are unjust and don't just want to flatten them, but want to invert them for revenge. (since they're Christian-influenced atheists they don't believe "vengeance is God's alone" they trust the state to take vengeance)
Fascism was a kind of autistic reading of Nietzsche's rejection of Christian morals. They said screw the weak, screw the victims, "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must". The world is a power struggle and might makes right. It's natural for those on the top of the hierarchy to oppress those on the bottom.
Fascism was a knee jerk reaction to the excesses of communist egalitarianism so in a sense it was right-wing and anti-progressive. I'd say it was a modern distortion of traditional right-wing thought. For example monarchists were the original right wing and they were very Christian and accepted the Christian ethic of concern for the weak. They also believed in natural hierarchy but tempered with noblesse oblige and Christian charity. They opposed the communists for wanting to abolish or invert hierarchies but they didn't really like Hitler either because he went too far in the other direction and justified abusing the weak.
Anyway that's why the Liberal Allies and Communist USSR were able to unite so easily against the Fascists. Both were operating on the counterfeit-Christian-leftism ideology and recognized Fascism as the knee-jerk reactionary opposite of it.
One of Hitler's strongest points in Mein Kampf was his advocacy of educational aid for the gifted but loyal and lowborn. He even praised the American system for being more meritocratic than that in Europe. He seemed to recognize that nepotism was a problem with the traditional bourgeois conservatives, and this huge moral defect was driving otherwise loyal German workers to Marxism. Hitler was a leveler of the hierarchy of family connections that was leading to Germany's destruction in the context of universal suffrage and democracy in which Marxism was an option. No one can read Mein Kampf without remembering his very frequent condemnations of the useless bourgeois political parties who did absolutely nothing to stop the growth of Marxism in Europe.
As someone of Slav descent who has benefitted from the American system of somewhat meritocratic college admissions and financial aid, I have some sympathy for his concern for the lowborn Germans. But even here in the US we have people looking down their nose at the lowborn among us, calling us "white trash" openly and unapologetically in public and in front of children. You have to be a real piece of filth to make me sympathize with the famous Slav-hater Hitler, yet there you have it. I got the impression that he didn't want to abuse the weak, as long as they were loyal. But he had zero sympathy for the disloyal, the baselessly arrogant, and those who lacked all community spirit.
Yeah I was just talking in general trends. You're right National Socialism was egalitarian-ish for the in-group but hierarchies between nations and ethnicities.
Except even within the ingroup they had no problem getting rid of the weakest members like the disabled and very low IQ.
In Tom Holland's book Dominion he had an except from Hitler's writings (I don't remember which) where he was talking about how it's madness that Christian charities are helping the dregs of society breed and it's weakening the German race.
Thanks for the civil reply! I really have no problem with his criticism of the charities doing more harm than good as they virtue signal and collect precious donations from the people. Reproduction is a serious matter that far too many people do not take seriously enough, IMHO. We should not be helping anyone to have children that they cannot afford to raise, because we have intelligent but lowborn strivers that need those resources to get them to a position that they belong, in a profession or other high place. This world needs fewer people, and better ones, IMHO.
not enabling the "underserving poor" is one thing, actively culling them is another
No I didn’t just get this from Jonah Goldberg or something, and I’m also talking about absolute left vs right rather than local relative terms.
Left vs right comes from the estates general in revolutionary France where the left wing was anti-traditional, anti-monarchy, and anti-aristocracy, but the core element there is anti-traditional. So in absolute terms, fascism isn’t as anti-traditional as communism, but there’s still tons of anti-traditional stuff in there so it’s still left wing just not as left wing as communism.
Traditional in the US at this point is liberal individualism and stuff like the bill of rights. (Around 1776 it would have been left wing but that term wasn’t in use outside of France.) Fascism in the US was definitely left wing relative to that because they’d burn all that traditional individualist stuff for the sake of totalitarian authoritarian collectivist Utopianism. That’s what Brave New World by Aldos Huxley was based on.
Good reply. Yeah individualism and liberty would be considered left wing by French revolution standards.
Check out this video on the "political triangle" if you're interested.
It posits there's an "absolutist right" (like the monarchists) a "libertarian right" and "leftism/communism".
The absolutist right and libertarian right don't have much in common except their opposition to leftism.
And it's kinda funny that libertarians and absolutists are constantly accusing each other of being leftists.
To me it makes a lot more sense than the 2 dimensional left/right sliding scale.
oops forgot to include the link
https://youtu.be/Twi_6NgsJWU