Originally Posted by nmculbreth
Fascism and Nazism were reactionary movements that grew out of the social and economic discontent following WWI in Europe. Reactionaryism is by definition a right wing ideology, albeit the farthest right on the political spectrum.
To put it another way: Stalinism is to liberalism as Nazism / Fascism is to conservatism.
Attempting to lump Nazism and Fascism in with Stalinism and call it an extreme left wing position is unfair and historically inaccurate.
Or not. Nazism and fascism are similar to Communism in that they sought to tear down existing social structures and replace them with a new social order. In the one instance, it was to replace, in theory, the aristocratic elite with a social structure based on the ascendance of the proletariate, in the other, placing power in the hands of a perceived racially superior group. Both movements engaged in the confiscation of land and wealth from the elite to meet their goals, although the fascists would stop short of confiscating property from those who joined the party and towed the line on the party's social programs. While the fascists rejected Marxism, they also rejected liberal economic policies as well. Fascists would have no problem with taxing the rich and often railed against banks and other lenders as enemies of the people.
Again the problem is viewing these movements in a classical left-right linear spectrum, originally developed to classify the political movements of post revolution France. In that method of classification, the right represents conservative movements intent on preserving or restoring existing social orders based on social class. Most political scientists no longer use that method of classification to describe political movements and use other methods. Using the linear right-left spectrum today is like using only batting average to evaluate hitters in baseball. It's a flawed tool for evaluation that leads to misperceptions.
I find it interesting that Rojo brings up the Thule Society and its membership including intellectuals and aristocrats. While that is true, it is also true for the communists as well as non-communist socialist movements. Look at the early leaders of communist and socialist movements and you see a list of intellectuals from wealthy and aristocratic backgrounds. Remember that most workers in the 1800s and early 1900s were often functionally illiterate, having left school at a young age to go to work. Parties were lead by educated elites with little actual participation from members of the working class. There was a scene in the German biopic about German communist leader Rosa Luxemburg in which Rosa is trying to organize a group of workers and has to read and explain the Communist Manifesto to the workers because they can't do it themselves.