Right, that's the point: you and I have fundamentally different interpretations of what "economic liberty" means, hence why I argued that it is not a good metric of determining a left or right ideology, since both sides can claim they believe in it and the other doesn't. It was a counter to your previous assertion that economic liberty is a right-wing value/belief. Obviously it is something else that is a determining factor...
Regardless, we obviously disagree on nearly every position you listed; however, we can still switch out "anarcho-capitalist" with "libertarian-capitalist" in my previous argument and the point still stands (although I understand the frustration of someone misclassifying your ideology lol).
Did I ever say that right and left was a clear-cut issue of liberty vs authoritarianism? No, I didn't.
Right, I never said you did, but you did say: "Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House..." which is also wildly incorrect and is the thing I was arguing against.
"Right-wing people support economic liberty..." is not true because it is entirely dependent on how you personally interpret "economic liberty", as I've repeatedly explained. I would argue that left-wing people support economic liberty, and right-wing people don't, so obviously your claim is not objectively true.
"Left-wing people support economic tyranny..." is not true for the exact same reasons: it is entirely dependent on how you personally interpret "economic tyranny". I would easily consider capitalism's system of private property ownership to be economic tyranny, hence I argue that right-wing people support economic tyranny...so again, your claim is not objectively true, and I am merely providing a counterargument to your claims.
"...though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House" is not true because neither Biden nor the Democratic Party are left-wing. They are absolutely warmongers and I, as both a leftist and just as a decent human being, despise them...but they're definitely not leftist by any means. If you're viewing left-right politics in America as "Democrats=left and Republicans=right", then I would argue you are already wildly off-base.
All I said was that Hitler's brand of National Socialism agreed more with the views that, in general, left wing ideologies hold than that, in general, right wing ideologies hold.
And again, to be clear, they called themselves the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" because it sounded positive to the working class voter base, NOT because they were, or had any intentions of being, left-wing. Another easy example is the North Korean state, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; just because a state/party calls themselves something, does NOT mean they actually ARE that thing.
Even further, a state/party can also claim to advocate for things, without actually being that thing, or doing anything to actually become it. Even our politicians here do that, by claiming that they'll do and fight for all these things, just to not actually do anything about it even when they win...it doesn't actually make them that thing. Perhaps the heart of this disagreement is what we each mean by "being a leftist (or x ideology)". I would argue that someone can claim to be leftist, and even advocate for leftist things, but if, in a direct position of power, they do not actually do those things, then they are NOT actually leftist, they are something else and just lying. People can SAY anything, but the actual policies they enact determine their real ideology. It appears as though you determine this differently, so I'm curious to understand your thoughts.
I am not accusing you of agreeing with Adolf Hitler, which seems to be what you think...
No, no, I do understand that neither of us are accusing the other of being aligned with Naziism. We both clearly agree that "left and right-wing ideologies" encompass a wide variety of thoughts and beliefs and systems and whatnot, we simply seem to disagree on where we draw that left/right dividing line, which is what I want to narrow down with this discussion.
"In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits."
This definitely sounds nice, yes. The issue here is obviously that they didn't actually adhere to that, given that the Nazis famously stole vast amounts of artworks, gold, even up to just blatantly stealing the possessions of anyone they sent to the camps, and that's not even including the additional destruction of conquered properties they didn't like, such as the many book burnings. This isn't necessarily a left/right issue, moreso just an authoritarian one.
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)."
I would be all for the nationalization/collectivization of every industry, yes, but again they ended up doing the opposite. Not only did they further privatize their economy by siphoning small businesses into the hands of larger "big business" private owners, but they also actively dissolved and dismantled any worker unions and labor laws, thus further driving the economy away from the hands of the working class (which is fundamentally antithetical to all left-wing ideologies).
These are leftist principles.
Most of these, including the next five bullet points, just sound like basic policies of any social democracy. These policies can exist in different forms within both left or right-wing systems, because none of these policies are exclusive to one or the other. For example, a capitalist nation with universal healthcare is still right-wing, because the core system, capitalism, is fundamentally right-wing. Any number of progressive policies can never make a right-wing system left-wing, without actually changing the system itself. And importantly, while most of these policies are progressive, sure, they didn't even do most of them (not that they would've been good if they did, obviously).
Again the fundamental disagreement here is what characteristic actually distinguishes "left" from "right", of which I argue that the core system in which a society/ideology adheres to is the differentiating metric.
...they are fundamentally left-wing, as most leftist support social programs to help the poor and educate people, and redistribution of wealth and property, as is listed in Hitler's manifesto numerous times...
According to my above argument, someone can believe in an ideology that calls for strong social safety nets and free welfare/healthcare/etc. programs under a capitalist system (Social Democracy)...and that would still be a right-wing ideology, because capitalism is fundamentally right-wing. Literally ANY number of progressive policies under a capitalist system will only ever be right-wing, because it's the system itself that determines left from right, not the additive policies built onto it. That is the entire basis of my argument, actually.
As such, even IF the Nazis had actually enacted the policies they claimed to have cared about (which they didn't), it still would not even make them theoretically leftist, because they still ultimately held and defended and enacted a system of private economic ownership over the means of production, aka capitalism. We can definitely agree that they claimed to be very progressive, but they clearly were not actually such in practice.
