Resolved: Nazism is not a far-left ideology

FrameworkThere are two reasons to accept my burdens analysis.The first is a textual link to the resolution. If Nazism proves to be at any point on the spectrum besides far-left, then it is not far-left and the resolution is true. It does not matter is Nazism is moderate, far-right, right-winged, or even left-winged: as long as Nazism is not far-left, then according to the resolution, I win.The second reason is contextual. As the instigator of the debate, I have the right to set burdens as I please. This was something that I made clear when I noted that anybody who accepted the debate accepted the terms and conditions that I set for it. I did not force my opponent to accept the debate; that was his choice, not mine. If he did not agree with the burdens that I had the right to set, then he should not have accepted the challenge.CaseMy only burden is to prove that Nazism is not a far-left ideology. Far-left is defined as "the highest degree of leftist positions among left-wing politics." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Left-winged politics traditionally pushes for egalitarianism, and far-left positions advocate immediate, radical fundamental change to push for a classless, egalitarian society. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). Far-left politics is distinct from far-right politics, which involves, ". . . anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[1] At the most extreme, far-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2] Far right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, far-left politics pushes for equality while far-right politics stands against it.My sole contention is that Nazism is more in line with a far-right movement than a far-left movement. First, Nazism pursued oppression and genocide on the basis of alleged inferiority. Because the Nazis conducted ethnic cleansing against Jewish individuals and members of non-Aryan races, it perpetrated genocide against a group that it deemed inferior. In addition, Nazism was a violent, anti-communist and anti-leftist movement. "Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf Hitler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes." Moreover, leftist mvoements aruge against property rights and promote collectivism, which was rejected by Nazism. "Nazism promoted an economic system that supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent while rejecting universal egalitarianism, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction.[15][16] The Nazis' official economic policies were designed to exclusively benefit Aryans while deliberately excluding non-Aryans. In Nazi Germany and its controlled territories during World War II, the Nazis supported völkisch equality that officially ascribed collective racial equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and full legal rights to those able people of German blood or related Aryan blood but deliberately excluded people outside of this definition who were regarded as inferior and rejected the conception of universal equality of individuals." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). Negative Case The entirety of his first contention rests on the idea that social change is far-left. The problem with this analysis is that there is a distinction between progressive social change and regressive social change. Progressive social change, or leftist social change, advocates advancing towards an egalitarian, classless society in which everyone is absolutely equal. Regressive social change, which is in line with far-right politics, however, advocates returning to a glorious era of the past. The Nazis were clearly advocating regressive social change, as demonstrated by the fact that Hitler resurrected the Aryan religion, argued that Germany had fallen from grace because of outsiders and the Jews, that the some races were inferior to others and deserved to be subjugated. All of this is antithetical to far-left beliefs.I have three responses to his second contention. First, turn the fascism argument because that simply means that Nazism is neither far-right nor far-left. If it is not far-left, then I win the round based on the burdens that I clearly established when I instigated the debate. Second, he is assuming that state control of economy means that a movement is far-left. The problem with this analysis is that before capitalism, or modern conservatism, state-control of the economy was generally common in the form of mercantilism. This means that state-control of the economy is not necessarily a left-winged argument because regression can also involve state control of the economy. Finally, extend the in-case argument that Nazism created a society based on economic classes that depended on merit, private property, and freedom of contracts. This proves that Nazism allowed for a more capitalist system than a Marxist system of controlling the means of production in order to advance equality.