The truth is that there are characteristics that link Nazism to the left and to the right, and the mixture can't quite be characterized as either. Part of the problem is also that since Hitler and Stalin, both the right and the left want to appear less amenable to state control and domination of industry and society than they were in the Europe of Hitler's day. Similarly, one would find racial and eugenic ideas much more popular across the Western political spectrum in 1932 than in 2002.
More interesting would be a discussion of Peikoff. Randian individualist by trade and conviction, yet he does manage to be very collectivist about things that concern him deeply, like the Middle East. Don't Randianism and other extreme forms of libertarianism tend to break down in this way when issues of real concern to people are addressed?
I am not sure what you mean.To me Rand was only one writer among many.On the issue of real concern to people; I think the market does a better job than government and freedom is good for all.
"Nazism was, as the name implies, a synthesis of nationalism, socialism and racialism. It didn't fit the standard pigeonholes of that time or of ours. Nazism became associated with the right because of Hitler's fight against the Communists and the rightwing support it brought him. International Communism being "left" the tendency was to put national socialism on the "right." But it would be hard to conceive of Nazism had there been no Bolshevik revolution. "
Yes it was a synthesis but I think the ideas were fodder for power.I do not think they were really the opposite of the communists on the issue of nationalism since both sides agreed on competeing for world domination.The nationalism of the nazis was really the creation of a "new world order" under their thumb.The national socialism of Germany would be the world itself.