I don't think that it's "predestination," though. In the case of Nazism, that was based on German nationalism and the belief that Germany was supreme and should hold primacy over other nations. It included the idea that only strong nations should survive (by force of their "will to power") while dominating/subjugating/consuming other races they deemed "weaker." I don't think they actually "denied free will," although they lived by the "fuhrerprinzip" in which Hitler's will prevailed above all other considerations. They believed that Hitler's will and the will of the German people were one and the same.
Theoretically, communism is also based on the idea that they were carrying out "the will of the people." An early revolutionary group in Russia (which carried out the assassination of Alexander II) was called the "Party of the People's Will," as opposed to the Czar's will, who was often viewed as being in power due to "God's will."
That's the key distinction about both systems, which also share something in common with our own democratic system. The will of the government is associated with and (theoretically) derived from the will of the people, not due to the power of "fate" or due to "God's will."
The Nazi perception of good and evil was based in what they thought was "good" for Germany and Germany alone.
I don't get any high from asserting that I'm a good person or an evil person. I don't think I could make any such assertion as a scientific fact, since they wouldn't be scientific facts.
When I think of the time period in which Communism and Nazism rose in prominence and political power, along with the two primary nations associated with those governments (Russia and Germany), I take into consideration the level of national trauma that both nations suffered in the First World War, as well as post-war political upheavals in both countries.
Russia was especially hit hard and suffered through a civil war and Allied intervention. Germany also went through a period of political uncertainty and economic despair which contributed to the growth of both the Nazi and Communist parties in that country.
When people go through that much agony, suffering, instability, trauma, hunger, and pain, there's the resulting anger and hatred which may influence their understanding and perceptions of "good" and "evil." It should also be noted that both Hitler and Stalin came from abusive, dysfunctional families. Stalin was also a student at a seminary and saw much violence and abuse.
Some people might argue that there is little to no "good" in this world and that the only way to really survive is to be just as "evil" as everyone else. I don't know if that's an outright denial of free will, although the will to survive is pretty strong.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not quite clear on what you mean here.
You can try an experiment and pretend to accept as fact, as scientific fact, that you are a good / average / evil person, and see what that would feel like if you accepted it. And it would feel like being a member of the "herrenfolk", or a communist commisar, who knows good and evil as scientific fact.
Of course the logic of free will is inherent in common disourse, and everybody is more or less forced to use common discourse, it is unavoidable, even for communists and nazi's. But people can still have an ideology in which free will is denied, or neglected, in spite of that the logic they use in daily life says that freedom is real. And such an ideology is important in explaining nazi attrocities, because the denial sabotages conscience.
Historian Klaus Fischer also mentions the predeterminative aspects of nazi and communist ideologies as the most lethal aspect in his book about Nazi Germany. So I am not the only one emphasizing this, however Klaus Fischer does not write exactly the same about it as I do, I go much further.
As I explained in post 1, subjectivity works by choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.
Suppose a hare escapes from a fox, the hare has the options run, hop, skip, turn, stand still, attack. Supposing the hare chooses to hop.
Now the question is, what makes the decision turn out "hop" instead of the other options.
The logic of subjectivity states, there must be at least 2 correct answers to this question, any of which answer can be chosen, resulting in an opinion.
For instance we might choose between courage and recklessness. If courage is chosen then the answer is correct, if recklessness is chosen then the answer is correct. Supposing that courage is chosen by expressing our emotions with free will, then the opinion is that courage made the decision turn out hop instead of the other options.
What would be incorrect is if we look at what happens, and by the evidence of what we see force to a conclusion that it is courage which made the decision turn out the way it does. Or any other answer which is forced by evidence, or forced in any other way without the possibility of an alternative answer, would be invalid.
The reason that only chosen answers apply to this issue of what makes a decision turn out the way it does, is because what it is that chooses is by definition free, because it chooses. Facts are obtained forced by evidence. So if we would say it is in fact courage, or in fact some brainchemistry which made the decision turn out the way it did, then we would be equally saying that what is free is forced. By saying it is a matter of fact we are saying it is forced, because facts can only be obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion. And that is a logical error of contradiction, to say it is both free and forced, which is why facts cannot apply.
Facts still do apply to how it is chosen, what the result of the decision is, what the availabe options are, but facts cannot apply to the issue what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.
Choosing is an optimal strategy in predator prey relationship, because of providing surprise in attack, and unpredictability in escape. With choosing there are always several options which can be made the present, and you cannot know which one it is going to be, untill it is chosen. If organisms were calculating everything, or reacting automatically based on environmental input, they would be predictable, and that would in many cases be a less optimal survival strategy. So we can theorize that natural selection selects for a comprehensive capability for choosing, a capability for free will.
