>in the english context... Not a bad source of counter-argumentation. >Looking through a mod/trad prism... Perhaps I should clarify my use of the dimension o

>in the english context... Not a bad source of counter-argumentation. >Looking through a mod/trad prism... Perhaps I should clarify my use of the dimension of "modern"/"traditional" - my intention was not that politics ought to be understood through the lens of those who are against and in favor of the present establishment. It is instead an epistemological distinction: do the certainties which motivate my actions originate in my immediate sensibility and in abstract arguments, or in relationships and in the thoroughly-mediated historicity of my surroundings? What is intended in my use of "modern" is closer to the original sense of "modo" - "at-present", etc. The same goes for my use of "traditional" - I don't mean "old" or "established" as much as I mean "transmitted" or "perennial". The contest between liberalism, communism, and the axis ideologies that culminated in the second World War was one between different versions of modernism, and different visions of a post-war world. You are definitely correct in your observation about the collaboration between NatSocs and communists, though I'm not sure they would have regarded the forces of international capital as "traditional". Status quo certainly, but I imagine, since their thinking was deeply-infected by the ideas of Rousseau and Hobbes (and Marx of course), that they, like most traditionalists, would at least assent to the proposition that capitalism is more fat than meat as far as the transmission of intergenerational wisdom goes. The reasons for doing so might differ among all parties involved, but their is at least an assent to the proposition taken at face value.