Is fascism far-right?

[TheReckoning]

By this, I mean that fascism is the total opposite of what a far-left government looks like.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

That's not how the political spectrum works. For one, plenty of political features don't belong on any sensible left-right spectrum (authoritarianism? electoral laws? judicial system?) which makes it obvious that there is no reason why a far-right government and a far-left government cannot have things in common.

[TheReckoning]

That's not how the political spectrum works. For one, plenty of political features don't belong on any sensible left-right spectrum (authoritarianism? electoral laws? judicial system?) which makes it obvious that there is no reason why a far-right government and a far-left government cannot have things in common.

In that case, if the left-right spectrum ignores huge parts of political structures, can it really be called a political spectrum?

[If my soul was made of stone]

That's not how the political spectrum works. For one, plenty of political features don't belong on any sensible left-right spectrum (authoritarianism? electoral laws? judicial system?) which makes it obvious that there is no reason why a far-right government and a far-left government cannot have things in common.

In that case, if the left-right spectrum ignores huge parts of political structures, can it really be called a political spectrum?

Now you're getting it!

By that reductive definition, however, fascism is the archetypal far-right ideology.

[TheReckoning]

That's not how the political spectrum works. For one, plenty of political features don't belong on any sensible left-right spectrum (authoritarianism? electoral laws? judicial system?) which makes it obvious that there is no reason why a far-right government and a far-left government cannot have things in common.

In that case, if the left-right spectrum ignores huge parts of political structures, can it really be called a political spectrum?

Now you're getting it!

By that reductive definition, however, fascism is the archetypal far-right ideology.

But then the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

[Kuumo]

That's not how the political spectrum works. For one, plenty of political features don't belong on any sensible left-right spectrum (authoritarianism? electoral laws? judicial system?) which makes it obvious that there is no reason why a far-right government and a far-left government cannot have things in common.

In that case, if the left-right spectrum ignores huge parts of political structures, can it really be called a political spectrum?

The left-right spectrum is just a model. Models make concepts easier to understand but inevitably leave out some important aspects.

SNIP

Now you're getting it!

By that reductive definition, however, fascism is the archetypal far-right ideology.

But then the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

There are different ways of being far-right. Fascism and libertarianism could both be considered far-right even though they are polar opposites on many issues. The former is far-right based on cultural/identity issues while the latter is far-right on taxation/spending issues.

[TheReckoning]

SNIP

Now you're getting it!

By that reductive definition, however, fascism is the archetypal far-right ideology.

But then the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

There are different ways of being far-right. Fascism and libertarianism could both be considered far-right even though they are polar opposites on many issues. The former is far-right based on cultural/identity issues while the latter is far-right on taxation/spending issues.

In other words,

the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

[Kuumo]

SNIP

Now you're getting it!

By that reductive definition, however, fascism is the archetypal far-right ideology.

But then the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

There are different ways of being far-right. Fascism and libertarianism could both be considered far-right even though they are polar opposites on many issues. The former is far-right based on cultural/identity issues while the latter is far-right on taxation/spending issues.

In other words,

the term “far-right” is then mostly useless for actually assessing a political ideology.

Yes, using "far-right" alone to describe a political ideology is uninformative. In the context of a specific issue, it could be helpful in comparing two or more people's positions, i.e. abolishing the minimum wage would be further to the right than keeping the status quo on minimum wages.

[Ferguson97]

By the academic definition, fascism is an inherently right-wing ideology.

There can be left-wing dictatorships and left-wing authoritarian regimes, but fascism specifically is right-wing.

[HisGrace]

Fascism doesn't really fit onto the left-right political spectrum in my book. It's certainly not conservative it's a revolutionary ideology about rebuilding society from the ground up to harness the people's collective will or whatever. Fascist states also generally had planned economies. They weren't communists as there were still private businesses, but despite what some edgelords would tell you the only economic philosophies are not communist and right wing. I'd say fascism is socially authoritarian on a broad level (which does not necessarily= conservative) combined with a heavily regulated mixed economy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Fascism is a radical set of politics that often co-opts pillars of conservative support to promote dangerous and irresponsible policies.

Conservatives typically draw strength from (historically anyway), the military, the religious establishment, the economic elite and historically, the upper middle classes (recent realignments aside, historic fears of "the plebs coming to kill them").

Traditional conservative leadership is often risk averse and cautious and certainly against radical upheavals that would imperil their own power or that of their supporters as such. This is what appeals to the above groupings as such in normal circumstances.

However, when said leadership drifts from its core responsibility or its supporters lose faith in said leadership, then the door opens for these groupings to drift towards more populist and radical viewpoints.

Depending on how far down this rabbit hole you go, you get calls for "men of action", criticism of institutional obstruction and eventually outright justifications of usurpation of power for the greater good. Whether or not it goes all the way or is restrained, often falls to the leaders and what sets of limits they impose on themselves for the good of the country and for stability.

It is true that fascism is not Conservatism, but it is vital to understand and dangerous to forget that simply being conservative is not a get out of a jail free card in terms of historic political dynamics and the drift towards radicalization can commence whenever the situation as it exists is no longer suited to the supporters want.

The rise of Trumpism, is precisely because of the failure of movement conservatism to adapt to the situation on the ground. Its ability to grow demonstrates the danger of that movement's continued inability to meet people where they are.

A major problem with American Conservatism, is that it has often engaged in a degree of historical revisionism for the sake of convenience and for the sake of enforcing political purity to appease donors, pressure groups and influencers. By passing off conservatism as a strict and unyielding set of policies as opposed to broad guide, it has left itself incapable of addressing the current problems people are facing. This inflexibility means that it is out of touch and the inevitable target of populist anger once people have had enough.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Conservatives typically draw strength from (historically anyway), the military, the religious establishment, the economic elite and historically, the upper middle classes (recent realignments aside, historic fears of "the plebs coming to kill them").

Nothing to say on the topic at hand, but this seems totally wrong to me. Especially from a historical perspective, the upper middle class/bourgeoisie is usually the group most associated with liberalism, no? At least that's how I've always been taught and what everything I've ever read has said.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Conservatives typically draw strength from (historically anyway), the military, the religious establishment, the economic elite and historically, the upper middle classes (recent realignments aside, historic fears of "the plebs coming to kill them").

Nothing to say on the topic at hand, but this seems totally wrong to me. Especially from a historical perspective, the upper middle class/bourgeoisie is usually the group most associated with liberalism, no? At least that's how I've always been taught and what everything I've ever read has said.

Depends on the century in question, the location and their position relative to the establishment (part of or working to overthrow it). 

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Conservatives typically draw strength from (historically anyway), the military, the religious establishment, the economic elite and historically, the upper middle classes (recent realignments aside, historic fears of "the plebs coming to kill them").

Nothing to say on the topic at hand, but this seems totally wrong to me. Especially from a historical perspective, the upper middle class/bourgeoisie is usually the group most associated with liberalism, no? At least that's how I've always been taught and what everything I've ever read has said.

Depends on the century in question, the location and their position relative to the establishment (part of or working to overthrow it). 

So members of the establishment (however you define it) can't be liberals? What if they are avowedly liberal men and women striving for an avowedly liberal cause, such as the abolition of slavery or the expansion of the suffrage?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Conservatives typically draw strength from (historically anyway), the military, the religious establishment, the economic elite and historically, the upper middle classes (recent realignments aside, historic fears of "the plebs coming to kill them").

Nothing to say on the topic at hand, but this seems totally wrong to me. Especially from a historical perspective, the upper middle class/bourgeoisie is usually the group most associated with liberalism, no? At least that's how I've always been taught and what everything I've ever read has said.

Depends on the century in question, the location and their position relative to the establishment (part of or working to overthrow it). 

So members of the establishment (however you define it) can't be liberals? What if they are avowedly liberal men and women striving for an avowedly liberal cause, such as the abolition of slavery or the expansion of the suffrage?

Oh put a sock in it Wallace, we are not going to turn this thread into Party Flipped thread 402515151.

There is just so many assumptions, so many words put in my mouth and so much years of annoyance and rather than succumb to  my incessant urge to fight back and correct all the various mistakes that have led you to yet another incensed attempt a faux outrage over something that challenges your identitarian historicism, I will decline to fall for the trap.

[lfromnj]

I guess the best way to define a linear 1 dimension political spectrum would be the hierarchies created

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Insofar as "far-right" has ever been defined as anything, sure. As far as actual ideological similarity or dissimilarity? Honestly, no. I just don't think there's any real justification for saying so. Fascism comes from a lot of similar ideological roots to socialism in the whole sphere of modernist politics, and has not exactly looked entirely different in practice in the past either.

[parochial boy]

It depends on how you think of the political spectrum. If you consider it in regards to things like order, hierarchy, equality, the desire to preserve or return to some idealised social structure (one of the defining features of fascism is the idealisation of a mythologised historical greatness), the Fascism can only be understood as being at the very right end of the political spectrum.

If you view it as being somehow around "how much the state intervenes in the economy", well, you are wrong. Or to put it in other terms, you are suddenly considering that Proudhon and Bakhunin are right wingers; or that the literal right wingers of the French revolution as in the people who literally created the concept of what right wing is - were left wing because they didn't like capitalism. (cf "Louis XIV was a socialist").

Or in other words, Fascism can only be understood as a far right ideology

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Egyptian Old Kingdom was the most left-wing polity in human history.

[TheReckoning]

It depends on how you think of the political spectrum. If you consider it in regards to things like order, hierarchy, equality, the desire to preserve or return to some idealised social structure (one of the defining features of fascism is the idealisation of a mythologised historical greatness), the Fascism can only be understood as being at the very right end of the political spectrum.

Isn’t fascism more revolutionary than reactionary, if not in theory, then in practice?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is the Ur-Far Right ideology, the ideology that defines the term and by which we make judgments about other ideologies, movements and parties. Any claim to the contrary is obfuscation, and usually bloody suspicious obfuscation if you ask me.

[KaiserDave]

It depends on how you think of the political spectrum. If you consider it in regards to things like order, hierarchy, equality, the desire to preserve or return to some idealised social structure (one of the defining features of fascism is the idealisation of a mythologised historical greatness), the Fascism can only be understood as being at the very right end of the political spectrum.

If you view it as being somehow around "how much the state intervenes in the economy", well, you are wrong. Or to put it in other terms, you are suddenly considering that Proudhon and Bakhunin are right wingers; or that the literal right wingers of the French revolution as in the people who literally created the concept of what right wing is - were left wing because they didn't like capitalism. (cf "Louis XIV was a socialist").

Or in other words, Fascism can only be understood as a far right ideology

This is essentially my view. Very good point.

[S019]

This is an obvious yes, I don't really see why it's generated so much debate

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The second option in this poll should be labeled "wrong".

[HisGrace]

It depends on how you think of the political spectrum. If you consider it in regards to things like order, hierarchy, equality, the desire to preserve or return to some idealised social structure (one of the defining features of fascism is the idealisation of a mythologised historical greatness), the Fascism can only be understood as being at the very right end of the political spectrum.

Isn’t fascism more revolutionary than reactionary, if not in theory, then in practice?

Most the people in this thread aren't interested in giving this serious thought.