Is fascism far-right?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

[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?

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

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

If the definition of conservatism is “opposing change” then is there really such thing as a conservative revolution?

That definition is often used by progressives who claim that conservatives have never been on the right side of history- after all, opposing change meant keeping slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and maintaining Jim Crow.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

If the definition of conservatism is “opposing change” then is there really such thing as a conservative revolution?

That definition is often used by progressives who claim that conservatives have never been on the right side of history- after all, opposing change meant keeping slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and maintaining Jim Crow.

It isn't, though. "Those progressives" are wrong, as I have argued extensively over on the History board: were the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt conservatives? (Clearly not.)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I didn't read the thread but yes, of course it is, you tiresome hacks.

[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?

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

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

If the definition of conservatism is “opposing change” then is there really such thing as a conservative revolution?

That definition is often used by progressives who claim that conservatives have never been on the right side of history- after all, opposing change meant keeping slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and maintaining Jim Crow.

It isn't, though. "Those progressives" are wrong, as I have argued extensively over on the History board: were the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt conservatives? (Clearly not.)

Then what is the definition? Why is that other definition so pervasive?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

If the definition of conservatism is “opposing change” then is there really such thing as a conservative revolution?

That definition is often used by progressives who claim that conservatives have never been on the right side of history- after all, opposing change meant keeping slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and maintaining Jim Crow.

It isn't, though. "Those progressives" are wrong, as I have argued extensively over on the History board: were the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt conservatives? (Clearly not.)

Then what is the definition? Why is that other definition so pervasive?

It pervades because it is simplistic and for those who want easy answers to support their confirmation bias and identitarian politics, it is right up their alley and that is how you get "conservatives opposed everything good in history".  Like all generalizations it suffers from the obvious problem of being wrong and an example of circular logic. "Conservatives oppose change, therefore all change was opposed by conservatives".

Status quo based conservatism has no basis in philosophical underpinnings as such. It can be applied anywhere, to anything to describe a resistance to change and reform. Communist hardliners opposed to Glasnost are thus "conservative" because they oppose Gorbachev's changes, but they are trying to preserve hard line Soviet Communism.

Once you accept some level of "philosophical basis" shall we say, then it gets much more complicated because contrary to the desperate indoctrination of the American Right in the last several decades to say "this is conservatism, everything else is liberalism or socialism and if you deviate you are a traitor who needs to be shot, hung, drawn and quartered", there is not one form of ideological conservatism to be had. However it is rather hard to enforce conformity of thought when you acknowledge these alternatives exist.

This is why Libertarians were ostracized for many years, why John McCain was labeled a "Rockefeller" by a random caller on C-span because he was "Pro-Choice". Of course those who aren't trying to preserve some sense of identity through negative integration and thus are capable of independent analysis and free thought will easily denote that Rockefeller and Goldwater were both pro-choice, abortion was not what divided them and John McCain was at least nominally pro-life. You also have select examples of Rockefeller Republicans like Richard Schweiker, who was anti-abortion and pro-gun.

Worse still and furthermore to facilitate the above group think, issue position themselves have become shoehorned as "principles" that cannot be deviated from lest you become "One of them ain't ya" followed by the hail of gun fire. Issue litmus tests like abortion, guns and the like take the place of generalized principles, values and guidelines for appropriate behavior. This is arguably how we got to 1/6, that and the years of compounded incompetence by the Republican establishment that created a monster that was beyond anyone's control.

To ask what the appropriate definition of conservatism is, you would need to specify which field of conservatism you had in mind.

In general terms I would say the most widely acceptable definition of Conservatism as a generalized concept would be the principles extolled by Edmund Burke in his "Reflections on the French Revolution".
    - Maintaining traditional power structures, institutions and division of power
    - Reform through legal and responsible means in a slow and methodical fashion
    - Maintaining of societal stability and social hierarchy
    - Opposition to radicalism
    - Responsible Finance (short line about public debt but its there)

Under this definition, slave owners would count as conservatives during period of the country's founding through to about the 1840s/1850s, however once the politics of plantation owners radicalizes (key word) into the realm of hypocrisy, disrupting traditional power structures (states rights with Fugitive Slave Law and then Dred Scott) and ultimately of course, secession, they would thus cede the claim to the title of being conservatives, becoming reactionary, radicals or what have you.

Alternatively, a moderately anti-slavery position could very well fit within this conservative context and definition, with someone becoming alarmed by say Dred Scott and then secession to oppose the slave power and vote for Lincoln (who was more moderate on opposing slavery than his Republican opponents). Leading up to and during the Civil War, this arguably is where a lot of North and non-radical Republican sentiment lay and it was to this crowd that Lincoln was trying to coax towards accepting and embracing abolition "for the good of the war effort and the good of the country" via the amendment process (Reform through a legal process, to restore/maintain societal stability/traditional institutions).

For a more recent example, the supporters of Donald Trump, would cede claim to the title of conservatism the minute they broke the law and entered the Capitol building. The reason being is conservatism is built on responsible action, guided by reason and conducted through legal means to achieve stability and thwart radicalism. Conservatives cannot be radicals or engage in extra legal actions to try and force an outcome based on flawed and false information.

A good way to think about this is that while conservatism is on the right, not everyone on the right is a conservative. It is possible for conservatives to radicalize and we have seen that happen a number of times. Just because they radicalize to the point of abandoning core tenets like rule of law and opposition to radicals, doesn't mean they are no longer on the right, it just means that they have abandoned the core tenets of conservatism.

[AtorBoltox]

There is a debate in academia over whether Fascism is an inherently reactionary or revolutionary ideology, with the consensus seeming to be that it is a strange fusion of both. Fascism differs significantly from traditional conservatism but there is no dispute that is a far-right ideology. People who point to state enterprises in Fascist states as evidence of left wing tendencies are making the mistake of assuming Fascists care about economic theory. They do not, the economy is merely a means to an end of bolstering the national community.

[TheReckoning]

There is a debate in academia over whether Fascism is an inherently reactionary or revolutionary ideology, with the consensus seeming to be that it is a strange fusion of both. Fascism differs significantly from traditional conservatism but there is no dispute that is a far-right ideology. People who point to state enterprises in Fascist states as evidence of left wing tendencies are making the mistake of assuming Fascists care about economic theory. They do not, the economy is merely a means to an end of bolstering the national community.

This could be said by any Marxist, just delete the word “national.”

[AtorBoltox]

There is a debate in academia over whether Fascism is an inherently reactionary or revolutionary ideology, with the consensus seeming to be that it is a strange fusion of both. Fascism differs significantly from traditional conservatism but there is no dispute that is a far-right ideology. People who point to state enterprises in Fascist states as evidence of left wing tendencies are making the mistake of assuming Fascists care about economic theory. They do not, the economy is merely a means to an end of bolstering the national community.

This could be said by any Marxist, just delete the word “national.”

No, it could not. Fascism is not interested in the economic positions of individuals or social groups within the economy, which obviously is the entire basis of Marxism. There is no serious or coherent Fascist economic theory. The economy is to be sub-ordinate to the cultural/racial community.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is a debate in academia over whether Fascism is an inherently reactionary or revolutionary ideology, with the consensus seeming to be that it is a strange fusion of both. Fascism differs significantly from traditional conservatism but there is no dispute that is a far-right ideology. People who point to state enterprises in Fascist states as evidence of left wing tendencies are making the mistake of assuming Fascists care about economic theory. They do not, the economy is merely a means to an end of bolstering the national community.

This could be said by any Marxist, just delete the word “national.”

Size and scope of government, as well as support for government intervention into the economy is also a poor litmus test for defining left versus right as historically it was not a key dividing line and only became so in the 20th century. Even to this day, the right still supports larger government in the areas that it cares about and opposes it where it is inconvenient or not beneficial to them.

This simplistic narrative is the basis of such logical fallacies as the "Socialist Louis XIV".

Economic policy is historically dictated by the needs and desires of the special interests that back a given side and this why when push comes to shove, you see both parties deviate from their standard lines so easily in some areas and not so much in others. This is why the 1790s Federalists supported a stronger central government and protectionist tariffs and the 1810s Federalists were literally caught dead supporting free trade and secessionism. The reason being is their merchant backers got squeezed by the embargo of 1807 and the War of 1812.

There are a lot of narratives floating around regarding Nazi economic policy. It was not consistent and it was not big or small government. As Indy Neidel put it, "Not socialist, not capitalist, just plain criminal".  Basically, the Nazi economic model boiled down to extortion writ large, with favored entities getting favorable treatment including the large cartels who found labor laws and regulations reduced as well as their taxes (provided they did that they wanted), meanwhile the vast majority of business and including small business was heavily taxed and regulated.

Capitalism itself is a derivative of classical liberalism (hence why modern capitalist policy is often called "Neoliberalism") and the Nazi's regarded both Capitalism and Communism as the work of Jewish internationalists to take over the world and thus opposed both free market capitalism and Communism. Also before one gets hung up over the presence of "Socialist" in the name, it was purely for marketing and branding. The Nazis started out as a fringe antisemitic party of upper middle class types who feared the rise of communism and marxism among the working classes and sought to coopt that energy behind antisemitism, and this is why it branded itself as a socialist workers party. Its all marketing and sales by a group of extremist con artists and crooks.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

Most people have better things to do than to re-litigate settled issues for the convenience of certain ideological groups. "Was the Soviet Union far-left?" and "is fascism far-right?" are only questions because some people would feel more comfortable if all the baddies were on one side of the fence, specifically the opposite side of the fence.

As for the substance of the inquiry, obviously there is such a thing as a conservative revolution.

If the definition of conservatism is “opposing change” then is there really such thing as a conservative revolution?

That definition is often used by progressives who claim that conservatives have never been on the right side of history- after all, opposing change meant keeping slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and maintaining Jim Crow.

It isn't, though. "Those progressives" are wrong, as I have argued extensively over on the History board: were the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt conservatives? (Clearly not.)

Yes? (Maybe not "conservatives", but I see no argument against "conservative")

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In any case, fascism was reaction made modern; an ideology for the age of nationalism, parties, mass politics, and industrial warfare.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

In any case, fascism was reaction made modern; an ideology for the age of nationalism, parties, mass politics, and industrial warfare.

Just yesterday I was thinking for entirely unrelated reasons about how fascism is reaction appropriating modern, contemporary or even futuristic aesthetics and means [and therefore a very tacky form of reaction]. I mean, the artistic movement literally known as Futurism was - perhaps unfortunately - seminal to the development of Fascism.*

*Russian Futurists went in a rather opposite direction - although our horseshoe theorists would say there is no difference - but of course I am talking about the original Italian movements here.

[Coolface’s actual roommate]

If fascism ever comes to America it will come in the name of liberalism

[The Mikado]

Mussolini explicitly renounced his former socialism in and talked quite extensively that socialism's skepticism of World War I was handicapping Italian national glory. His rise to power is characterized by years of low scale civil war in which fascist squads would violently attack and kill Italian Communists who were in the midst of an abortive attempt at revolution. The King and the Italian establishment made peace with Mussolini's rise as better than socialism, and when fascists murdered the leader of the Italian socialist party, indicating Mussolini's government was dictatorial, the older right did not desert him.

At every step of his rise, Mussolini labels himself an enemy of the left, in the most violent ways. He made peace with the old established order, including the king, and even undoes the older Italian state's amti-clericalism by making peace with the Church and Pope after six decades of Papal condemnation of Italy's very existence. Cozying up to monarchy and the Catholic Church? Smashing labor unions? Imperialist racial wars abroad? Foundation of power is shooting Communists all over Italy in political violence? Of COURSE fascism is a right wing movement. It self-consciously identified as one and saw its foes as the left.

I really feel that the Italian Fascist movement should be the center of this conversation. The first self-consciously fascist movement and the first movement to gain success should by definition be the standard fascism is analyzed by.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No.

[Samof94]

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

Franco killed the communists after he took over Spain.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think part of what makes people so intractable on this question is a conflation of the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" that simply isn't always the case. "Conservative", as this otherwise unrelated FC thread discusses, just has to do with supporting some (real or putative) element of the current or accepted or traditional way of doing things against efforts to change it. I identify as a "conservative" with respect to things like the tradition of local participatory democracy in the small-town Northeast, but also with respect to basic social solidarity principles that used to be taken for granted before the me-generation revolution of the late 70s and 80s. "Right-wing", on the other hand, is a term with much more aggressive ideological content having to do with a support for reifying and expanding certain types of social and economic hierarchies. Looking at it this way, fascism is clearly right-wing despite not being particularly conservative (although even this taxonomy runs into edge-case regimes that had both fascist and ultraconservative tendencies within them, such as Franco's Spain or ultranationalist Japan).

No.

Are you going to elaborate?

[Marx]

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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

[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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

[Marx]

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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

Hitler was never going to institute a proletarian revolution. The "progressive" elements of the Nazi Regime reflect what Marx calls "feudal socialism" in The Communist Manifesto , of a kind with Sociology For The South and other reactionary anti capitalist forms. The indication seems to be that a post-war society would have been conservative of a feudal order, with the SS Order Of Twelve established as a ruling elite over a society trying to ape pre capitalist social formations.

[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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

Hitler was never going to institute a proletarian revolution. The "progressive" elements of the Nazi Regime reflect what Marx calls "feudal socialism" in The Communist Manifesto , of a kind with Sociology For The South and other reactionary anti capitalist forms. The indication seems to be that a post-war society would have been conservative of a feudal order, with the SS Order Of Twelve established as a ruling elite over a society trying to ape pre capitalist social formations.

A revolution doesn’t have to be proletarian to be a revolution. Marxists and the left do not have a monopoly on revolution, and to define in such a way that they do makes the term rather meaningless.

Also, what is the “SS Order of Twelve”?

[Marx]

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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

Hitler was never going to institute a proletarian revolution. The "progressive" elements of the Nazi Regime reflect what Marx calls "feudal socialism" in The Communist Manifesto , of a kind with Sociology For The South and other reactionary anti capitalist forms. The indication seems to be that a post-war society would have been conservative of a feudal order, with the SS Order Of Twelve established as a ruling elite over a society trying to ape pre capitalist social formations.

A revolution doesn’t have to be proletarian to be a revolution. Marxists and the left do not have a monopoly on revolution, and to define in such a way that they do makes the term rather meaningless.

Also, what is the “SS Order of Twelve”?

Of course, you now.have to admit that the Nazis were not really socialist - their most extreme wing was simply feudal nostalgists.

The Order of Twelve were Himmler's handpicked lieutenants. They sat at Wewelsberg in court like Arthurian knights. They would have been strong contenders for leadership in a highly successful postwar situation.

[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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

Hitler was never going to institute a proletarian revolution. The "progressive" elements of the Nazi Regime reflect what Marx calls "feudal socialism" in The Communist Manifesto , of a kind with Sociology For The South and other reactionary anti capitalist forms. The indication seems to be that a post-war society would have been conservative of a feudal order, with the SS Order Of Twelve established as a ruling elite over a society trying to ape pre capitalist social formations.

A revolution doesn’t have to be proletarian to be a revolution. Marxists and the left do not have a monopoly on revolution, and to define in such a way that they do makes the term rather meaningless.

Also, what is the “SS Order of Twelve”?

Of course, you now.have to admit that the Nazis were not really socialist - their most extreme wing was simply feudal nostalgists.

The Order of Twelve were Himmler's handpicked lieutenants. They sat at Wewelsberg in court like Arthurian knights. They would have been strong contenders for leadership in a highly successful postwar situation.

I never claimed that the Nazis were socialists- my whole point is that you do don’t have to left-wing to be revolutionary. But they weren’t nostalgists either, with their emphasis on technology and industrialism (with respect for nature/rural living as well) not fitting into any feudal way of thinking.

[Marx]

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?

Hitler had the revolutionary elements in the SA suppressed forcibly.

No, he didn’t. When Hitler ordered the Night of Long Knives to take out the socialist wing and others of the NSDAP, this wasn’t due so much to a difference in ideology, but rather a difference in priority. Ernst Röhm, along with other members of the NSDAP, wanted the revolution to begin immediately, whereas Hitler and Co. wanted to prioritize winning the war first before radical changes could begin within Germany. This created tension that Hitler didn’t want as it weakened his power and led to a divided NSDAP, leading him to order the Night of Long Knives. However, the revolutionary component of Nazism was there from the beginning to the end. Hitler reflected that the name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was inaccurate due to its reference to socialism, saying that he wished it was named the “Social Revolutionary Party”  to better describe his political movement.

Hitler was never going to institute a proletarian revolution. The "progressive" elements of the Nazi Regime reflect what Marx calls "feudal socialism" in The Communist Manifesto , of a kind with Sociology For The South and other reactionary anti capitalist forms. The indication seems to be that a post-war society would have been conservative of a feudal order, with the SS Order Of Twelve established as a ruling elite over a society trying to ape pre capitalist social formations.

A revolution doesn’t have to be proletarian to be a revolution. Marxists and the left do not have a monopoly on revolution, and to define in such a way that they do makes the term rather meaningless.

Also, what is the “SS Order of Twelve”?

Of course, you now.have to admit that the Nazis were not really socialist - their most extreme wing was simply feudal nostalgists.

The Order of Twelve were Himmler's handpicked lieutenants. They sat at Wewelsberg in court like Arthurian knights. They would have been strong contenders for leadership in a highly successful postwar situation.

I never claimed that the Nazis were socialists- my whole point is that you do don’t have to left-wing to be revolutionary. But they weren’t nostalgists either, with their emphasis on technology and industrialism (with respect for nature/rural living as well) not fitting into any feudal way of thinking.

The Nazis, not being materialists, thought they could box capitalist technological advances into feudal social patterns. There was a strong agrarian component centered around Walther Darré, and the further development of capitalism would surely have been restricted had they succeeded in imposing a pseudo feudal order on top of it.