Is fascism far-right?

[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.

[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). 

[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.

[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.

[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.