Is fascism far-right?

[TheReckoning]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.”

[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.

[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”?

[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.