Is fascism far-right?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.