Is fascism really far-right? [Yes and No]

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/orwellian-doublethink-nationalize-t102750/index.html


Neoliberal denunciations of public regulation and taxation as "socialism" is really an attack on classical political economy – the "original" liberalism whose ideal was to free society from the parasitic legacy of feudalism. A truly socialized Treasury policy would be for banks to lend for productive purposes that contribute to real economic growth, not merely to increase overhead and inflate asset prices by enough to extract interest charges. Fiscal policy would aim to minimize rather than maximizing the price of home ownership and doing business, by basing the tax system on collecting the rent that is now being paid out as interest. Shifting the tax burden off wages and profits onto rent and interest was the core of classical political economy in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as the Progressive Era and Social Democratic reform movements in the United States and Europe prior to World War I.

I wonder if the Political Compass shift to the economic "right" occurred much earlier than the advent of "neoliberalism." With Marxist political economy to its left, classical political economy had neo-classical political economy and Austrian political economy, both being characterized with fetishes for "price" as a smokescreen for private ownership of economic rent, to its right. The OI poster above called fascism "the hard center" (as opposed to typical characterizations of it being "far-right").

Note, however, the bolded text, "Social-Democratic reform movements... prior to World War I." With that war, the center ground of classical political economy gave in to pressures from neo-classical political economy, and since then most "democratic socialists", all "social-democrats," and all national "populists" alike operated within that political economy.

Would it be more proper, then, to characterize fascism as either the "hard center" of neo-classical political economy or even the "hard left" of that parasitic rentiers' political economy, keeping in mind the center position of classical political economy?

[Dimentio]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/orwellian-doublethink-nationalize-t102750/index.html



I wonder if the Political Compass shift to the economic "right" occurred much earlier than the advent of "neoliberalism." With Marxist political economy to its left, classical political economy had neo-classical political economy and Austrian political economy, both being characterized with fetishes for "price" as a smokescreen for private ownership of economic rent, to its right. The OI poster above called fascism "the hard center" (as opposed to typical characterizations of it being "far-right").

Note, however, the bolded text, "Social-Democratic reform movements... prior to World War I." With that war, the center ground of classical political economy gave in to pressures from neo-classical political economy, and since then most "democratic socialists", all "social-democrats," and all national "populists" alike operated within that political economy.

Would it be more proper, then, to characterize fascism as either the "hard center" of neo-classical political economy or even the "hard left" of that parasitic rentiers' political economy, keeping in mind the center position of classical political economy?

Read on "Japanese Right-wing Military Socialism".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Care to elaborate?

[Raúl Duke]

I think the distinction of "left" and "right" originally had to do with those who wanted change and those who supported to an extant the "way things are" or the old regime. So, back then (French Revolution) the left and right had to do more with radicals (left) and reactionaries (right).

If we look at the classical definition we could characterize fascism to the right if we take into account that it still serves to preserve capitalism (status quo) yet it could also be inversely argued (I bet this side would be argued by fascists) that fascism is about "change", that things do change when you go from a bourgeois republic to fascism, etc. Also, perhaps, the categories "left" and "right" are somewhat arbitrary/hard to define. One thing could be said, what passes mostly for fascism these days (white nationalism) seems to have more reactionary (i.e. "back to the past", they appeal to the "good old days") overtones then the fascism of the 20s-30s (which was, I think, influenced by "futurism", at least Italian fascismo was.) even if they did indeed make appeals to "the greatness of the past." Although I could be wrong (I'm no scholar on fascism, falangists, or national socialism) though.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Using the simple, inaccurate left-right scale it is considered far right. One of the main aspects of Fascism is extreme nationalism. This has probably been considered far right in Fascism because of the desire to return to the glories of Ancient Rome(Mussolini's Italy). This is seen as reactionary as it's almost like returning to the past in a way. Also, Fascism does allow a Free market, but it must serve the state before anything else. That's also right. And finally Fascism has an extreme hierachy, labelling other races/cultures as "inferior". Us on the other hand obviously believe in pretty much perfect equality. However, if you're using the two dimension scale Fascism would be considered extreme Authoritarian and moderate economic right. The authoritarian part would obviously come in because of the whole Anti-Democratic factor, having to serve the state before yourself, and a strong police/military force. The economics of Fascism are actually quite moderate right compared to some other ideologies because if you don't serve the state with your business it could be taken away. Sounds like state control to me(more Authoritarian factors).

[nuisance]

Who cares?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Who cares?

true. They're still our enemies regardless.

[Oneironaut]

true. They're still our enemies regardless.

Capitalism is our enemy. There are material reasons why people turn to fascism or even become capitalists. Those material reasons are what we speak out against.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalism is our enemy. There are material reasons why people turn to fascism or even become capitalists. Those material reasons are what we speak out against.

Fine, let's just get rid of both then. :D

"Fascism is Capitalism in decay"- V.I.Lenin?

[Iowa656]

I really can't stand it when people describe Fascism as "far Right". What does far right mean?

Is "far right" a free market lazze-faire capitalism ideology, or a fascist authoritarian one?

Usually the "left" "right" is used to describe political parties, with the conservative/republicans parties being on the right and the Labour/social democratic parties being on the left. Really it's meaningless. I advise you google "political compass" to gain a better understanding. You can't describe all ideologies on one axis, in fact it's hard to do on even 3 or 4. Fascism, at least how I understand it, is actually more "left" wing than other "left" wing parties. Let me explain, Fascism is in fact an a ideology based on centrist economic grounds. Not capitalist, not socialist. Somewhere (somehow) in the middle. Other left wing political parties Labour (UK) Democrats (US) are much further economically to the right than the "far right" fascist parties. Does that make sense?

Hitler, probably the most famous fascist, was in fact less capitalist than many other leaders, but we don't describe Hitler as "a little to the right". Someone like Margaret Thatcher, Regan etc, were the most capitalist we've seen a while, they're not usually described as "far right".

Is "right" describing economic policy, putting free marketers on the right, or authoritarian ideologies, putting Fascist ones on the far right?

With another axis, that is so economic policy goes left (communist) /right (capitalist) and authoritarian/anarchist going up down, you get a much better understanding. Hitler is economically to the left of Thatcher, but much more authoritarian.

Understand? Sorry, I doubt my explanation does it justice. Google political compass, give it a good read. Should make more sense then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I did:

I wonder if the Political Compass shift to the economic "right" occurred much earlier than the advent of "neoliberalism."

The main focus of this thread is classical political economy's relationship with fascism.