It's hard to bring Fascism/Nazism into a debate that involves a left-right liberal spectrum, because by very definition fascism is illiberal, and is hard to characterize on a liberal spectrum.
F.y.i., here's a political spectrum that I developed:
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
They may not be better off under the radical right than they would be under communism, but it's conceivable that they might end up better off than they are under liberal-capitalism (so the whole thing might constitute an improvement over the present).
I think the key factor here is the *structure* of society, and whether it's hierarchical and *competitive*, or more *egalitarian* and cooperative. With this in mind your statement makes sense.
Not as working class, but nationals and citizens.
This means, then, that they decided to throw their fates in with the (bourgeois-nationalist) *state*, instead of with their own *class* -- classic 'false consciousness'.
They'd be given some monopolies on work, some welfare, and bribed with other gimmicks but it's all afforded by their own exploitation as is their oppression.
This kind of social behavior could also be called 'tribalist', or '(nationalist) groupthink'.
In that respect I don't think it's really possible for the far right to have a different relationship to the working class than the liberal-capitalists do.
Both of these two groups, liberals and fascists, are *rivals* and are vying for social hegemony within the nation-state.
Even considering the immense social spending that being illiberal allows, what else can a merger of state and corporate power be but more naked and awful?
Thus the 'democratic bourgeoisie' line was born
Yup -- I recently learned that the tea that was dumped in the Boston Harbor by the American Revolutionaries was from the British East India Company -- probably the quintessential *archetype* of state and corporate power.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
National cultures content is most only upper class culture from each region, while socialism is for working class, i would say socialism seeks to destroy all social classes, including nationalities.
Yup, I would say so as well.
Bourgeois culture, such as it is, belongs in *museums* and nowhere else for the working class, since it's so ruling-class-*propagandistic* / provocative, inherently.
As we all know, socialism is considered to be on the left while capitalism is on the right.
Truth To Power wrote:
Because in political theory, "left" means egalitarian, and "right" means elitist.
Right wing socialism is certainly possible, in fact some would argue it is inevitable as the political elite in a socialist regime use their power to administer "publicly" owned land and capital to their own advantage. Post-Maoist China, where the rich and Party cronies are almost identical sets, is an obvious example.
At the *geopolitical* level, though, such an 'independent' country like China, has been successfully *anti-imperialist*, which is impressive in and of itself since it's so rare in history. This anti-imperialist 'nation-building' aspect makes it nominally left-wing, at least geopolitically, which is what Maoism / Stalinism is.
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
Ganeshas Rat wrote:
This absurd term is the result of mess between economical and political rightness. Those axis are orthogonal, they can be changed independently.
No, I respectfully disagree -- one can simply posit a left-right linear *overlap* of the political and economic continuums, *instead* of those two a-priori aspects being orthogonal to each other. The linear 'overlap' yields the leftward ideologies to be increasingly about *egalitarianism* (politically), and cooperation (economically), with the rightward ideologies being increasingly *hierarchical* (politically), and *competitive* (economically).
Anatomy of a Platform
Ganeshas Rat wrote:
The police state with fascist government, in other words, with ultra-right regime, can still lean to free market or planned economy.
I don't think so -- the increasing *stratification* of socio-*political* status rankings means that a 'free' market, or *any* market, becomes increasingly *untenable* as everyday political *favoritism* and elitism take over, yielding a clearer social *hierarchy*. Corporatism will prevail, then, implying social structuring of the economy, over anarchic-type market exchanges.
Ganeshas Rat wrote:
However, socialism per se is the left thing. And fascism must be called fascism. Nobody calls Libertarians as right-wing anarchists or left-wing capitalists. They are libertarians.
'Libertarians' are 'left nationalists', according to me and my first diagram up there.
The Nazis were Socialists and the Communists were Socialists. Left, Right, either way, Socialism is always the fruit of evil and oppression and total government control.
No, this is too facile -- socialism is *supposed* to be about workers-of-the-world control of social production, so ultra-nationalists and the far right *aren't* that because they prefer to use corporate-type *hierarchies* of power as the determining factor for economic functioning ('the winner takes the spoils') -- currently seen in the highly competitive and stratified *sports* industry, among professional athletes / players.
Components of Social Production
Socialism is just an economic system, it is not a political system. Some Political systems that use socialist economics would include communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Western Marxism, Eurocommunism, left communism, Sorelism, Christian Socialism, Zionist socialism, National Bolshevikism, or Democratic socialism.
You can be both a fascist and a socialist. A fascist can use socialist economics to reach some fascist ideas, such as National Glory, restoration of culture, or maintaining social order to prevent liberal social decay.
There are socialists that support a state, like myself. And then there are socialists that advocate anarchy, like some of the people on RevLeft. But a lot of socialists that support a fascist political system don't label themselves right wing, they label themselves Third Position.
By 'socialist economics' you mean 'Stalinism', or 'centralized state planning' -- such is *not* proletarian control of production, nor is it *international*, necessarily.
Genuine workers-of-the-world socialism would be *very* bottom-up, would be based on active liberated-work participation, and would be co-administrative overall, on that basis.
I have a treatment of this issue at another thread:
True workers-of-the-world socialism would just be an *expansion* of this basic corporate-like / Stalinist-state-like bureaucratic functioning, but it would better correspond to actual realities / facts, because the overall 'pyramid' (of relative individual social prestige, or reputation) would be much *flatter* than we're used to seeing, historically, due to historical *caste*-like bureaucratic *elitism*, or *top-down* administration of the workers themselves.
In the absence of caste / class / careerism / heredity / elitism, the 'base' of the 'pyramid' would be much, much *broader*, to enable a broad-based *bottom-up* dynamic of dynamic social planning, with far less institutional *rigidity*, if at all.
I honestly do not know why they constantly keep conflating the two, the only thing I've managed to come up with is that the entire American political spectrum is nearly Anarchistic in comparison with the rest of the world's ideologies, and that to American thinkers almost any expression of State power one way or another is both ''Totalitarian'' and without any meaningful distinction between Fascism and Socialism.
I think this mindset belies a very *status-quo*, nationalist *state-centric* political orientation.
Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism
As for ''Right-Wing Socialism'', of course it exists, Engels identified it long ago as a tendency, and Oswald Spengler was a typical proponent of it.
Nope -- he was a *nationalist*, including all that that implies:
In his view, correct socialism has a much more "national" spirit.
At the same time as he rejects any social democratic provisions, Spengler celebrates private property, competition, imperialism, capital accumulation, and "wealth, collected in few hands and among the ruling classes." Landa describes Spengler's "Prussian Socialism" as "working a whole lot, for the absolute minimum, but – and this is a vital aspect – being happy about it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Sp ... West_(1918)
We aren’t, we’re just recognizing that both the original Fascists and the original Nazis were socialist organizations, as much extremes of the Left as the Communists.
Nope -- genuine socialism implies *egalitarianism*, even through to labor roles and the material-*economy*, while the far right, of all flavors, prefers a corporatist *power hierarchy* of personified positions / titles.