What Left Nationalist seems to be touching on is a historical tendency of fascism to mix policies from both left and right wing positions in a kind of
eclecticism.
In fact, one of fascism's outstanding traits is its eclecticism, the propensity of its numerous individual variants to accommodate or synthesize ideological components from a wide range of sources taken from any part of the left-right spectrum. Italian Fascism, for example, merged elements of right-wing politics (nationalism, imperialism, authoritarianism) with left-wing syndicalist claims of creating social justice and abolishing class conflict, and the cult of the Roman past with elements of the Futurist cult of hypermodernity. It also attracted a number of former Marxists in Italy and Germany, hosted left-wing and right-wing variants of corporatist theory, and accommodated currents of philosophical idealism and technocratic modernism; clerical Fascism and neopaganism; cultural racism (which treated patriotic Italian Jews as full members of the re-born Italy, although a more "biological" current eventually led to the adoption of anti-Semitic race laws); and the full spectrum of aesthetics from neoclassicism to futurism, from anti-cosmopolitan ruralism to international modernism. Even Nazism was far from homogeneous ideologically, embracing ruralist and technocratic visions of the new order, varying degrees of paganism and accommodation with Christianity, several varieties of racism, an anticapitalist ("Strasserite") current, and even a strand of promodernist aesthetics. Fascism's animus against communism and the degenerative impact of liberalism on the organic national community nevertheless makes it sensible to locate fascism within the tradition of right-wing politics rather than simply "beyond" left and right (as it sometimes claims to be).
Which I think is related to why the Alt-right dubbed itself as such, to position itself as different to traditional right wingers. It's how someone like
Alain De Benoist can get sympathy in his valid criticisms of liberalism that many people detest.
Though today, he has moved beyond the old timey racialist sentiment although it seems those in the US are simply
outdated in this regard if they hold any notion of racial homogeneity as viable, except I guess that the US is super racial in its antagonisms and perhaps doesn't require logical coherence.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cssgj/documents/working-papers/wp022-alain-de-benoists-anti-political-philosophy-beyond-left-and-right-non-emancipatory-responses-to-globalisation-and-crisis.pdfThe combination of nationalist and socialist thought by Gregor and Otto Strasser still provides inspiration for contemporary neo-fascist movements and their claims that traditional left-right antinomies have become superseded. Querfront tactics still are a feature of neo-fascist mobilising against globalisation and crisis in Europe, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The German movement against labour and welfare reform laws in 2005 provides a good example (Schlembach 2011). Here neo-fascist activists would at times attempt to join the demonstrations organised by trade unions or local anti-cuts networks. While antifascist awareness usually prevented such tactics from being successful, in some isolated cases neofascists were able to march side by side with left-wing and labour movement activists (Sommer 2008).
In other instances, activists have adopted the language and aesthetics of global justice and anti-capitalist movements. Instead of combat trousers and jackboots they wear the black street wear and facemasks favoured by ‘black bloc’ protesters, describe themselves as socialists and anti-imperialists or organise anti-war demonstrations (Schedler and Häusler 2011). A key theme that emerges and synergises such strategies is once again the move beyond overt political boundaries and the assertion of the anti-political. Themes of decency or honesty, categories of nation or people; all these posit an overcoming of class divisions and assert instead the division between an organic populace and a corrupt and often opaque leadership.
...
De Benoist is not representative of the kind of neo-Nazi activities and perspectives that sometimes come to the fore within Golden Dawn or similar European neo-fascist outfits. He is clearly an opponent of antisemitism and sees his ‘right to difference’ philosophy as anti-racist and anti-nationalist. Yet, de Benoist’s redefinition of racism, ethno-pluralism, anticolonialism and the centrality of Europe in his work make it a rich source from where to investigate the issue that the Nouvelle Droite take with globalisation processes. The task is to understand de Benoist’s claims on their own terms and to derive at a critical analysis that can in turn inform progressive critiques of globalisation and capitalist crisis.
...
Against globalisation, the New Right argues for the notion of ethno-pluralism. This concept signifies a move away from biological-racist thought, but substitutes it with the centrality of culture and identity. Biological notions of race are decidedly absent. De Benoist, for example, tries to break with conventional and colloquial definitions of race and racism as inequality and superiority (De Benoist 1999). Not all racisms, he writes, were defined via a belief in biological superiority. Many early liberal ‘theories’ of race instead postulated racial difference and superiority based upon social conventions, habits and behaviours. Instead, we find in de Benoist’s texts a justification for the difference of identity, tradition and culture. His position does not entirely abandon the idea of biological race. However, he stresses the influence, not determination, of social traits by biology (De Benoist 1999). Ethno-pluralism advocates the homogenisation of cultural communities while still insisting on their separation. ‘Foreign influences’ are not defined genetically or racially, but are thought to be a threat to the cultural or national homogeneity of a group. The categories of cultural groups are usually described as Volk or ethnie, which are deemed to possess a ‘natural’ and autochthon territory. Ethno-pluralism thus postulates a congruency between a geo-political unit and the cultural community or nation. As such, ethno-pluralism regards cultures as primordial and historically-given units with distinguishable features and defining boundaries, rather than social and historical constructs or processes that change over time. As de Benoist expresses it: ‘anti-racists’ should uphold “the value of difference as the prerequisite for a dialogue respectful of each group’s identity” (De Benoist 1999: 47).
He's a cultural segrationist in the logic of
multiculturalism.
To which I think Stalin posited social democracy as the moderate form of fascism, which coincides with Reichstraten's point of how social democracies work most effectively within ethnically homogeneous countries.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htmFirstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.
Though this had some
strategic significance in the issue of workers unifying with social democrats against Nazis or not.
Though I think there is most certainly a racial element in social democratic notions. I mean, looking to my own country, many of its earlier political thinkers upon becoming formally a nation of Australia emphasize social democratic ideas based on a unity of being white. It's quite explicit in our history the idea of Australia being white and it's white Australia policy until the necessities of the economy for labourers keep pushing back the restrictions against non-western european whites until in the 70s or so start getting the multiculturalist policy coming out following Canada.
Basically, fascist tendencies in what ever particular historically contingent form they arise, tend to assert non-emancipatory solutions to the crisis of capital by capitalizing on true problems and valid criticisms of capitalism but in a partial way that posits inadequate solutions. In that it tends to personify the crisis in some 'other', immigrants, jews or what ever, and then only criticize financial capital as bad and think that capitalism is essentially good, it merely been corrupted and disrupted by bad influences.
And I think if we're to make sense of what an Alt-left is meant to mean, one would have to immerse themselves in the project of such right wingers to see what their ideological framing is. Though no doubt it's a shitty classification that doesn't properly analyze essential relations and groupings and has simply created it's them arbitrarily in what ever way fits with the present sense given to their wants and position in society.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics