Submitted by frlarry on Thu, 07/05/2018 - 09:44
I find it puzzling that serious intellectuals can find it so difficult to recognize that fascism has nothing to do with either conservatism or liberalism. Indeed, calling it extreme right-wing shows a fundamental ignorance of the fact that political ideology is inherently a multi-dimensional phenomenon. A more accurate assessment would be that fascism is not even on the same multi-dimensional axis as liberalism vs. conservatism. Indeed, fascism is a form of idolatry, it worships the power of the state, and finds that power to be the highest good. As such, it is the opposite of libertarianism, or, perhaps even more precisely, the opposite of anarchism. What complicates this last comparison, however, is that fascists will seek the path of anarchy in order to overthrow a conservative or liberal government on the way to establishing absolute power. The power sought by a fascist state embraces control over all of the instruments of society, including military, industrial, economic, academic, religious cultural and journalistic. In this sense it shares a lot with Nazism, which is (by self-proclaimed definition) national socialism. The most that people who regard fascism as "extreme right wing" can legitimately say is that fascism is the polar opposite of egalitarian (in the sense that all countries are regarded as equal participants) multi-nationalism. Indeed, the fascist state seeks to establish itself as the core of an empire which grows until it fills the earth. As such, it has a lot in common with ancient Rome, Alexandrian Greece, and all the other empires of antiquity (as well as the Hanoverian British empire and the American ideology of "manifest destiny"/neoconservatism). And, if we are honest, we can acknowledge it has some kinship with a USSR dominated by a Russian core. It also is an extreme form of elitism, and, in that sense, has some things in common with our current favoritist/elitist political/social/economic structure. Its structural principle is "supersidiarity", the precise opposite of "subsidiarity", and, as such, has more in common, structurally, with big-government progressivism than small-government conservatism.