It could be in the History forum

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not necessarily. Fascism was a different animal in some ways, but in many ways, it was an updated version of what occurred in the past. Opposed to the absolute monarchy of the Kaiser based on blood, they replaced the blood element with loyalty to the party and the cult fever. So while it makes a marked contrast on this, in many ways, Hitler was simply a neo-absolute monarchist in practice.

Sure it had elements of the past regimes, but fascism was also in a way based on many left-wing ideas, hence the 'third way' idea. For example, both the fascists and communists agreed that society was divided into set classes, fascism was simply a different response to the issue. Because Marxism was purely materialistic, it put the international class struggle above everything. But with the fascists belief that material views of history were not sufficient, they also had their belief in the nation, and so used national governments to govern in the best interest of all classes eg corporatism.

Obviously, the free-market 'right' would reject all the above ideas on class. Hence why fascists were very critical of the international capitalist class (dominated by the Jews!), and had hardline protectionist measures that were clearly not in the spirit of captalism.

If anything, I would say fascist ideology has more in common with the left than the free-market right.

Since the bourgeoisie were the left of the aristocrats and was more based on wealth opposed to blood-line. it was indeed a change from the left.

The Marxist view of this period of history (17th century, just to remind everyone since its not in the quote) is no longer taken seriously, neither is the Whig view for that matter. Left/right dimensions simply don't work. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that both the nobility and peasantry were largely on the side of the King, if the king is supposedly to the 'right' of the gentry, who themselves were largely for Parliament?

The Kings measures were hardly capitalistic. In fact, it was Parliament that pushed the enclosure issue and dispossessed the people on common land. Hence why the only groups that could really be termed left wing (mainly the Diggers) were actually far more open to a settlement with the king than the mainstream Parliamentarians.

Through the time periods, there has been a shift to what was deemed left and right, and not a universal constant with what we could do now a days. Any moves towards diffusion of power comes from the left, the concentration of power comes from the right. A true centre would simply be "Keep things the same".

So why have regimes that use left-wing ideology overwhelmingly promoted centralising measures in government? What about the historic parties in Britain, where Labour promoted nationalisation of industries, and the Conservatives tried to strengthen the local levels of goverment and give them greater independence from the centre?

I only said the axis was based on anarchy - totalitarianism as the two extremes of left and right (liberty and authoritarianism). I didn't say that historical axis factored in anything else.

Yes, you can place additional axis and factors, however, I was only talking about the historical usage of the scale.

Anarchy is not the extreme left and more than totalitarianism is the extreme right.

Anarchy and totalitarianism are concerned with the power of the government. The concepts of left and right wing are concerned with ideology. The government is simply a means that can be used to promote these ideologies.

North Korea is left-wing in ideology yet totalitarian. The Tea Partiers are right-wing in ideology yet they libertarian views come close to anarchy.