I think this was only true when left of center meant communist.
But I have asked myself too why is it so that if every ideology has moderate and radical versions, why do Nazism and Fascism only have radical versions? And what I found it does have a moderate version, a kind of combo of left-populism and right-populism represented by Orbán and perhaps Five Stars.
Fascism provides for a "peaceful socialist revolution."
Liberal Democrats didn't provide a revolution.
Marxists provided a violent revolution.
Fascists provided a peaceful revolution.
Rather than shooting all the capitalist and kulaks, they would allow them to be comfortable slaves. They would continue to "own" their businesses, but the state would play an extremely active role in the management of those businesses (what would be produced, who would be employed, what prices would be set, what dividends could be, etc).
The same could be said of the army officers and all the other authorities in the pre-revolutionary regime. Those that submitted could continue a comfortable existence, but not as independent free citizens.
There was a certain militaristic element to fascism, though this was more apparent in the Nazies than other fascists. I think the Nazi ideology probably guaranteed war, though I acknowledge that the geography of Europe naturally tends towards someone trying to take it all (with Britain on one side and Russia on the other, its almost impossible to be secure).
That's a common interpretation among anglo intellectuals, but what many of them (as well as many Europeans included) have difficult to grasp nazism, fascism and communism common roots into Jacobins ones. As Fabrice Bouthillon and Pierre Drieu La Rochelle sixty years before him realized It's totalitarian Jacobinism wich provided ideological and methodical tools to build the totalitarian state, doesn't matter if black, brown or red. Trying to understand why Hitler became antisemite is surely interesting and important, but if you focus more on dictators personal life instead of inquiring philosophical roots of totalitarianism you risk to make a lame-duck analysis.
"certain militaristic element" lol. From street violence to war, it was entirely about aggressivity.
I think you might be thinking of Mosley, who was a strange bird in the fascist camp, already a pacifist during WW1 (one could also say: coward, a bit), and did avoid street fights (or at least there is one big case of having done that). Then after WW2 he basically went on to become an EU advocate. He was really different than the rest and I am not even sure why he used that label.
Mussolini mostly didn't make war even though he was in power since 1922. Like one little colonial adventure, I think we have to grade that on a curve compared to the British and French.
After he thought Germany had won already he tried to grab some quick cheap spoils at what he figured would be the peace conference, only to get more then he bargained for.
Franco engaged in no foreign wars and stayed neutral. Spain was at peace for over thirty years.
Japan I don't know what to say. Very strange system, I don't know if "fascist" is the right word, there is something uniquely Japanese about it. In any event, Japan was expansionist and militarist going back to the 19th century, long before fascism was an ideology.
I think this was only true when left of center meant communist.
But I have asked myself too why is it so that if every ideology has moderate and radical versions, why do Nazism and Fascism only have radical versions? And what I found it does have a moderate version, a kind of combo of left-populism and right-populism represented by Orbán and perhaps Five Stars.
Fascism provides for a "peaceful socialist revolution."
Liberal Democrats didn't provide a revolution.
Marxists provided a violent revolution.
Fascists provided a peaceful revolution.
Rather than shooting all the capitalist and kulaks, they would allow them to be comfortable slaves. They would continue to "own" their businesses, but the state would play an extremely active role in the management of those businesses (what would be produced, who would be employed, what prices would be set, what dividends could be, etc).
The same could be said of the army officers and all the other authorities in the pre-revolutionary regime. Those that submitted could continue a comfortable existence, but not as independent free citizens.
There was a certain militaristic element to fascism, though this was more apparent in the Nazies than other fascists. I think the Nazi ideology probably guaranteed war, though I acknowledge that the geography of Europe naturally tends towards someone trying to take it all (with Britain on one side and Russia on the other, its almost impossible to be secure).
"Liberal Democrats didn't provide a revolution"
Not exactly. American Revolution and 1848 Revolutions were based on liberal democrat principles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh7v0DU9UWA&t=836s
That's a common interpretation among anglo intellectuals, but what many of them (as well as many Europeans included) have difficult to grasp nazism, fascism and communism common roots into Jacobins ones. As Fabrice Bouthillon and Pierre Drieu La Rochelle sixty years before him realized It's totalitarian Jacobinism wich provided ideological and methodical tools to build the totalitarian state, doesn't matter if black, brown or red. Trying to understand why Hitler became antisemite is surely interesting and important, but if you focus more on dictators personal life instead of inquiring philosophical roots of totalitarianism you risk to make a lame-duck analysis.
They were not "socialist" revolutions.
Socialism and liberalism are in conflict.
Socialism won the period 1917-195X or so, but the different socialisms fought each other to exhaustion.
"certain militaristic element" lol. From street violence to war, it was entirely about aggressivity.
I think you might be thinking of Mosley, who was a strange bird in the fascist camp, already a pacifist during WW1 (one could also say: coward, a bit), and did avoid street fights (or at least there is one big case of having done that). Then after WW2 he basically went on to become an EU advocate. He was really different than the rest and I am not even sure why he used that label.
Mussolini mostly didn't make war even though he was in power since 1922. Like one little colonial adventure, I think we have to grade that on a curve compared to the British and French.
After he thought Germany had won already he tried to grab some quick cheap spoils at what he figured would be the peace conference, only to get more then he bargained for.
Franco engaged in no foreign wars and stayed neutral. Spain was at peace for over thirty years.
Japan I don't know what to say. Very strange system, I don't know if "fascist" is the right word, there is something uniquely Japanese about it. In any event, Japan was expansionist and militarist going back to the 19th century, long before fascism was an ideology.