Fascism is not a right wing ideology. National socialism is not a right wing ideology. National socialism is centrist, fascism veers left.
These terms also hold no weight, because they change on a whim. Originally, collectivism was a right wing ideology. A staunchly right wing one. But the soviet union did it too, so now it's left wing, and individualism is right wing. "Freedom of religion" was a left wing ideology. Now it's a right wing one, because the soviet union cracked down on religion. Capitalism itself was originally left wing, now it's right wing. Again, because the soviet union existed. And apparently everything the soviet union did was left wing, even though not everything it did was. Environmentalism was right wing and disrupted "progress". Now it's left wing for some reason or another. You get the point. I could go on for days.
Anything that was upheld by the French monarchy during the French revolution, which was originally right wing, that the US did not adopt, that the soviet union brought back (they did that with a lot of things, its complicated), is now left wing. Anything that the jacobins upheld, which is now currently upheld by the United States in particular and the west in general, which the ussr did not adopt, is now right wing and conservative. The dichotomy has held no meaning because it keeps switching sides.
Another one: Faggotry was on the radar of approximately zero groups of people until recently. The soviet union hated faggots, Marx, and any other socialist writers never mentioned them at all, the west hated faggots slightly less. But faggotry is left wing because.... uhhh.... because it just is okay? Ignore the fact that every left wing state actively killed them.
Do you see how these terms have no actual fucking meaning?
Third positionism in general is usually not right wing period. Though it *can be*. Though because of its ties to mussolini, it's founding father, who was a recovering marxist, and based his ideas around heterodox socialism, it usually is decidedly not right wing at all. It's almost universally anti reactionary, and is typically anti capitalist.
Some third positionist movements, namely falangism, were almost *far left*. Fiscally closer in ideology to the soviet union than to Hitlers Germany or Mussolini's Italy.
What's the common current then? Everyone knew about the jewish issue, nationalism, religion, and race, which is why Hitler aligned with the Falange. They would never agree on fiscal policy. Who cares? They agreed on the menace plaguing the planet. That's what matters.
Language is a powerful tool. Jews police it. By throwing around terms like "left" and "right" you give leverage to the nu-speak that they have invented to dumb down politics and conflict into demonizing one group and praising another.
That is all.
Leftism to me means the cult of Human Rights which emerged predominantly in the French Revolution, and the theology that has developed around "rights": a really broad collection of universalist beliefs that the material is sacred. Which does a good job explaining the worship of worldly metrics like gdp and gini index and universalist concepts like inequality.
I grew up in a really liberal area and one thing that struck me in reflection is how fundamentally in agreement liberals and communists often are. Liberals will look the other way when communists murder people every single time. They are the same religion. There are also liberals who hate communism, in the USA called "conservatives" but even many of them still see communism as somehow a "lesser evil" to white germans defending their own people; these people are the butt of every joke and have lost every cultural battle for half a century because what they hate is fundamentally the religion they believe in.
Meanwhile the word "right" seems to have just evolved as a catch-all to mean anything that wasn't whatever the Left was doing at the time. You could say the national socialists worship the material in the sense that they worship the race or volk, but this is not really universalist; its generally understood our race is not the totality of history, whereas human rights worshipers tend to see human history as described in totality by the origin myth of human rights emerging through liberation; the completeness of this explanation is a crucial aspect and no other teleology is even permitted. And yes over the years the theology has developed and splintered and grown just like every other.
So yes like the Jacobins were very nationalist whereas nationalism is now considered "far right" because nations are inherently not universal. Capitalism emerged out of individual rights/property rights but is now also considered "right-wing" because owning property is inherently unequal.
In your other comment you mentioned the similarity between the bolsheviks and the Italian fascists. I think you could say there are a lot of similarities between Nazis and Jews. Both groups are centered around fighting for the survival or their own people, both recognize the inevitability and even necessity of struggle. This was a great insight to me in understanding what national socialism is. The most fundamental beliefs are antagonistic to human rights in both cases. The two groups just have vastly different interpretations of what those beliefs mean and how to follow them.
Interestingly, Jews never advocate for human rights in their own domains. Human rights remains a whites-only religion, no other race on earth practices it on any systemic level whatsoever. Only white people practice it, and almost all whites practice it at least somewhat. And all it ever seems to do is destroy white people. So maybe there is something white about leftism in the sense that there is something Jewish about parasitism.
The thing about the ussr highjacking other left wing movements is interesting, and I agree about environmentalism. I think that trying to pin down left and right in economic terms is a non-starter because it's not fundamentally about money, it's about something more subtle.
The one difference in many cases is actually very easy: it's jews.
For example: classical fascism is an ideology created by a prior marxist, it's revolutionary, it's anti reactionary, it's anti capitalism, and it's based off of sorelian marxism. Heavily based off of it, actually.
Classical fascism to me, is mostly left wing. It has reactionary aspects, but despite having reactionary aspects, it always finds itself at odds with reaction, and it uses these reactionary aspects to put forth a revolutionary ideology. "Fight fire with fire".
Liberalism, by extension, is a conservative ideology. Both typical western "leftist" liberalism and "classical" liberalism, because they maintain a status quo, that status quo being economic capitalism (regardless of what they say), and social retardation.
Advocating for a feudal system would be economically reactionary. There's not many *actual* economic reactionary movements in existence, period. Socially reactionary politics is actually difficult to define. The soviet union was effectively socially reactionary in *many* ways, just not on an official party propaganda basis, and this reactionary influence comes from Georges sorel. He is the same person that gave fascism its reactionary influences.
But bolshevism? It shares, on the surface level, a great deal of ideals more with fascism than it does with liberalism. It's somewhere between classical fascism and orthodox marxism, ideologically speaking. Fascist Italy and the ussr actually had, at one point, quite cordial relations. Bolshevism is also based quite a bit on georges sorel, and diverges decently far from marxist orthodoxy. The ussr actually had a lot of the same reactionary features that italy did. What's the difference actually? *Jews*. That's... it. Jews in the bolshevik party were responsible for literally everything wrong with it.
Both liberalism and bolshevism are jewish ideologies, which is why they tend to be in agreement with each other. I don't think this is because they are both leftists. Bolshevism and fascism are both left wing too, and fascism is more "true" left wing than liberalism is. It's because of jews. If you ripped the later jewish influence from leninism out of it, and dialed back the marxist orthodoxy slightly, it would be virtually indistinguishable from a 3rd positionist ideology. Particularly stalinism, which axed the internationalism from bolshevism.
Here's an example of something interesting from history that more or less backs up my thesis:
Have you ever noticed how much more anarchistic and libertarian the Spanish communists during the Spanish Civil War were as opposed to the bolsheviks, or the Chinese? The reason why is because the Spanish authoritarian communists had already by and large joined the falangist party, because it was a safer bet than being a ragtag group of retards, and went off to fight the anarchists and Republicans that both of them were opposed to. The russian and chinese authoritarian communists didn't have a left-wing nationalist authoritarian group to join, the Spanish did. So the Spanish (actual) communist parties suffered as a result. Most of the Spanish communists, in fact, did not want to shoot nuns and establish a worldwide revolution and shit. Most of them were catholics, most of them were nationalist. They wanted to shoot conservatives and government leaders. The falangist party said: "we will protect your religion and you can shoot conservatives and government leaders, plus we'll install socialism", and they were on board. But Rivera died, so Franco betrayed everyone and purged the party of anyone that wasn't exactly who the Falange de Las JONS was against.
In fact, it seems standard that when there is a fascist party *in general*, they will typically be victorious over marxist ones, because marxism alienates more people with its anti religious internationalist horseshit, and fascism offers a revolutionary state without state mandated atheism. So they (the would be footsoldiers of communism) do not have to compromise on religion and nationalism vs quality of life. They get it all. It happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, Romania, etc. A significant core of a 3rd positionist movement necessarily comes from prior marxists.
The issue nowadays is: people do not become marxists out of despair anymore, unless they live in a 3rd world shithole. They become marxists because its trendy. So they're far more likely to just shoo away any movement that doesn't wave a red and gold flag because they now have the luxury to do so. Furthermore, they usually actually *are* atheist internationalists, whereas your average bolshevik footsoldier was an orthodox Christian who wanted the best for Russia and didn't know any better. The reason for the disparity is because they legitimately believe that all leftists at all times hated fascists and considered them the ultimate evil, when it isn't even remotely true.