It’s much easier to understand if you look at the political spectrum as a line instead of a circle. Totalitarian philosophies (Communism, Fascism, Nazism, liberalism) are at the bottom of the circle while free philosophies are at the top.
Conservatism calls for limited government. The truest right-wing philosophy believes in the God-given rights and freedom of the individual.
Fascism, Nazism, Communism and liberalism call for the individual to be subjected, in varying degrees, to the will of the state. Hence they are related philosophies.
I should have said, a circle instead of a line. Figures. :)
That circle idea doesn’t work. You run into the exact same false left/right commie/nazi dichotomy. The real spectrum should tell us whether the state is bigger or smaller, or rather more or less centralized. In the very least however it’s setup, it should focus on one or a few aspects in particular, which is what the classical spectrum was meant to do for what was important during the French revolution, i.e. are you an absolutist, a constitutional monarchist, a radical republican, etc.
That ideologies falling between “social democracy” and classical liberalism, or however you wanna define today’s liberalism and conservatism, stand close to eachother relative to communism and naziism, which also are closely situated, is not to imply they are opposites. They do not belong at opposites of an ellipsis nor at the top and bottom of a circle. What we call libs and neocons, for instance, are vanishingly close to fascists. I don’t know why anyone would pretend socialists and near-socialists were mighty opposites.