Your definition of right-wing as anarchic is ahistorical.
As you (should) know, the terms right and left originated during the early days of the French Revolution, when the opponents of the ancien regime sat on the left, and its supporters on the right. Those supporters were the very opposite of anarchists.
Republicans (in the American Revolution sense), anarchists, and what we would later call socialists and fascists were all on the Left when the French Revolution started. Since the Left had originally been in favor of change, and the Right against it, those relative positions tended to stick as the spectrum changed.
The original Right quickly was destroyed or driven into exile, with roughly American-style republicans and then various less-extreme groups of leftists replacing them as the Right as time went by.
But the notion that any and all forms of oppressive government are socialist just won’t fly. The Roman and Chinese Empire under their worst emperors weren’t socialist.
Socialism, as such, is at root an economic doctrine. It believes that public ownership of the means of production will bring the Millenium.
Fascism is, I agree, partly socialist in origin, but it also incorporates large elements of the original crown and church ideology, blood and soil ideology, etc. Oddly, given what American conservatives are so often called, of all political ideologies it has perhaps the least in common with American conservatism and its individual rights.
I detest the term Right as applied to American conservatism. It has nothing at all to do philosophically or historically with European crown/church, blood and soil conservatism. While American liberalism and leftism have a direct line of descent from the French Revolution Left, American conservatism descends from British Whiggism, an entirely different ideology.
It may be true that all forms of oppressive government are not necessarily socialist. However, all offshoots of socialism whether facism, social democracy or communism, are forms of oppressive government. Income redistribution and other forms of enforcing economic equality necessitates government coercion. Once government has that kind of power, it’s goodbye to our other freedoms.
I agree with that. I mean that the left side of the scale is totalitarian.
Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.
One person I knew who argued that the Nazis were fascists and there's no way they could be considered on the same side of the scale as the socialists under totalitarian government could not reconcile his objection because the regime still had the power to subdue personal freedom and cart people off and shove them into ovens.
Different implementations of the totalitarian state, but all the same and same results in the end.
Thanks for the response. I want to discuss this more with freepers because I know I'll get the correct perspective from a position I respect.
Here is a fascinating video that fleshes out the concept:
The Political Spectrum Easily Explained - Basic Forms of Government