I've been told that one of main beliefs of conservatism and right-wing politics is that a small government is the best government. If that's true, then why are totalitarian systems like fascism considered far-right?
This is the problem with the traditional left-right scale. There are at least two axis's that should be measured politically; social and economic standing. Socially, fascism is highly authoritarian, more so than your average right-wing party today. Economically, however, fascism advocates a "third-way" known as corporatism, in which the government is heavily involved in the economy but does not plan it, as with socialism. By modern standards, this would make then roughly center-left economically, thouhg it is very difficult to place fascism accurately economically. Hopefully the below graph will clarify things.
The original right wingers were monarchists so how right wing is supposed to be small government I don't know.
If you rotate your vertical axis 90° counter-clockwise, you have an accurate left-right political measure. The more social controls are applied the scale moves a tick to the left, the more economic liberty afforded, the scale moves right. Would your graph would position the Article of Confederation as Libertarian Right or Left?
The reason being social issues are considered more important than economic ones? Personally, I find that quite sad, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. To answer your question, the Articles of Confederation dictated a system of governance. They did not deal with your hot-button social issues or provide a clear economic platform. Economically, the decentralized system precluded efficient taxation, which I suppose could be bent to fit with "small government" rhetoric and thus a part of the economic right. However, it allowed the states to regulate their own commerce, allowing the northern, semi-industrialized states to keep tariffs to support their industry. Because protectionism is consider a left-wing position nowadays, one might be tempted to call that a left-wing position. However, when applying our historical goggles, tariffs were the norm and free trade with anomaly. So, for its time, I would say the AoC were center-right economically. As I said earlier, the AoC really cannot be measured by our modern social definitions. However, if one were to replace Authoritarian with "Centralization" and Libertarian with "Decentralization" then the AoC would fit down at the very bottom of the graph. So, when analyzed that way, it could be said to be a right-libertarian document with much more emphasis on the Libertarian (remember, decentralization) axis then on economics.
The simple answer is fascism is a power politics ideology. Over time, fascism became corrupted by traditionalism and corporatism to solidify with nationalism, but no, conservatism proper has not always been a part of fascism. You can see this especially before WW1 up to 1932-1934. After that, the folk community ideal really took over, but before that, fascism was a quintessentially militarist, industrialist, violence oriented ideology. Tradition AND power are the values of right wing thought whereas liberty AND equality are the values of left wing thought. The problem with American politics is nobody really appreciates liberty or tradition in themselves anymore. Instead, you have this pragmatist smorgasbord which has smushed everything all around.
Let me guess, you're going to say that the original right wingers were the American founding fathers?
No, the original "right-wingers" were the ones who opposed liberal ideas in France. The monarchists and aristocrats were sitting on the right side in the parliament and the liberals were setting on the left. Left was pro-change and right was traditionalist.
One might argue, the American founding fathers were left-wingers at their time, at least they stood for ideals which were left-wing back then.
So? Can you quote a fascist saying fascism is left? If the left made this up, why do fascists think of themselves being right, too?
The original right wingers were supporters of the monarchy in France. In other words, BIG GOVERNMENT.
Probably because they tend to be conservative government wanting to support the traditions of their nation which they see the left wing as destroying.
What is that what they called themselves or something? On the scale of left and right, we have those advocating on one side more state control and on the other side less. Can you explain to me why this might not be so?
Because some Americans, such as yourself it would seem, are unable to grasp that the US did not invent the terms left and right wing and that what is left/right wing in the US does not mean the same is left/right wing in another country.
So it was the french who invented the terms as you said, and they pertained to size and scope of government? Or are you saying the french used the terms to reference size and scope of government Before the americans but only in reverse? Either way it means little to me. If we spent are time tracing words back to their origin and then saying people dont seem to be able to grasp them because they use them outside of their original context what would come of it. This certainly wouldnt be an exclusive issue. Words do evolve from original meaning and yes, I certainly wasnt employing the french version.
Falangists yes, you know like in Spain, Latin America, Lebanon or Austria. Italians maybe. Nazis were rooted in 19th centuries thinking, but they wanted modernization, too. You know, Autobahn and affordable cars for people and so ... On the other hand they had this Blut and Boden thing running, which was kinda old-fashioned and women staying at home and having kids ... Nazis were clearly not conservative in a monarchist way, Kaiser was still alive in the thirties, he died in 1941, but Italy was a monarchy under Mussolini. Nazis have been inspired by the left in some ways, they copied the left, too, with the flags and the slogans. Some leading Nazis were actually leftists in their youth, Joseph Goebbels for instance. Switching between left and right was not unusual in Weimar Republic.
This would be like saying, lefties like to save environment righties do not. Big government is only one aspect, it is not valid for all lefties or all righties and it does not define, who is left and who is right. If you know the position of a person about big government, you still don't know, if this person is left or right.
Certainly aware of this as there are people who claim one stance and go with another. There are names for them in the U.S when a republican sides with a democrat on a vote involving an expansion of Government. Is this what you were getting at? I suspect you have more to say about the issue.