but “Left” and “Right” only have meaning with regard to where the the respective groups sat in relation to the French monarch. If we’re not going to use the terms with regard to intellectual movements that descend thence, I’m not sure why we should keep using them at all.

As far as I can tell, your definition of “Left” is anything with which you happen to disagree. In addition, you seem to have a definition of communism that is so broad that it’s essentially useless (except perhaps as a political cudgel). We have had real communist (think Stalin) movements in America, but, thank God, they’ve never been represented by a major political party.

I’m not trying to quibble over words here, but clear definitions and an understanding of the etymology of words helps prevent fuzzy thinking.

since the purest form of “right wing” ideology is monarchism, and no one likes to run an economy like a monarch.

The mainstream American Right is a descendant of the French Right, mostly via Edmund Burke, who was a lot less enthusiastic about the French monarchy than many, but still supported it. The mainstream American Right has evolved quite a bit since Burke and is, to one degree or another, economically laissez faire. Other descendants of the French Right, did not adopt laissez faire economics as one of their defining characteristics.

I think the problem is that many on the American Right want their politically ideology to be the only recognized descendant of the French Right. Making this move, though, forces all other political ideologies to be dubbed “Leftist,” even those with origins on the opposite side of the French king.

If you want to use the terms “Left” and “Right” use them properly.

If you don’t want to tie your political ideology to that of French monarchists, then use a different term. There are plenty of them out there: Conservative and Classical Liberal are two designations that are closer to what you mean by “Right.”

When we’re trying to group ideologies together though, Right and Left are helpful categories to have in their original sense.

and the State/People is more than the sum of its parts, following Hegel, especially those eighteenth thinkers typically dubbed members of the “Hegelian Right.”

Marx, the primary representative of the “Hegelian Left,” vehemently rejected this view. In his view the State’s job was to ensure the proletariat got their due. The difference is whether the people exist for the state or the state exists for the people.

In practice, like I said above, they both turn into totalitarianism. Political ideology, though isn’t about practice, it’s about ideas. Von Brunn isn’t classified as jihadis, even though he kills people just like Islamic extremists, because the ideas that drive his actions are very different from those of jihadists, even if the end result is the same.

The only way you can ascribe a political ideology to his murder is if you identify 1) his motive and 2) the proper categorization of that motive on the political spectrum if that motive was politically motivated.

Since our present political spectrum is historically derived and you have willfully chosen to ignore history in identifying political ideologies, you are rendered incapable of carrying out the latter.

which states that no identity matters except that of class.

Stalin was antisemitic for personal reasons, and Communists like Khrushchev were especially embarrassed by it.

Fascism, in its orthodox form, is racist by definition.

(NB: I’m not excusing Communism, Stalin, Khrushchev, or antisemitism here. I’m simply saying that motivation matters.)

Extreme Cliff’s Notes version:

Fascism: Citizens Exist for the Glorification of the State

Socialism: The State Exists for the Promotion of the Interests of the Worker

does Mussolini mention the State existing for the benefit of the proletariat.

In socialism the state is a means to an end, and once that end is reach it will fall away.

In fascism, the end is the state itself. Everything you cited supports the latter, none the former.

because they are bundles of theories.

Once again, there are any number of ideological reasons for killing someone. Just because one reason for killing someone is Islamic fundamentalism does not mean that all ideological murderers, e.g., Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, are Islamic fundamentalists. The same goes for totalitarianism.

I’ve said several times that the only thing in common between the two is that their ideologies both descended from the same group of Frenchmen. Classifying ideologies according to which group of Frenchmen they have as ancestors is helpful for both historical purposes and for determining the ideological underpinnings of different movements.

An implication of one branch of Right-wing ideology is no implication of other wings of Right-wing ideology.