Do fascists have a far right economic viewpoint?

1. The scholarly split: ideological incoherence or distinct system?

Major scholars diverge sharply on whether fascism had a coherent economic ideology: some argue fascist governments lacked consistent economic theory and instead followed donors, popular sentiment, and wartime necessities ^[1], while others—such as David Baker and Roger Eatwell—contend that identifiable, shared economic features (notably corporatism and state direction) form a distinctive fascist political economy ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Practice over theory: private property plus state command

In practice, interwar fascist regimes retained private property and market structures while subordinating them to state aims—cartels, corporatist boards, and heavy regulation were used to coordinate firms and labor under the state’s final authority rather than to abolish capitalism outright ^{[1] [4]}. That arrangement led many observers to call fascist economics “socialism with a capitalist veneer” or a mixed economy where private profit endured but the national interest overrode market autonomy ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Autarky, militarization, and political priorities

Fascist economic policy was often driven by nationalist goals—autarky, rearmament, and preparations for war—which produced dirigiste measures (state planning, public works, currency manipulation) justified as necessary for national survival rather than as doctrinaire economic prescriptions ^{[1] [4]}. Academic work highlights that political imperatives frequently trumped economic rationality, producing pragmatic and sometimes contradictory policies across regimes and over time ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Allies and enemies: business, welfare, and mass support

Although fascist programs could include social‑welfare measures designed to stabilize society and win mass support, big business often found a useful partnership with fascist states: firms benefited from state contracts, suppression of labor unrest, and protectionist markets even as the state constrained corporate autonomy ^{[1] [7]}. This transactional relationship helps explain why fascism attracted both conservative elites and disaffected populist constituencies—an alignment that complicates labeling fascist economics strictly “far right” in the classical laissez‑faire sense ^{[1] [8]}.

5. Competing interpretations: “far right,” “third position,” or “national socialism”?

Political commentators and some scholars place fascism on the extreme right because of its authoritarianism, nationalism, and suppression of leftist movements, while other analysts emphasize its anti‑liberal economic features and call it a “third position” outside left–right binaries—or even a nationalist variant of socialism because of centralized planning and collectivist rhetoric ^{[9] [3] [10]}. Umberto Eco’s caution—that fascism is a collage of contradictory traits—captures why economic classification remains contested ^[11].

6. Bottom line: not simply “far right” economically

The most defensible conclusion from the literature is that fascist economics cannot be reduced to a single place on a conventional left–right economic scale: it combined pro‑capitalist elements (private property, markets) with strong statist control, corporatism, welfare measures, and wartime dirigisme, producing a hybrid that served authoritarian, nationalist ends rather than a coherent free‑market or socialist doctrine ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Where fascism sits on an economic spectrum therefore depends on which features one emphasizes—property rights and business alliances point rightward, while collectivist control and planning point leftward or “third‑position” ^{[1] [3] [10]}.