There are a huge amount of separable issues being conflated together here...
Those separable issues have been dealt with extensively by Chomsky, so as not to be a mere mouthpiece of Chomsky, I will try to repeat his words with my own flavoring:
First off- the topic of this thread is more to do with ideological cultism, which is a sort of tradition created out of the style of propaganda from the European World Wars. Most of the world is not in love with 'capitalism', most societies naturally tend toward socialist policies, notwithstanding the interference from abroad. The United States itself is not really a functional example of Capitalism, it has vast amounts of protectionism still in place since the Reagan presidency. "Capitalism" and talk about the operation of the free market is a shallow smokescreen to: (in Chomsky's words) make the folk believe that when the Government is doing something for them, its acting out of bounds, so that the Government can keep its massive structures focused on Corporate Welfare (A lot of which is not easily identified as such, and yet still is: eg. Military Spending, Financial Policy, Financial Regulation, isn't it weird that the vast extent of the economy has to do "trade" instead of tangible commerce, which can hardly keep itself in business because of the vastly more lucrative "trading" economy.
When you look at the amount of money in these decadent sectors of the economy, it is obvious that there needs to be a strong ideological big brother telling everyone not to question it. In this sense, it could be analogous to the Catholic Church fighting for its theological supremacy by real suppression; in the same way (so-called-) Capitalism also has to tell everyone about its Holy sanction while trying to silence the screaming from its ongoing conquest, right at edge of its last gasping breaths of blood lust (which was a similar historical fact to the secularization away from Catholic Church control).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU&t=3m53s
^listen to the whole video from the beginning if you have the time to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DdWmWUa_8
^ this is very good break down of the smokescreen matrix.
Also, I recently made posted a response to a /his/ thread, that I think its pertinent enough to add onto this topic, the thread was about how compatible right-wing rhetoric might be to some kind of real Socialism (or a Socialist project).
---
Thread raises some interesting questions for me:
1. What does it mean to be "right"leaning?
There are some other questions, but they only emerge depending on how you start to answer question
no.1 in the context of this thread.
All right wing extremism creates an image of a family unit over-layed atop the political unit; usually around the concept of 'the father' (i.e. the Fatherland). The father offers support only to 'the legitimate' children [of the state]. The Father has an investment into some kindof origin story of the character for the family unit. As far as I can see, depending on how your going to fudge your judgement on history in order to produce an origin story, is going to determine how vulgar the cultural fascism expresses itself. All these elements essentially put heavy restrictions on the libertarian notion of freedom for conscious belief (ideology and its supremacy through thought control and propaganda is its staple for sustaining this kind of nation state). It bears mentioning, that this tactic was carried over, ever since the European world wars, and is employed on some level in most western styled states.
The Nazi party branded itself a Socialist party, and in some respects it was, but one must never forget that its Socialism is only every done through a Nationalist imperative, that has to mirror the origin story that the 'the father' holds as its force of integrity.
These forms of government are incredibly ideologically fragile, and require increasing levels of thought control to sustain the integrity of their policies against the natural inclination of (at least some people) to 'speak truth to power'.
Generally the only way to sustain such systems is to develop greater and greater forms of vulgar racism in order to sustain the feelings of purity, which are naturally far too [grandiose and] inhuman to believe in with just sociologically-based propaganda; without a proper individual psychological component added to the rhetoric to anchor it without spinning into some extreme (of historically, genocidal proportions).
But its pretty hard to add a proper individual psychological component to rhetoric, because psychology is in a very undeveloped mode, and so the models used by these forms of politics just end up being a weird kind of personality cult that never interfaces uniformly with the minds of a population. It's hard for me to describe exactly what I'm trying to say: but basically most forms of politics, while especially overtly the right-wing politics, are really just personality-cults (I don't mean the ideation of a figure head necessarily, but an ideation of a fudged principle of supreme order, which is very appealing to certain forms of personality types: and so you will find the same 'pseudo-intellectual' types with their own brands of history, storytelling, racist-sentiments that allow them to bring order to their psychological reality: its to do with the individuals relation to the world power-authority).
Black Nationalists for example, are literally no different from the Nazi Party- in the style of their ideology,
and the brand of their 'solution', which is always labeled apolitical in its grounding.