First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I'm going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.

No, I'm not concern trolling, just looking to have a discussion on how reductionist calling wanting to appeal to both sides of a political aisle as being third positionism or 'fascist' is. I never mentioned or disputed your points on Sarah Wagenknecht since I am not informed on that.

I guess, I take issue with the implied idea that everyone that says "both sides bad" or "both sides have a good point" is a third positionist and therefore a 'fascist'. Appealing to both sides can be a way of consensus building and needs to be encouraged IMO. Real world issues are rarely black and white and assuming they are is why people are so divided.

You can acknowledge that certain groups get one idea or policy right without agreeing with them on everything or 'enabling them'. It is called compromise. Just because some of the groups in history that used the term were authoritarian fascists does not mean every group that claims 'there is a third position between capitalism and communism' are authoritarian fascists(Wikipedia source for third positionist's claim).

The third positionist's claim is a true claim as evidenced by the fact that the most successful economies are mixed economies with both public(socialist) and private (capitalistic) enterprises. It is just a claim that has historically been used by bad actors(authoritarians) to gain power.

In rhetorical terms, you implying all third positionists bad or 'fascist' is an example of Genetic fallacy – a conclusion based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

Maybe in this case, Sarah Wagenknecht is fascist. Maybe not. I am not familiar enough to make a judgement call.

But calling all populists or third positionist's 'fascists' is as misleading as calling all US democrats 'communists'. It is judging someone before you actually know what they stand for.

The other point: This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron

Left-conservative makes sense to me if you interpret it as left of economic issues while conservative on social issues.

Economic Policies ARE Social Policies

I tend to disagree with that thinking. Economic policies are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in a society, while social policies are concerned with the distribution of welfare(basic resources or needs). They are interrelated, but they are not identical. Economic policies focus on productivity and growth while Social policies focus on health and inequality.

I can easily envision a society that is left economically while also being right socially. It would encourage worker coops and state run enterprises but on the other hand tacitly endorse traditional social values like racism and sexism via restrictive immigration and endorsing women as homemakers instead of in the workplace. I'm not saying that is ideal, but I am simply saying it could easily exist.

Note: Populism is IMO a very correct way of looking at the world. According to wikipedia, it "presents 'the people' as a morally good force and contrasts them against 'the elite', who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving."

In my experience, When regular people act immorally they are held accountable. When powerful people act immorally, they are much less likely to be held accountable.

Sorry, if I went too in depth here. It's kinda hard to keep it succinct when discussing broad ideas.