The "Fascist" fallacy

[guyser]

If you want an example, you can check out Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". The fact remains that fascism has much more in-line with real-world leftists and very little in common with real-word people on the right. We believe in freedom from government control/coercion, whereas the left believes in grand ideas and social engineering (via government control).

Fascism is a leftist ideology and describing it as "extreme right" is just a lie that has been propagated by many, including many "scholars" and "intellectuals".

Repeat: Sure bob

Them damn scholars and intellectuals , hell they are all lefties anyhow so no listening to them.

[dre]

Facism is about the intolerance of dissent and brutal measures to enforce social rules. The label most definately applies to many people on the left today.

Hahahahaha! Holy fucking shit. Someone actually posted that?

[dre]

Fascism is a leftist ideology

:lol:

[Bob]

Repeat: Sure bob

Them damn scholars and intellectuals , hell they are all lefties anyhow so no listening to them.

I'm not advancing an original idea, here. I'm simply repeating the reality that is the lie of fascism being an "extreme right-wing" ideology. At the end of the day, it is the left that supports greater government control over the economy and culture, which is much more in-line with fascism than the contemporary right-wing. My position is not my own, but one from honest scholars and intellectuals. As I've already said, off the top of my head I remember this same idea being advanced by Thomas Sowell, who certainly has "intellectual" credentials.

Fascism is a leftist ideology, despite the stupid spectrum you may or may not have studied in your Poli-Sci 101 class during your first year at university.

[dre]

I'm not advancing an original idea, here. I'm simply repeating the reality that is the lie of fascism being an "extreme right-wing" ideology. At the end of the day, it is the left that supports greater government control over the economy and culture, which is much more in-line with fascism than the contemporary right-wing. My position is not my own, but one from honest scholars and intellectuals. As I've already said, off the top of my head I remember this same idea being advanced by Thomas Sowell, who certainly has "intellectual" credentials.

Fascism is a leftist ideology, despite the stupid spectrum you may or may not have studied in your Poli-Sci 101 class during your first year at university.

Sorry but to call Fascism a leftwing ideology is really just stupid. Authoritarianism exists at BOTH ends of the political spectrum. Fascism however is a special form of authoritarianism though where the state is re-organized around corporate interests, and military idolitry is promoted to bolster nationalism. Its idiotic to call it leftist because far-leftists dont even think these interests should exist.

Left-wing authoritarianism comes in the form of communism, not fascism. Fascists vehemently opposed both socialism and communism.

[wyly]

Sorry but to call Fascism a leftwing ideology is really just stupid. Authoritarianism exists at BOTH ends of the political spectrum. Fascism however is a special form of authoritarianism though where the state is re-organized around corporate interests, and military idolitry is promoted to bolster nationalism. Its idiotic to call it leftist because far-leftists dont even think these interests should exist.

Left-wing authoritarianism comes in the form of communism, not fascism. Fascists vehemently opposed both socialism and communism.

ya but else is bob going to justify to himself that he doesn't share nazi ideology?

[Bob]

Sorry but to call Fascism a leftwing ideology is really just stupid. Authoritarianism exists at BOTH ends of the political spectrum. Fascism however is a special form of authoritarianism though where the state is re-organized around corporate interests, and military idolitry is promoted to bolster nationalism. Its idiotic to call it leftist because far-leftists dont even think these interests should exist.

Left-wing authoritarianism comes in the form of communism, not fascism. Fascists vehemently opposed both socialism and communism.

State control over the means of production is a leftist value. The only nuanced difference is fascism is that the interests remain owned in private hands (to some degree), with massive government control over how those means of production can be utilized. That results in essentially the same thing as communism.

The only reason for fascistic opposition to communism is the international focus of communism, which would essentially destroy nations and meld them into one homogenous whole (the dream of all communists).

Fascism is a leftist ideology, period. It has FAR more in common with the contemporary left than with the contemporary right. This idea that "extreme right-wing" politics provide an equally despicable political iteration to communism is just another widely-perpetuated lie that you, bloodyminded, and others subscribe to.

[Jack Weber]

I see that Bob is taking up Pliny's torch that Fscism is some sort of construct of the Left...

Erm...Yeah....

This unadulterated drivel coming form a guy who recently got kudos here from an avowed Hitlerite...

As usual,the political Right cannot come to grips with the horrific skeletons in its historical closet,and has to blame everything on the "Left"...

[Bob]

I see that Bob is taking up Pliny's torch that Fscism is some sort of construct of the Left...

Erm...Yeah....

This unadulterated drivel coming form a guy who recently got kudos here from an avowed Hitlerite...

As usual,the political Right cannot come to grips with the horrific skeletons in its historical closet,and has to blame everything on the "Left"...

Good luck explaining how fascism has anything in common with contemporary conservatism - which advocates for less government control across the board (economically and through social engineering). At the end of the day, inconvenient truth is that fascism has many more parallels to contemporary politics on the left than the right - which makes the lie of fascism being a form of the "extreme right wing" (when it is completely counterintuitive to contemporary conservatism) that much more absurd.

At this point, all we've seen are attempts to mock me without any serious posts. You folks all grovel and worship at the feet of the "common wisdom" of fascism being a right-wing ideology. It's funny and sad at the same time.

[Jack Weber]

Good luck explaining how fascism has anything in common with contemporary conservatism - which advocates for less government control across the board (economically and through social engineering). At the end of the day, inconvenient truth is that fascism has many more parallels to contemporary politics on the left than the right - which makes the lie of fascism being a form of the "extreme right wing" (when it is completely counterintuitive to contemporary conservatism) that much more absurd.

At this point, all we've seen are attempts to mock me without any serious posts. You folks all grovel and worship at the feet of the "common wisdom" of fascism being a right-wing ideology. It's funny and sad at the same time.

I'm breaking my own rules here because I have your arrogant and clueless ass on ignore,however,...

Communism and Fascism are extremes at each end of the poltical spectrum in that they are both top down,centrally controlled,authoritarian forms of government.However,when one compares the two extremes,one finds at least three (3) distinctions:

1.The private property ownership issue...In Fascist states,even NAZI Germany,citizens did own their own homes and land.This is definately NOT the case in any Marxist/Communist state.In those cases,the state owns everything.

2.Some sort of quasi market or private business element occurs.You do realize that Krupp,Thiessen,Mercedes-Benz etc. were private companies that flourished during the NAZI reign,don't you?There were many such examples in Mussolini's Italy,Franco's Spain,Salazar's Portugal etc.I defy you to show me any such case in the Soviet Union,Mao's China,Pol Pot's Kampuchea,North Korea,The Warsaw Pact countries excluding Tito's Yugoslavia,etc.Again,in those countries everything is owned by the state.

3.The undeniable strident nationalism/militarism that occurs in almost all Fascist states.It's undeniable that this occurred in NAZI Germany,Italy,Spain,Portugal etc.Extreme Leftist states can by militaristic,however,Marxism is a more nebular form of authoritarian collectivism.By the way,that nationalism almost always has a final manifestation in the form of cultural supremacy/superiority.

I'm surprised your ethnically superior brain did'nt know this already?

As for it having anything to do with contemporary conservativism,it's the final logical conclusion if conservativism was carried to it's extreme conclusion.Frankly,I think calling the Conservative Party of Canada "Fascist" is as preposterous as calling the NDP "Communist".However,all democratic ideologies have to kept in check and extreme elements must be confronted so as not to allow ideological extremism to flourish.This is why the the CCF/NDP got rid od the hard line Communist elements during the Waffle period and why the Conservative Party has tried very hard to shed some of its unsavoury Reform roots...

[dre]

Good luck explaining how fascism has anything in common with contemporary conservatism - which advocates for less government control across the board (economically and through social engineering). At the end of the day, inconvenient truth is that fascism has many more parallels to contemporary politics on the left than the right - which makes the lie of fascism being a form of the "extreme right wing" (when it is completely counterintuitive to contemporary conservatism) that much more absurd.

At this point, all we've seen are attempts to mock me without any serious posts. You folks all grovel and worship at the feet of the "common wisdom" of fascism being a right-wing ideology. It's funny and sad at the same time.

Good luck explaining how fascism has anything in common with contemporary conservatism - which advocates for less government control across the board

No it isnt. Conservatives have pushed for big growth in the Governments police and security apparatus. They want big government just as much as anyone else, the difference is where each side wants to grow it.

And I explained very clearly why your "fascism is leftist" crap is bogus. Fascism attempts to organize the state around interests that leftists dont even believe should exist, and Italian fascists were staunchly ANTI-leftist. You dont even appear to know what facscism is.

[Bob]

No it isnt. Conservatives have pushed for big growth in the Governments police and security apparatus. They want big government just as much as anyone else, the difference is where each side wants to grow it.

And I explained very clearly why your "fascism is leftist" crap is bogus. Fascism attempts to organize the state around interests that leftists dont even believe should exist, and Italian fascists were staunchly ANTI-leftist. You dont even appear to know what facscism is.

And those "conservative" governments aren't really conservative, are they? Just because the GOP or CPC use conservative rhetoric doesn't make them real conservatives. We don't have real conservatism in Canada. When the CPC and Harper are defined as "right-wing", when in fact they are not, you know you've got serious flaws in your public discourse.

[Bob]

I'm breaking my own rules here because I have your arrogant and clueless ass on ignore,however,...

Communism and Fascism are extremes at each end of the poltical spectrum in that they are both top down,centrally controlled,authoritarian forms of government.However,when one compares the two extremes,one finds at least three (3) distinctions:

1.The private property ownership issue...In Fascist states,even NAZI Germany,citizens did own their own homes and land.This is definately NOT the case in any Marxist/Communist state.In those cases,the state owns everything.

2.Some sort of quasi market or private business element occurs.You do realize that Krupp,Thiessen,Mercedes-Benz etc. were private companies that flourished during the NAZI reign,don't you?There were many such examples in Mussolini's Italy,Franco's Spain,Salazar's Portugal etc.I defy you to show me any such case in the Soviet Union,Mao's China,Pol Pot's Kampuchea,North Korea,The Warsaw Pact countries excluding Tito's Yugoslavia,etc.Again,in those countries everything is owned by the state.

3.The undeniable strident nationalism/militarism that occurs in almost all Fascist states.It's undeniable that this occurred in NAZI Germany,Italy,Spain,Portugal etc.Extreme Leftist states can by militaristic,however,Marxism is a more nebular form of authoritarian collectivism.By the way,that nationalism almost always has a final manifestation in the form of cultural supremacy/superiority.

I'm surprised your ethnically superior brain did'nt know this already?

As for it having anything to do with contemporary conservativism,it's the final logical conclusion if conservativism was carried to it's extreme conclusion.Frankly,I think calling the Conservative Party of Canada "Fascist" is as preposterous as calling the NDP "Communist".However,all democratic ideologies have to kept in check and extreme elements must be confronted so as not to allow ideological extremism to flourish.This is why the the CCF/NDP got rid od the hard line Communist elements during the Waffle period and why the Conservative Party has tried very hard to shed some of its unsavoury Reform roots...

I've already addressed all of those issues. That fascism permits private ownership (with extreme government control), isn't a meaningful distinction in practise. Lastly, communism does indeed have an international focus whereas fascism is nationally-oriented... yes, that's true, but at the end of the day it's not a meaningful distinction separating fascism from contemporary leftist politics.

It's obvious you didn't read my earlier posts in this thread, so I'll stop indulging you with responses. Like I said, I already addressed everything you mentioned.

[Jack Weber]

And those "conservative" governments aren't really conservative, are they? Just because the GOP or CPC use conservative rhetoric doesn't make them real conservatives. We don't have real conservatism in Canada. When the CPC and Harper are defined as "right-wing", when in fact they are not, you know you've got serious flaws in your public discourse.

Or is it because they are smart enough to realize thier right wing ideology is fairly unplatable,and certainly unelectable,in this country?

[Bob]

Or is it because they are smart enough to realize thier right wing ideology is fairly unplatable,and certainly unelectable,in this country?

Unfortunately that seems to be their perspective. Perspectives such as mine are given no time whatsoever in mainstream dialogue. It tells you how far to the left we've gone in Canada. It's really sad. I do believe, however, that there is a sizable portion of Canadians who feel as I do. It's just they feel excluded for various reasons. Hopefully this will change over time as leftism continues to erode this country and drain the patience of the Canadians I am speaking of. It is never too late.

[Jack Weber]

Unfortunately that seems to be their perspective. Perspectives such as mine are given no time whatsoever in mainstream dialogue. It tells you how far to the left we've gone in Canada. It's really sad. I do believe, however, that there is a sizable portion of Canadians who feel as I do. It's just they feel excluded for various reasons. Hopefully this will change over time as leftism continues to erode this country and drain the patience of the Canadians I am speaking of. It is never too late.

1.Everything seems "Leftist" to a Fasc...Right wing extremist,such as yourself.Perspectives,such as yours,are abhorrent to most people.Keep in mind.A NAZI supporter here liked your views recently.Perhaps a few moments of introspection are necessary?

2.You're wrong about his country,with the notable exception of some rural areas.

No one wants Right wing extremism just as no one wants Left wing extremism (other than a few notable kooks on either side of the political spectrum).Thankfully,you're going to be waiting a long time for that type of change

[netspawn]

Bob say: ... At the end of the day, it is the left that supports greater government control over the economy and culture, which is much more in-line with fascism than the contemporary right-wing.

So you're saying that fascists and leftists are two peas in a pod because they both support "greater government control over the economy and culture". Is that right, Bob? ... If so, I have some questions for you: Since our society here in North America has ceased to be a democratic society, and is now a plutonomy / plutocracy (back to Plato's 'Republic' everyone) wherein the uber-rich elite minority are in fact the "masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) who control both the economy and culture, what are they? Are they fascists or leftists? Or are they communists? ... Perhaps they are all three, eh?

[bloodyminded]

Fascism believes in mega-government control over all aspects of society - both business/economics and social/cultural behaviours. That is in-line with leftism, NOT those on the right.

Actually, it is in line with the right--by definition. You're taking the libertarian or pseudo-libertarian strains of conservatism and trying to force them into history; in other words, you're favouring theory (or, worse, bland claims about theory) over actual lived reality. The number of violently authoritarian right-wing governments have been legion. And you know that.

Liberals and Leftists were, and remain, fascism's primary enemy. It is precisely what fascists most rail against...that, and intellectualism. Contemporary fascists run the gamut between "White Nationalists" of the type we can uncomfortably browse on "Stormfront" (I have done so...and these are conservatives to the core), all the way to the more intellectualized adherents self-labelled "Falangists," who have abandoned racism, but remain typically fascistic otherwise (right-wing populism/authoritarianism peppered with a few Left-statist components).

As we can see, you also subscribe to this lie about fascism being a "far-right" or "extreme right" ideology

What I asserted was that fascism is an extreme-right ideology with strains of leftist ideology embedded within it.

In other words, the conventional scholarly consensus.

According to scolars of fascism, like Robert Paxton and Raul Hilberg (both conservatives, if that eases your mind, and the latter of whom is singularly responsible for the entire field of Holocaust Studies), the well--worn thesis you're here advocating is the product of ultraconservative ideological pseudo-history (notably the John Birch Society!!!!) popularized in the 1940s, now thoroughly discredited by every serious thinker on matters fascist.

Fascism defines itself against both liberalism and socialism--that is, fascism is inherntly in opposition to the political centre, the centre-lleft, and the far left.

That's because of its inherent (and inherently deep) right-wing impulses; these impulses are not its definition entire, but they are absolutely crucial and intractable.

I mentioned the ridiculous Jonah Goldberg because he, more than any contemporary writer, and in the vein of anti-historians like Ann Coulter, has been a key proponent of the resurgance of the simpleminded, polemical, discredited historicizing.

For a brief smack-down of Goldberg's ideas (which you are repeating practically verbatim), check out the following scholarly rebukes:

Matthew Feldman:

Yet even The Doctrine of Fascism would not be fascism in Goldberg's hands. For fascism is not fascism here. It is anything Goldberg wishes it to be; notably trends in modern American politics and culture that he clearly dislikes. The few references above make Goldberg's polemicist style evident; this is certainly not a book for anyone attempting a better understanding of fascist ideology, although it may be a useful barometer of the so-called "culture wars" in the contemporary United States. At points, Liberal Fascism even admits as much; for example, "one of the main reasons I've written the book [is] to puncture the smug self-confidence that simply by virtue of being liberal one is also virtuous" (317-8). Indeed, the book's first paragraph already sets out the real antagonists in Goldberg's account, namely "[a]ngry liberals" and "besieged conservatives." Regrettably, his hostility better characterizes the rhetoric of ideological rivals like fascism and communism – radical right-wing and radical left-wing, respectively, despite Goldberg's sleight of hand – rather than one end of a democratic spectrum. And you certainly wouldn't know that fascists and communists fought it out on the streets and battlefields for very different ideological doctrines. Instead, reading Liberal Fascism, you might think they rather liked one another.

Then again, this book is selective of facts and irresponsible of interpretation to the point historical obfuscation. This is in order to serve the underlying thesis, such as it is: "many of the ideas and impulses that inform what we call liberalism come to us through an intellectual tradition that led directly to fascism." (9) From this utterly fanciful suggestion follows, astonishingly, that "Woodrow Wilson was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator…. In Italy they were called Fascists. In Germany they were called National Socialists. In America we called them progressives." (80-1) Never mind that Mussolini founded the first fascist movement in 1919, just as Wilson was being outflanked by Congress on the Treaty of Versailles. And never mind that Mussolini was totalitarian precisely because he sought to abolish a constitutional order with checks and balances for an explicitly proclaimed revolution against liberal decadence. In fact, never mind that "he made up the word," (52) but that, in actuality, the term "totalitarianism" was coined earlier by an Italian anti-fascist liberal named Giovanni Amendola (and it is worth noting, killed for his opinions by Fascist Italy). And again, never mind that Gregor Strasser's quote advocating socialism was made in the mid-1920s (71) – a time when Nazism sought working-class support from Northern Germany via regional leaders like the Strasser brothers and Joseph Goebbels – a few years before just such "left-wing" views helped cost him all Nazi Party posts in late 1932, finally resulting in his murder during the "Night of the Long Knives."

Roger Griffin:

Such fascist ‘totalitarianism’ is rooted in a bid to create a social and anthropological revolution anathema to social or progressive liberalism since it means the suppression or destruction of autonomous liberal political and social institutions and the eradication of effective liberal humanist values and the civil society on which their survival and health depends. These are then replaced by a highly centralized state with no countervailing forces, a process promoted and theorized by all fascist ideologues and movements and extensively actualized in very different ways by Fascism, Nazism and the Ustasha State, the last two with genocidal consequences for the enemy.

....

The elision of fascism of totalitarianism with any movement towards government intervention in society or the economy within a democracy. This lies at the nub of the book’s wilful perversion of historical truth and political scientific theory evident in such passages. Significantly it occurs again without the word being used explicitly in the slightly modified short definition Goldberg gives in his interview for California Literary Review (http://calitreview.com/303): “an instinctual religious impulse – usually gussied-up [sic] as a secular or modern ideology – that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society. All oars in a fascistic society must pull together. The personal is political because everything goes together. Political correctness is one name we give to such efforts in civil society.”

Note the way that this definition is, even more obviously than the original one, not of fascism at all, but actually of totalitarianism, which is now stretched even to embrace the ‘PC’ culture of modern liberal democracy. Goldberg thus abandons any notion that totalitarianism involves state monopolizing or harnessing of political, economic, and cultural power to create a new order in which individual human rights, pluralism and diversity are severely compromised.

Michael Ledeen:

And he shies away from the revolutionary nature of fascism for another reason, too: because it shows that revolution is not just a leftist political phenomenon. Jonah wants to have us believe that fascism was “of the left.”

....

So while there were fascists with leftist tendencies, they were alienated from the regime, embittered by its reactionary nature, and eventually went elsewhere. If anything, their stories show how little “leftism” survived the twenty years of fascist rule.

There's lots more here, if you care to look.

And of course, any serious sources on fascism that you care to peruse is going to give you similar discreditaitons of what you're trying to assert.

http://hnn.us/articles/122245.html

Edited September 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I'm not advancing an original idea, here. I'm simply repeating the reality that is the lie of fascism being an "extreme right-wing" ideology. At the end of the day, it is the left that supports greater government control over the economy and culture, which is much more in-line with fascism than the contemporary right-wing. My position is not my own, but one from honest scholars and intellectuals. As I've already said, off the top of my head I remember this same idea being advanced by Thomas Sowell, who certainly has "intellectual" credentials.

Yes, you've named one. You could also name the John Birch Society and Lyndon LaRouche, though I'm not sure you'd appreciate their company.

I gave you several with "intellectual credentials" on a single page. You could find hundreds more, if you liked. I point this out only because your Appeal to Authority here has been rather outdone.

Fascism is a leftist ideology, despite the stupid spectrum you may or may not have studied in your Poli-Sci 101 class during your first year at university.

Actually, as you implicitly concede elsewhere, those arguing with you are adhering to the mainstream, consensus scholarly view...not the soundbites commonly dismissed as "101" this or that in these sorts of arguments.

You see, that derisive response itself implies that a serious scholar who spends more intensive time on the subject will arrive at a different view.

But the serious, intensive and expansive view is the one I have been proposing here, not you.

Actually, many scholars do agree with me.

Define "many," and who are they?

Edited September 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

So you're saying that fascists and leftists are two peas in a pod because they both support "greater government control over the economy and culture". Is that right, Bob? ... If so, I have some questions for you: Since our society here in North America has ceased to be a democratic society, and is now a plutonomy / plutocracy (back to Plato's 'Republic' everyone) wherein the uber-rich elite minority are in fact the "masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) who control both the economy and culture, what are they? Are they fascists or leftists? Or are they communists? ... Perhaps they are all three, eh?

What I'm saying is clear, that fascism is not an extreme right-wing idelogy, but rather an extreme left-wing ideology. Most importantly, fascism has MUCH more in common with the contemporary left-wing in Western politics than with those of us on the right.

It is the left-wing that wants more regulation and centralized control of all things economic and cultural. It is the left-wing that promotes hollow departments such as ministries for culture and minorities (like Aboriginals). It is the left-wing that wants to censor media and entertainment such as movies and video games. It is the left-wing that seeks to control speech via institutions such as the HRTs. It is the left-wing that engages in social engineering through, for example, indoctrination into "multiculturalism". And that's just the social side. I am certain there will be no debate that it is the left-wing that seeks greater and greater economic intervention from the government to promote "equality" (in other words, theft masquerading as "redistribution of wealth" or "spreading the wealth around"). It is also the left that promotes empty ideas such as positive "rights", where the obligation for the provision and protection of these "rights" lies on the shoulders of others who never consented to the burden.

I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions. Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so. At the end of the day, and I've said this several times already, fascism has many more parallels with the contemporary left than the contemporary right.

It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. There's really no point in even debating this as it should be self-evident, and this is true in both Canada and the USA.

[guyser]

What I'm saying is clear,

That much is clear , what isnt is the reasons why, and when you do , well, they tend to be backwards as in...

It is the left-wing that wants more regulation and centralized control of all things economic and cultural the left-wing that wants to censor media and entertainment such as movies and video games.

The PMRC in the US was left wing, who knew?

Its the left who didnt want gay marriage?

No church group,nor right leaning group ever wants porn banned or TV shows cleaned up (OMG Janet J, cover that nipple)

I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions. Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so. At the end of the day, and I've said this several times already, fascism has many more parallels with the contemporary left than the contemporary right.

Say it again and again, it may, in some parallel universe or out of this world scenario , come true.

It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. There's really no point in even debating this as it should be self-evident, and this is true in both Canada and the USA.

PM Martin program spending $175 Billion

PM Harper program spending $245 Billion.

Yup, less govt control obviously

Growth of govt since Harper took office , 8%

Reagan did the same.

Good thing they are all Left wing govt's because otherwise your thesis would be.....hey wait a second.

I don't care what this or that scholar says

Obviously, but you really should have.

[GostHacked]

Just in case it hasn't been said, yet - the lie of fascism being on the far-end of the right side of the political spectrum needs to be undone. Fascism is essentially a leftist ideology, and it has a lot more in common with ordinary run-of-the-mill leftists that it does with those of us on the right. Fascism is almost virtually indistinguishable from communism, aside from capital being privately-owned (although completely regulated by the government, essentially resulting in the major parallels with communism), and that fascism is nationally-oriented whereas communism has an international focus.

Totalitarian systems are leftist systems.

If you stick to the notion of 'left' and 'right' when it comes to labels and politics, it is only going to do you a huge disservice in the long run.

[Black Dog]

What I'm saying is clear, that fascism is not an extreme right-wing idelogy, but rather an extreme left-wing ideology. Most importantly, fascism has MUCH more in common with the contemporary left-wing in Western politics than with those of us on the right.

It is the left-wing that wants more regulation and centralized control of all things economic and cultural. It is the left-wing that promotes hollow departments such as ministries for culture and minorities (like Aboriginals). It is the left-wing that wants to censor media and entertainment such as movies and video games. It is the left-wing that seeks to control speech via institutions such as the HRTs. It is the left-wing that engages in social engineering through, for example, indoctrination into "multiculturalism". And that's just the social side. I am certain there will be no debate that it is the left-wing that seeks greater and greater economic intervention from the government to promote "equality" (in other words, theft masquerading as "redistribution of wealth" or "spreading the wealth around"). It is also the left that promotes empty ideas such as positive "rights", where the obligation for the provision and protection of these "rights" lies on the shoulders of others who never consented to the burden.

All those things may be true (though most are not. Morality-based censorship, for example, is a distinctly right wing phenomenon). But they don't have anything to do with fascism. Fascist states never cared a jot about "redistributing wealth" except insofar as it could be redistributed to the ruling class. As for the focus on the protection of rights, history tells us that is not really a huge priority for fascist regimes.

I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions. Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so.

Nor does your saying otherwise make it so. Perhaps you should have actually listened in university.

It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. There's really no point in even debating this as it should be self-evident, and this is true in both Canada and the USA.

It's almost cute to see someone so horribly deluded.

[eyeball]

Nazism, as an example, is extreme leftism. Hitler was not right-wing by any means. Same for Mussolini.

Yeah but so is George W Bush according to you. You're really a left-wing troll masquerading as a hard-boiled right-winger aren't you?

Give it a rest.

[CitizenX]

Fascism is a leftist ideology

Fascism is neither right or left, it's a social dimension. As shown on this site (Political Compass) Stalin was an authoritarian leftist, Hitler was basically centered on the economic dimension.