Is fascism left or right wing?

Question

With the rise of some groups claiming to fight fascism, and other groups claiming the ones claiming to fight fascism are the fascists, I was reading about fascism in Wikipedia. There fascism is described as a right wing ideology. In my personal opinion, I believe I've seen other articles in Wikipedia not being objective but politicized so I went for a second opinion. And I found this other article where 69% of the people describe it as a left wing ideology.

Moreover in the same Wikipedia, I read the founder of Fascism was a former member of the socialist party, he was described by others as a socialist , he refered to himself as a socialist ( Benito Mussolini ) and that Fascism claimed to economically represent a type of nationalist productivist socialism that condemned parasitical capitalism. In other regions of the world at the same time outside Italy, such as in Chile, parties under the name of socialism borrowed and practiced ideas described as fascists. National Socialist Movement of Chile

As we know, socialism is left-wing.

So what is it? A right, left or transversal ideology?

Answer 1

For reference, the part of the article you seem to be referring to:

fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Later sections go though this assertion in significant detail. I'm not going to go through each of the scholars that they set out the position of, but I think the opening section is helpful:

Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard fascism as either a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

I'm not going to go into the independence of Wikipedia but this poll that you quote as 69% agreeing defines yes as left wing and and no as right wing and doesn't leave a middle ground. There are many issues with polls especially ones that pigeon hole and reasons why it might not be accurate at all and isn't necessarily a good way of establishing something factual, again I'm not going to go into this.

For reference, a definition of the spectrum:

In Europe, left and right reflect mainly class-issues, with the Left seeking more redistributive policies. In the US, social policies are also important, with the Left promoting social reform and the Right defending conservative Christian values.

It's worth noting that the left-right spectrum conflates liberalism/conservatism and communism/socialism/capitalism into one single spectrum. I think this is where the confusion comes from, it is tempting to put policies that do not really feature in the economic spectrum on the right or left of the conflated spectrum according to how parties that promote such policies are traditionally aligned on the economic spectrum.

According to Wikipedia:

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."

According to Wikipedia the mentioned issues with the right-left spectrum have been recognized as an issue:

Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.

A right, left or transverse ideology?

Putting to one side the historical examples and where they traditionally get their support from and in stead focusing on the values of fascism.

Fascist tenets include Nationalism,Totalitarianism, Dictatorship, Militarism. Where you place these tenets on the spectrum is somewhat up for debate. Perhaps these tenets are really not suitable for placing on the left-right spectrum. However so that this question can be somewhat answered

As fascism fits many of these tenets associated with the right of the spectrum above it could therefor, be said that fascism is somewhat right wing by association. However these are only characterization and don't necessarily fit by definition into either left or right.

TLDR; ideologies don't always fit well into the left-right spectrum. Although fascism is, in some senses a, centrist ideology it is often by association placed on the right.

Answer 2

Fascism is extreme-right, and quite obviously so.

The opening line on Wikipedia for left-wing politics:

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4]

For right-wing politics:

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[5][6][7] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition.[8]:p. 693, 721[9][10][11][12][13]

The opening line on Wikipedia for fascism:

Fascism is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[14][15] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[16] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[17]

Fascism supports extreme social hierarchy, and is therefore as far as one possibly can be removed from left-wing politics, by taking right-wing politics to the extreme. Quite obviously, fascism is extreme-right.

A somewhat simplified way to put it would be:

• Left-wing: increase equality, usually with the government, but in some (more radical) cases proposed without the government (anarchism, Democratic Confederalism)
• Laissez-faire (right wing): reduce government and let "natural" inequality be ("why should I have to pay more taxes to pay for your children to go to a better school?")
• Fascism (extreme right): use government to enhance social stratification (the strong rule the weak)

Whether the company I work for is owned by the state or by private shareholders doesn't really matter directly (although if owned by the state, the state could in theory use profits to promote equality, it can also use it to invade countries and implement genocide).

Note 1: it seems some people believe that state control is left wing. That is too simple. Institutions of the state, such as the military or the police, are usually viewed critically by the left, and very critically by the far left, as institutions of oppression. For example, the leftist Black Panther Party very actively challenged police brutality, and in leftist Rojava there is an aim to eliminate the police: «(...) police academy (Asayiş). Everyone had to take courses in non-violent conflict resolution and feminist theory before they were allowed to touch a gun. The co-directors explained to us their ultimate aim was to give everyone in the country six weeks of police training, so that ultimately, they could eliminate police.». On the other hand, conservative parties often support enhanced power for police or secret services. The extreme case of this is a totalitarian police state.

Note 2: it is debatable whether one can divide left-wing into "socially" and "economically". The economic system is a social system, in which people trade with each other with certain ownership structures and economic rules.

Note 3: where does laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism fit in then? That could be up for debate (unlike fascism). Many left-wing people will argue that laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism will lead to a strong class society with strong de facto social stratification, in which some people have much stronger opportunities than others. So even though the means are very different from the means of fascism, many/most people on the left would describe both of those as right-wing. But if you had proposed to not have a state at all in the 1930s, you would likely have been grouped with left-wing anarchists, although I'm not sure if "anarcho-capitalists" existed in the first half of the 20th century.

Note 4: How about economically egalitarian authoritarian dictatorships? Is there such a thing? Cuba is a one-party state that is relatively economically egalitarian. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. Both are run by parties that claim to thrive for communism. But how egalitarian are those countries in practice? That is a question for another post (and I do not have the expertise to answer it).

---

Sources in Wikipedia quote on left-wing politics:

[1] Smith, T. Alexander; Tatalovich, Raymond (2003). Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press. p. 30.
[2] Bobbio, Norberto; Cameron, Allan (1997). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press. p. 37.
[3] Ball, Terence (2005). The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought (Reprint. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 9780521563543. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
[4] Thompson, Willie (1997). The Left In History: Revolution and Reform in Twentieth-Century Politic. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0745308913.

Sources in Wikipedia quote on right-wing:

[5] Johnson, Paul (2005). "Right-wing, rightist". A Political Glossary. Auburn University website. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
[6] Bobbio, Norberto; Cameron, Allan (1996). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 51, 62. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4.
[7] Goldthorpe, J.E. (1985). An Introduction to Sociology (Third ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-521-24545-6.
[8] Carlisle, Rodney P. (2005). Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right. Thousand Oaks [u.a.]: SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4129-0409-4.
[9] T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 30.
[10] Left and right: the significance of a political distinction, Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron, p. 37, University of Chicago Press, 1997.
[11] Seymour Martin Lipset, cited in Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. 1990. The left-right schema. pp. 203–34 in Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, ed.M.Jennings et al. Berlin:de Gruyter
[12] Lukes, Steven. 'Epilogue: The Grand Dichotomy of the Twentieth Century': concluding chapter to T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. pp.610–612 [13] Clark, William Roberts (2003). Capitalism, Not Globalism: Capital Mobility, Central Bank Independence, and the Political Control of the Economy ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Ann Arbor [u.a.]: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11293-7.

Sources in Wikipedia quote on fascism:

[14] Turner, Henry Ashby, Reappraisals of Fascism. New Viewpoints, 1975. p. 162. States fascism's "goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism".
[15] Larsen, Stein Ugelvik, Bernt Hagtvet and Jan Petter Myklebust, Who were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism (Columbia University Press, 1984; ISBN 978-82-00-05331-6), p. 424, "organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism".
[16] Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173; Nolte (1965) p. 300.
[17] "fascism". Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved 22 August 2017. Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. pp. 1–5

Answer 3

Let’s ask the fascists.
Benito Mussolini was indeed a socialist until the First World War, as quotes like these show:

For us the national flag is a rag to be planted on a dunghill. There are only two fatherlands in the world: that of the exploited and that of the exploiters.
_{(La Lotta di Classe (1910) paraphrasing French socialist Gustave Hervé, quoted in Mussolini in the Making (1938) by Gaudens Megaro)}

Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my Socialist beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of Socialism and of the Revolution.
_{Speech at the Italian Socialist Party’s meeting in Milan at the People’s Theatre on Nov. 25, 1914. Quote in Revolutionary Fascism by Erik Norling, Lisbon, Finis Mundi Press (2011) p. 88.}

As the second quote indicates, Mussolini was expelled from the socialist party after the beginning of the war because he changed from the official anti-war party line to a supporter; at the time believing the war to be good for the power struggle of the working class. However, he also began supporting nationalism—a clearly right-wing ideology—at this time:

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism … We intend to be an active minority, attract the proletariat away from the official Socialist party. But if the middle class thinks that we are going to be their lightning rods, they are mistaken.
_{Mussolini’s speech in Milan (March 23, 1919), quoted in Stanislao G. Pugliese, Fascism, Anti-fascism, and the Resistance in Italy: 1919 to the Present, Oxford, England, UK, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., (2004) p. 43}

Later, he became more explicit in rejecting his socialist history:

We deny the existence of two classes, because there are many more than two classes. We deny that human history can be explained in terms of economics. We deny your internationalism. That is a luxury article which only the elevated can practise, because peoples are passionately bound to their native soil.
We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility.
_{Speech (21 June 1921), Through Fascism to World Power: A History of the Revolution in Italy. Ion Smeaton Munro. 27 January 2008.}

It was therefore not sufficient to create—as some have said superficially—an anti-altar to the altar of socialism. It was necessary to imagine a wholly new political conception,adequate to the living reality of the twentieth century, overcoming at the same time the ideological worship of liberalism, the limited horizons of various spent and exhausted democracies, and finally the violently Utopian spirit of Bolshevism.
_{My Autobiography, New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1928. Reprinted in Benito Mussolini, My Rise And Fall, Volumes 1-2 Da Capo Press, 1998 (p. 68-9)}

The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists.
_{undated, Article in Popolo d'Italia, quoted in A History of Terrorism (2001) by Walter Laqueur, p. 71}

(All quotes taken from Mussolini’s Wikiquote page)

Okay, but what about the other poster fascist? Adolf Hitler was never in a socialist party. He did say:

Everyone was at one time a Social Democrat.
_{1921, as quoted in Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924, Eberhard Jäckel and Axel Kuhn, (editors) Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1980, p. 448}

He uses past tense though; if he once considered himself one, he probably does no longer. See also these:

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.
_{Speech in Munich on 12 April 1921}

Germany is the bulwark of the West against Bolshevism, and, in combating it, will meet terror with terror and violence with violence.
_{Speech in Berlin (29 November 1935), quoted in The Times (26 September 1939), p. 9}

Of course, the name of the Nazi party includes (national-) socialist. How does he describe that?

'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.
_{Speech given on December 28, 1938, quoted in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939 pg. 93}

(All quotes taken from Hitler’s Wikiquote page.)

In case it is not immediately obvious from these quotes, there were actions to back up the quotes. To list just the two most obvious:

• The SA frequently fought against the Rotfrontkämpferbund (Red Front Fighters League; the corresponding communist organisation)
• The fire in the Reichstag of February 1933 was blamed on the Communist party and served as an excuse to imprison all members of that party including the members of parliament

One might also look at Hitler’s rise to power. The initial cabinet with chancellor Hitler from January 1933 was a coalition government of Hitler’s NSDAP and the far-right conservative DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei; German People’s National Party). They were appointed by a rather conservative president Hindenburg. These people certainly didn’t view Hitler as anywhere close to the left wing or they would never have entered a coalition with him. But all I am adding here is little more than sugar decorations on the icing on the cake.

I’m sure that if I search long enough, I can find a list as long as this answer containing only quotes from key figures of the Nazi party spouting hate towards communists, socialists and social democrats.

---

tl;dr: Fascists did not consider themselves left-wing, they considered the left wing their natural enemies, there is no indication of them ever wanting to be left-wing and they strongly spoke out against key left-wing ideas and politics. There is not a question that fascism is right-wing.

Answer 4

In 1944 George Orwell published 'What is Fascism?' He said:

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else...

By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

It's clear that most people use the term to mean something they consider awful and extreme. Generally we could say a 'fascist' is anyone more right wing than you, just as a 'communist' is anyone more left wing than you. However, these intuitive and frankly bullshit explanations demonstrate a complete lack of ideological comprehension.

Fascism has been described as 'third way', incorporating aspects of what is traditionally considered 'left' and 'right' into something very different. Whatever way you attempt to generalise left and right, it tends to fall into some sort of a trap. To understand 'left' as being the pursuit of revolutionary collective equality, in opposition to 'right' being the pursuit of traditional individual freedom, does at least touch on the origins of the distinction from the French revolution. But this is clearly insufficient to describe fascism.

Complicating matters is the fact that there is considerable variation between fascist regimes; Italy, Germany, Spain. But there are common elements. Fascism experts often conclude fascism's uniqueness is in its belief in violence as morality. Fascism is anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-intellectual, and pro-violence for its own sake; not just as a means to an end.

Fascists believe that violence is a life-affirming act which allows the natural order to be restored. While the prioritisation of the collective above the individual may be considered typically left-wing, equally the emphasis on natural hierarchy and inequality is undeniably right-wing. So with Fascism we have an ideology which doesn't make any sense in a left-right dichotomy.

To the fascist, democracy is a perverse exercise which denies the strong the ability to rule over the weak. This requires violent revolution to conquer society, that this act will be proof of their superiority.

In the fascist state the people become a superior race through transcendent purging violence, in the same way as the body combats infection. This has led to interesting contradictions. Hitler was supremely anti-Semitic, regarding Jews as a fundamentally alien threat and global problem. While, initially at least, Mussolini was forced to concede that in Italy Jews were not alien others. Between seizing power in 1922 and 1938, Italy's Jews suffered little persecution. But as Italy's relationship with Germany intensified so too did the transfusion of German anti-Semitism.

World expert in the holocaust, Timothy Snyder, presents an even more counter-intuitive analysis of Hitler's ideology and Nazism more specifically. Snyder concludes that Hitler cannot be understood as merely a nationalist or anti-Semite who went further than most, but that his ideology was unique: 'racial anarchism'. What he means by this, is that Hitler viewed most things; religion, philosophy, rule of law, liberalism, communism, etc, as essentially inventions of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy superior races.

In this context, Nazi activity in occupied Poland makes a great deal of sense, as the Nazi regime was not simply occupying a foreign state, it was attempting to completely destroy all institutions which prevented racial warfare. What used to be the Polish state was reduced to a region of effective lawlessness in which the allegedly superior race could do what was natural, and wipe out the competition.

Anarchism has typically been defined as a far-left ideology which promotes the equality of individuals, and rejects the necessity of an involuntary state. Anarchists advocate for a 'free territory' of voluntary association and fair distribution of resources. This is quite the contrast to Nazi anarchist ideas, which are about the violent enforcement of inequality. So again we have a direct conflict within the traditional left-right dichotomy.

It has been said that because the Nazis were 'National Socialists' that they must therefore be socialists, but if you believe that perhaps you also believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has free and fair elections.

I would tend to accept self-identification, but this does require a basic ideological consistency. Catholics and Protestants both claim to be Christian, and they both adhere to a lot of common fundamental ideas about Jesus which does suggest they are both a sort of Christian. Not so with socialist beliefs about equality and fascist beliefs about inequality, there is no commonality.

The state control of industry is by no means uniquely socialist. After all, state corporations were part and parcel of imperialism which was neither socialist nor fascist; like the British East India Company. In capitalism industry exists for individual profit. In socialism industry exists to share surplus. In fascism industry exists to be loyal to the state; fascist states had varying economic policies and didn't seem to care much for consistency in this regard. There simply isn't a 'fascist' economic model.

In conclusion, fascism is third way because it does not make sense in a left-right dichotomy. The pursuit of revolutionary collective inequality doesn't fit anywhere on that spectrum.

EDIT: I watched a documentary 'Ben Building: Mussolini, Monuments and Modernism' which has one of the best distinctions I've yet heard:

What is fascism? The response that it's a pathology of the extreme right is idle, thoughtless. Equally, the response that it's a cancer of the extreme left is idle, thoughtless. If the extreme right is a race horse, and the extreme left is a cart horse, what sort of horse is fascism? It's the sort of horse called a combine harvester. Which is of course, not a horse. It's not even an animal. It is a category error to invoke right and left in the explanation of this phenomenon. Fascism exists in a world parallel to that of democracy.

Answer 5

General disagreement as to the meaning of fascism seems to be a lasting phenomenon. In 1938 Stuart Chase did a little straw poll of acquaintances, then devoted pages of The Tyranny of Words, (see page 131 here), contrasting people's varying working definitions of fascism -- while the definitions collected varied considerably, most speakers' general usage at that time was seldom much qualified enough to allow others to distinguish whichever definition was being used, assuming the hearers didn't automatically suppose the speaker always meant the hearer's own definition.

Since the term fascism hasn't been notably standardized since 1938, the answer of whether fascism is left wing or right wing would be: it depends on one's preferred definition.

Answer 6

This answer depends on our definition of Left and Right, which is often complicated by their use in US politics. In the US two-party system, each party is a coalition of diverse and sometimes contradictory interests. This leads to a lot of confusion about what these political terms are supposed to mean.

The concepts of "Left" and "Right" originate from France during the Revolutionary era. Nobles and Monarchists sat to the right side of the head of the National Assembly. Commoners and Revolutionaries were seated to his left.

There is a confusing web of different ideologies whose names sometimes change over time. But diluting everything down, Left-wing ideologies seek to democratize power and spread it among the population. Right-wing ideologies seek to concentrate power to a handful of 'great men' trusted to maintain order.

Most of us in the West live in some form of combined Democratic Capitalist society. Usually, this combination seems to work. We all tend to have a mix of internal leanings from both of these sets of ideas in our minds, and they usually dont have to conflict in our everyday lives. So what generally defines Left and Right in our societies is how you react when those two ideologies do come in to conflict.

(Should the poor man have access to basic needs like food and shelter? Or is he at fault for not succeeding in the market and now belongs at the mercy of others because of his failure? Do his circumstances matter? Or should he have overcome whatever burdens were placed upon him on his own?)

An idealist on the Left will seek to democratize power and allow collective decision-making where each individual can have a say about the society they live in. How exactly that is done can vary between ideologies.

An idealist on the Right will believe that those who have the most power are best equipped to make the 'right' decision. Who those people are can vary between ideologies. Maybe 'the market' decides. Or maybe God does. Or there's some other factor. As an answer to the question, this is where Fascism sits.

Fascism is a branch of Right-wing ideology in which the 'correct people' are of a specific national or cultural identity rather than being plutocratic or theocratic like other hierarchical ideologies. Fascists see history as a series of battles between nationalities. And they intend to win.

These differing tendencies are also why "the Left" tends to appear from the outside to be a confused squabbling mess. While the "the Right" appears more willing to latch onto 'the party man', whoever that happens to be at the time.

But we are all humans. We all can sometimes be weak to the draw of powerful personalities. Its a constant danger of the human condition regardless of politics. Especially in dangerous or violent times. That is how numerous revolutions of all stripes have turned into authoritarian regimes regardless of their original principals. Its how a revolution to overthrow a French King created an Emperor. Its how a revolution to overthrow a Russian Tsar created a Dictator.

Answer 7

Fascism is socially right wing, exhibiting conservativism, mythologised national heritage, and traditionalism...

...and economically left wing, with extensive hyper-centralised state control.

...in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference. (Source)

So fascism is both left and right wing, depending on whether you are talking about social policy or economic policy.

Answer 8

Fascism is a right-wing form of authoritarian government, while Communism is left-authoritarian government. Both ideologies rely on a powerful, centrally-planned state, but the alleged moral premises behind that state come from opposing ends of the political spectrum (i.e. "tradition" vs. "equality")

Answer 9

Fascism is Right Wing. People are stuck in these absolutes. A Right Wing party can as well incorporate some left wing ideology and vice versa. Very few of us are all one way or another. In order to understand WHY it has historically been considered Right Wing is because you have to understand where those terms came from. 1789 French Revolution. To the Left of the King were the commoners, the radicals, the Liberals etc. They believed the govt should work to help the people, ie provide bread for poor people tec. To the Right were those who supported the Monarchy, the Aristocrats, the Merchants, Law and Order, Traditional Values, etc. They would say let them eat cake. Let the "market" decide etc.

What people get confused by is that the Soviet Union under Stalin was more totalitarian therefor this is a Left Wing ideology when it is not. Stalin was employing Right Wing ideology but that did not make Communist USSR right wing though. Someone can be pro choice, universal healthcare, tuition free education but be pro gun. Are they now Right Wing because they are pro gun? Of course not. Centrist as well does not mean straight up Noon. Most lean left or right. That means mostly one side with some views on the other. Hitler never had a planned economy. It is unfair to characterize a wartime economy with that of a planned economy otherwise you just called the US communist as we had a wartime economy all during WWII. The Nazis were socially to the right and right leaning when it came to the economy. Hitler privatized many govt run institutions known as Prussian Socialist that he handed over to be run for profit. He lessened gun control on Germans overall but then abolished gun rights for Jews. What he was against was extreme capitalism and staunchly anti anything Marxist as he saw that being an abomination against individuals. He anti church stance was only in how it divided the German people and caused suffering, pointing to the 30 years war. He wanted a single unified German Church. He as well believed he was doing Providence. So pro family. Pro Patriarch. Traditional values. Extreme Nationalism. He was anti collectivist.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-is-the-origin-for-left-being-used-to-indicate-socialist-liberals-and-right

"Left was Liberal, Right was Conservative. Those on the Left wanted the King to have less power. Those on the Right wanted the King to keep his power."

https://www.history.com/news/ask-history/election-101-how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate

This is a very good one:

http://factmyth.com/the-origin-of-the-political-terms-left-and-right/

Answer 10

The problem is that as Orwell predicted the language has been intentionally twisted in order to create confusion. The modern usage of the term 'liberal' for example doesn't mean what it did in Locke's day. Locke's writing on the subjects of the 'consent of the governed' & that of natural individual rights is no longer recognized by people who currently are referred to as liberal. If the modern liberal is a leftist ideology, then we would have to classify 'classical liberalism' as right wing. With Anarchal Capitalism on the furthest right, meaning complete and total individual rights, on the furthest right, the US Republic as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution slightly to the left of An Cap, and I would put all types of totalitarianism on the far left, whether it be Communism, Socialism, Fascism etc. This is the only way that really makes sense. Having two different forms of collectivism on opposite ends of the spectrum, defies logic. Of course fans of Marxism will argue that Socialism is democratic(although in most cases it has not been or hasn't been for very long), but any who understands history as America's framers did, know that all democracies self destruct because the majority tyrannizes the minority & democracy rapidly becomes just as despotic as any other form of government. That's why the Framers designed a republic with protections(the Constitution) to attempt to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Communism & Fascism have always been ruled by dictators so placing them furthest left on the spectrum, right next to one another makes the most sense. The only difference between the 2 is that under Communism, economically the state literally owns all businesses, while under Fascism a small % of private ownership is allowed, but every aspect of these "privately" owned businesses are regulated right down to the smallest details and taxed all but a very small % of profit. Benito Mussolini was actually a Marxist, but he noticed that government was really crappy at running and managing businesses. His "marriage" if you will; of Communist collectivism, ran by a dictator and a small group of ruling elites, combined with the Capitalist idea that experts in their field were better at running and managing businesses gave birth to Fascism. In Italy's case capitalism didn't turn into Fascism, Socialism turned into Fascism. As most people know the word NAZI is a German acronym for National Socialist Workers Party. Again Fascism was birthed out of Socialism. Can you really, logically put Fascism on the opposite end of the spectrum as Marxism?

All forms of collectivism are antithetical to individual rights. Whether it's democratic socialism, communism or fascism the collective owns everything, and has all the rights, property rights and all others. Under all of these types of systems individuals can and do get sacrificed for the good of the collective. The opposite end of the spectrum should be determined by individual rights. Call whichever side you like right and the other left, but Fascism definitely belongs on the side of the rest of the forms of collectivism. I know what the text books say, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.