Is fascism right or left?

[dblack]

Further proof that the word means nothing.

Well, we have to agree on definitions before we can have any serious discussion. But fascism is at least as well-defined as left and right.

 

[there4eyeM]

Facism (Hitler, Mussolini) puts the state above the individual. That's right wing. Totalitarian left equivalents (Stalin, Mao) put the 'mass' above the individual.
It could be argued a difference without a distinction.

 

[Pogo]

Communism is merely an economic model of how to manage wealth. It prescribes nothing about what level of authoritarianism may be administered or not administered concurrent with it.

In practice, totalitarian.

Not necessarily.

Do you have an example? Humans want to be noted for being 'better' at things, Communism removes that, in theory.

Sure do.

Here's a religious sect that bases their lifestyle on the Book of Acts (Acts 4:32-35: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

They have no individual possessions beyond the clothes on their back (which they make). They live in housing made by the collective, by the collective. They transact business with the outside world as a collective, all of which proceeds go back into the collective ("colony"). They take meals in a common hall at a common time. Everybody works. In fact it's inconceivable to stand by and watch somebody else work. Their attitude is, if there's work to be done --- you're in it.

Yet none of them are forced to stay in it; if they choose to go to the outside world to taste another approach (ours)--- they simply do. And 99% of them come back and are welcomed back upon return.

Their economic model is that everything is collectively owned, and they run it voluntarily. I might add, for what it's worth, they're the most self-assured confident group of people I've ever encountered. This particular sect has been living this way for five hundred years and in that time they've had something like one murder and two suicides. Total. And they're absolute pacifists, so they've never been involved in a war anywhere.

That's one group I'm experientially familiar with but there are others: Christian Communism

This could be called communist, but it might be better to find or create another word. Some, especially Americans, see or hear "communist" and can only think of Joe Stalin, an absolutist and authoritarian every bit as much as Adolf Hitler.
Christianity in its basic form requires this group's approach to life together, but that religion has been so compromised by the power hungry that its meaning, like these other words (fascist, communist, ...), has largely been lost. We can hope that these few real practicants prosper and shine as an example.

If "communism" means an economic system where the collective owns the proverbial "means of production", and all the fruits of that production, which I believe it does, then that's what they're doing. If what they're running can be called a "commune" and if their social group is a community, which again it is, then they are not to blame for some political demagogues' careless misuse of language just because those demagogues can't be bothered with distinctions -- or find them inconvenient to their own demagoguery. In other words that's on those demagogues, not the language.

Those same demagogues, at the same time, tried to pervert the noble term "Liberal" in the same way, failing to mention that when they referred to a "communist" country what they described was rather an authoritarian country, which is not the same thing. They did that because they were building a Two Minutes Hate to further their own side's agenda, and language was targeted as the first casualty. But if we genuflect to such word-assassination and consent to demonize a term just because some entity wants it demonized, then to use a modern analogy ----- the language terrorists win.

We note at this point that we attach no such stigma to the words commune or community, even though they mean in a general way the same thing and have the same root. Nor should they be stigmatized. The Book of Acts passage serving as a foundation above is commonly referred to as the "community of goods" concept.

It's also inviting to see a similar pattern in the bases of this word-negativizing between the two --- the Hutterites pictured above are, in the regions where they live (in the US mostly the plains and Montana) somewhat resented by the local standard-individualist populace because, since they operate as a cooperative rather than disparate individuals competing, their operations run much more efficiently and they can more easily and rapidly buy more land and other resources that they need, than the individualists can.. This gives them an advantage over the individualist/competitive model that the latter can sometimes interpret as 'not playing fair' -- which of course necessarily ass-umes that one's own model is the only "fair" one.

So it's easy to see a parallel when some "capitalist" government denounces a "communist" one purportedly on grounds of "liberty" or "human rights" but really because it's jealous that the latter is developing its economy and infrastructure faster than the former is comfortable with, which makes it paranoid because if their own masses notice the way that works, it threatens their own power. Hence the need to demonize it. Absolute power's first priority is self-preservation.

Anyway -- the overall point was here's an everyday practice of 'communism' (and five hundred years old) that neither exercises nor requires any administration of authoritarianism, which demonstrates that the latter is in no way a requisite for the former.

 

[dblack]

Facism (Hitler, Mussolini) puts the state above the individual. That's right wing. Totalitarian left equivalents (Stalin, Mao) put the 'mass' above the individual.
It could be argued a difference without a distinction.

This is why I've always found the dual axis Nolan chart far more useful in categorizing political ideologies. For those who haven't seen it: