Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum
By Richard Larsen.
There are many logical incongruities that are maintained on a populist
level, especially when it comes to politics. Not least of these is the
composition of the political spectrum in identifying ideologies and
systems of governance. The most common fallacy is identifying fascism as
a right-wing ideology, even though its ideological roots originate in
the left-wing extremist models of communism and socialism.
The most pervasive political
spectrum is loosely based on a left/right orientation, and attempts to
place political models somewhere along the continuum.But for a
political spectrum to have any meaningful representation, it must be
based on some set of absolute values. Since every system of governance
has unique characteristics, those can hardly be used for the absolute
reference points from which to measure.
And because the spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other,
it is a straight line. It doesn’t curve around, or circumvent the scale
at any point. It is a continuous, single-dimensional range from one
extreme to the other. And with individual freedom, there are only two
absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom
(totalitarianism). With those absolutes established at the ends of the
spectrum, all systems of governance can be effectively placed on the
spectrum, and scaled based on the degree or level of individual freedom,
or conversely, the degree of state control over the individual.
Some political scientists have maintained that a single left-right axis
is inadequate, and have consequently often added biaxial spectra
distinguishing between varying issues. This is unnecessary when broadly
identifying systems of governance based on a continuum of individual
freedom, for ancillary factors and characteristics inevitably integrate
into the dominant ideological model.
On the political spectrum, the furthest to the left, the more
totalitarian the government is. Centralized planning and governmental
control over the lives of individuals is characteristic of all forms of
socialism, whether Communist or the Nationalist variety, (fascism) and
the state assumes preeminence over individual rights when taken to the
extreme.
The furthest to the right on the political spectrum, the more individual
liberty is advanced. Taken to its extreme is anarchy. When analyzed
logically, then, National Socialism and fascism are wholly incongruent
philosophically and practically to the right of the spectrum. Those who
refer to Nazism as “right-wing” are politically ill-informed and have
fallen for Stalin’s tactic of referring to them as such. One scholar
makes the point that Nazism is to Communism what Pepsi is to Coke:
basically the same but with a little different flavor.
Economically, fascism advocates control of business and labor, not
ownership of it as communism advocates. In fact Mussolini called his
system the “Corporate State.” Even the term “totalitarianism” derives
from Mussolini’s concept of the preeminence of the “total state.”
ndeed,
European fascism is an offshoot of Marxism, the theoretical framework
for communism and socialism. The founding
father to fascism, Benito Mussolini, in 1919 established the Fasci
Italiani di Combattimento, which by 1921, became the National Fascist
Party. He was born and raised a socialist. His father was a member of
the same internationale as Marx and Engels. His father read him Das
Kapital as a bedtime story. He was kicked out of the Italian Socialist
Party in 1914 for supporting World War I, which he believed would save
socialism, and stubbornlydeclared that he’d die a socialist.
This all makes much more sense logically, when the destructive and
pejorative elements to Nazism, which was fascistic, are considered. The
Brown Shirts, SS (Schutzstaffel), Gestapo, pogroms, anti-Semitism,
genocide, eugenics, etc. ad nauseam are all products of oppressive,
totalitarian ideology, not one that believes in more freedom.
Disturbingly, there is an American statism based ideologically on
similar principles to European fascism. Our statist movement has the
same ideological connections with those in Europe, reliant on
philosophical components of Hegel, Weber, Marx, Kung, and Sartre. It’s
harmonious in principle to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of
Propaganda, statement, “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”
America’s
version also seeks to concentrate power in the state at the
expense of individual liberty. As philosopher Leonard Piekoff states, it
“does not represent a new approach to government; but is a continuation
of the political absolutism — the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies,
the theocracies, the random tyrannies — which has characterized most of
human history.” It seeks to suppress criticism and opposition to the
government. It denounces and eschews individualism, capitalism and
inequity in compensation. It seeks out and targets enemies of the people
like corporations and those not supportive of their collectivist
objectives. Clearly, even American statism is fascistic, and distinctly
characteristic of the political left.
Historically, ideologically, and etymologically, fascism is a
stepchild to Marxist theory. While differences exist between these isms,
they are all oppressive, and are among the most totalitarian forms of
government in the 20th century.
Any attempts to describe the political spectrum as “circular,” rather
than “linear,” are logically untenable. Any attempt to conflate fascism
with the American right on the spectrum, is historically revisionist
and wholly illogical. It only fits with an inane, and politically
motivated model for casting aspersions, for it has no basis in
historical, logical, or ideological fact.
