Fascism: Right or Left?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

This thread is in debates due to the controversial nature of the topic, but I believe it is a discussion worth having. Here is a video from YouTube that attempts to answer the question "Is Fascism Right or Left?":

 

 

The video makes the claim that Fascism is an ideology coming from the left, and brings up its historical and philosophical beginnings to back that claim. One thing that worries me is how there is little mention of how people took this philosophy and twisted it to fit their own agenda, but that discussion can be brought up later.

 

For now, do you think Fascism is an ideology from the right or the left? Why? Was it on one side and switched to the other?

 

If you don't wish to join the discussion, I still advise you to watch the video as it introduces ideas not commonly known, and knowledge is power after all. Also, I will not hestitate to report people who get out of hand.

[Arimetal]

I think both sides are bullshit tbh. I'm all for the lack of a political party. All they seem to do is stir up trouble within a society. A country with such conflicting parties is a country divided, what is needed is a country united. Extremists exist on both the left and the right and the stigma that both sides carry is overwhelmingly toxic. People like PragerU, while all their facts are correct, are promoting the divide. Promoting more of the right and down talking the left. Conversion is not the key. Only by destroying the standards of the left and the right do people realize that they are on common ground. Politics is not a war.

[Dad]

I think both sides are bullshit tbh. I'm all for the lack of a political party. All they seem to do is stir up trouble within a society. A country with such conflicting parties is a country divided, what is needed is a country united. Extremists exist on both the left and the right and the stigma that both sides carry is overwhelmingly toxic. People like PragerU, while all their facts are correct, are promoting the divide. Promoting more of the right and down talking the left. Conversion is not the key. Only by destroying the standards of the left and the right do people realize that they are on common ground. Politics is not a war.

 

Politics literally start wars.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

And XOXO, I find it interesting that you think PragerU is trying go take advantage of the political divide. I considered the video more educational tbh, especially considerimg it introduces a philosopher most haven't heard of. Sure made me think a bit about what I thought I knew.

[Snatch Steal]

Oh my funking god another Prager U video in this section

 

I love how he talks about conservatives wanting small government but leaves out separation of church and state, and somehow thinks conservatives care at all about civil liberties considering their track record on minority rights.

 

Especially ironic considering the alt-right would adore smear campaigns against libertarians who lean left, since it just means more recruits, even if only a few.

 

Anyway, if a far-right media group says that something bad that’s often attributed to them should actually be attributed to their enemy, and cherry-picks evidence to theoretically support their claim, I’d take it with a grain of salt.

 

Oh and by the way, this is the same YouTube channel that made the silly “men are oppressed because schools” video

 

I think both sides are bullshit tbh. I'm all for the lack of a political party. All they seem to do is stir up trouble within a society. A country with such conflicting parties is a country divided, what is needed is a country united. Extremists exist on both the left and the right and the stigma that both sides carry is overwhelmingly toxic. People like PragerU, while all their facts are correct, are promoting the divide. Promoting more of the right and down talking the left. Conversion is not the key. Only by destroying the standards of the left and the right do people realize that they are on common ground. Politics is not a war.

You sound pretentious and nihilistic in generalizing political ideologies because of loud minorities and it comes off like this

But okay

[Arimetal]

Oh my funking god another Prager U video in this section

 

I love how he talks about conservatives wanting small government but leaves out separation of church and state, and somehow thinks conservatives care at all about civil liberties considering their track record on minority rights.

 

Especially ironic considering the alt-right would adore smear campaigns against libertarians who lean left, since it just means more recruits, even if only a few.

 

Anyway, if a far-right media group says that something bad that’s often attributed to them should actually be attributed to their enemy, and cherry-picks evidence to theoretically support their claim, I’d take it with a grain of salt.

 

Oh and by the way, this is the same YouTube channel that made the silly “men are oppressed because schools” video

 

You sound pretentious and nihilistic in generalizing political ideologies because of loud minorities and it comes off like this

But okay

 

That's completely fair, and it made me laugh my ass off. I'm just stating my opinion, growing up on a military base gives you a pretty diverse community to look at and see the issues that both sides rise up.

 

 

And XOXO, I find it interesting that you think PragerU is trying go take advantage of the political divide. I considered the video more educational tbh, especially considerimg it introduces a philosopher most haven't heard of. Sure made me think a bit about what I thought I knew.

 

The video is well constructed, don't get me wrong, but my conclusion moreso originates from other videos they have made. Every video I've seen from that channel has been really anti-left.

 

Politics literally start wars.

 

So does religion.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

The video is well constructed, don't get me wrong, but my conclusion moreso originates from other videos they have made. Every video I've seen from that channel has been really anti-left.

 

See, I did not know that. This video randomly popped on to my YouTube page, and I thought it was interesting enough to start a discussion on.

[Dad]

 

So does religion.

 

We're not talking about religion.  We're talking about politics.  Stop dodging.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

We're not talking about religion.  We're talking about politics.  Stop dodging.

What is there to dodge though? A bit more elaboration could help.

[Arimetal]

We're not talking about religion.  We're talking about politics.  Stop dodging.

 

I'm not dodging, I'm drawing relations. You stated in response to "Politics is not a war" that "Politics literally starts wars"

 

Correct me if I'm inferring this wrong, but to me you're saying that I'm wrong because politics is, in fact, the basis for many wars throughout history. I was simply replying that religion is guilty of the same, yet most people would not say that religion is a war in and of itself. So why should politics be treated differently? 

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.newsweek.com/filmmaker-pardoned-trump-shares-tweets-hashtag-burnthejews-and-1003260

 

Well first off you're promoting a video from someone who was repeatedly consciously retweeting messages with the hashtag #BurnTheJews and #BringBackSlavery, so already we're off to a bad start.

 

What is the source on his claim that the left says the right created fascism?

 

His claim that the left have tried to "erase" Giovanni Gentile is something that seems to have primarily peddled by him, so that just wreaks of baseless conspiracy theorizing on his part. Can anyone find any other source on the "liberal democracy" vs. "true democracy" dichotomy that D'Souza is claiming Gentile distinguished, or the "family" ideal?

 

I also can't help but notice he completely leaves out that Giovanni Gentile was a ghostwriter on The Doctrine of Fascism. It's not that Mussolini was "merely paraphrasing" Gentile, it was that they outright worked together on defining fascism. His entire premise hinges on the idea that Gentile is some "old shame" that the left is trying to erase from history, except he does nothing to elaborate on that beyond repeating that notion. 

 

His theory is that acknowledging Gentile would somehow undermine comparisons between the right and fascism, except he's assigning attributes to Gentile for the sake of comparing him to the left, except he offers no reason for why his supposed history lesson should be taken as fact. He also neglects that the Fascist Revolutionary Party was founded in 1915, a date that's not mentioned at any point in the video.

 

This video is rife with cherry-picking information, and seems more like it's meant to deflect criticism of the right by essentially making a childish claim of "NO YOU!" to the left, and given his habit of arguing in bad faith against the left, I don't see any merit to his claims.

[Dad]

I'm not dodging, I'm drawing relations. You stated in response to "Politics is not a war" that "Politics literally starts wars"

 

Correct me if I'm inferring this wrong, but to me you're saying that I'm wrong because politics is, in fact, the basis for many wars throughout history. I was simply replying that religion is guilty of the same, yet most people would not say that religion is a war in and of itself. So why should politics be treated differently? 

 

Because we're literally not talking about religion. We're not talking about religious wars.  We're not talking about the crusades.  We're talking about:

 

1.) Fascism

2.) Politics

3.) Political warfare.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong about religion.  In fact, you're right.  I'm saying you're wrong that politics is not a war.  Because for many people, especially minorities, it's a war.

 

Politics are the reason we're still overseas.  Politics are the reason the United States creates terrorist cells.  Politics are the reason.  Politics are a war.

 

When we get on religion, we can talk about that.  Cuz it's a war.  But this is not "Religion: Is it A War?".  You off base.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://www.newsweek.com/filmmaker-pardoned-trump-shares-tweets-hashtag-burnthejews-and-1003260

 

Well first off you're promoting a video from someone who was repeatedly consciously retweeting messages with the hashtag #BurnTheJews and #BringBackSlavery, so already we're off to a bad start.

 

Excuse me? I just stumbled upon a video and thought it was worth a discussion. Don't you dare suggest that I'm actively promoting the viewpoint, okay?

 

What is the source on his claim that the left says the right created fascism?

 

He never gave one, which is another complaint I have about it along with the one I gave in the OP.

 

His claim that the left have tried to "erase" Giovanni Gentile is something that seems to have primarily peddled by him, so that just wreaks of baseless conspiracy theorizing on his part. Can anyone find any other source on the "liberal democracy" vs. "true democracy" dichotomy that D'Souza is claiming Gentile distinguished, or the "family" ideal?

 

Well, I never heard of him in any history class I was in. It could be more of the idea that Fascism is bad than erasing him from the Left.

 

I also can't help but notice he completely leaves out that Giovanni Gentile was a ghostwriter on The Doctrine of Fascism. It's not that Mussolini was "merely paraphrasing" Gentile, it was that they outright worked together on defining fascism. His entire premise hinges on the idea that Gentile is some "old shame" that the left is trying to erase from history, except he does nothing to elaborate on that beyond repeating that notion.

 

Interesting. See, I didn't know that.

 

His theory is that acknowledging Gentile would somehow undermine comparisons between the right and fascism, except he's assigning attributes to Gentile for the sake of comparing him to the left, except he offers no reason for why his supposed history lesson should be taken as fact. He also neglects that the Fascist Revolutionary Party was founded in 1915, a date that's not mentioned at any point in the video.

 

History is partly up to how it is interpreted, you know? Though it is interesting seeing how pieces of his philosophy is in the Left, but I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.

 

This video is rife with cherry-picking information, and seems more like it's meant to deflect criticism of the right by essentially making a childish claim of "NO YOU!" to the left, and given his habit of arguing in bad faith against the left, I don't see any merit to his claims.

 

Once again, I just stumbled upon this on YouTube and thought it was interesting enough for a discussion. That's all.

[Phantom Roxas]

I realize that you do not intend to promote that viewpoint, which is why I want to warn you that Dinesh D'Souza's support of Nazi rhetoric already puts the content of this video on shaky ground.

 

His lack of a source is part of what makes this a weak foundation for a discussion. I don't see much merit to debating whether fascism is a right or left ideology when someone who's trying to deflect back onto the left has no other evidence to support their argument.

 

I never heard of Giovanni Gentile in any of my history classes as well, let alone until this video. But when D'Souza mentioned him, I immediately looked up Gentile to find corresponding sources, and history about his rhetoric and ideology. But my classes did teach me about Mussolini, who D'Souza only brings up to claim that he was paraphrasing Gentile.

 

While you may not have known what Gentile and Mussolini worked together, wouldn't you suspect that D'Souza may be preying on that exact lack of knowledge? If you don't know what he's supposedly teaching you, why are you going to believe otherwise? I recommend vetting your sources instead of giving D'Souza the validation he so desperately wants.

 

History may be up for interpretation, but that is because people can analyze the facts. D'Souza is blatantly cherry-picking whatever suits his narrative and glossing over the information that's inconvenient for him; ironically, that is the exact same thing he is accusing the left of doing. This is purely propaganda.

[vla1ne]

a bit late to the party, but, my question here would be why does it matter whether it's right or left? the idea itself is the issue in my opinion. but to put some smaller points for the discussion at hand that i either missed or didn't see here out in the open:

 

1) Republicans are for smaller government (overall) that kind of defeats the overall goal of fascism wouldn't it? a smaller government wouldn't have the power required to execute fascism on a larger scale, and as such, the right, as it is, would be a terrible home for facist ideals, so claiming the right is fascist, would kind of be calling them the opposite of what they stand for right? which is what makes antifa, with it's slogan of "bash the fascist" and it's clear hatred of whomever it perceives to be right wing, so confusing to me.   

 

2) The modern left claims to be more for individual democracy yes, but they are from many of the constituents actions, veering overall towards a more fascist government than their opposition aren't they? at least for the most part. the largest parallels i can see are the silencing of right wing viewpoints under false accusations, the use of power to shut down any who oppose them (seen more in Europe and Canada than the states) as has been shown time and again in articles where people are arrested for mere tweets and the like.

 

3) The philosopher in question, believed people were not individuals, but social, so yeah, him dividing democracy in two makes sense from that aspect. looking at it that way, you could argue that from where he sits, a democracy where people are treated as individuals is unthinkable. and as as result, must be separated from his ideal of true democracy, where people are viewed solely as a group, and consequently, makes the massive error of ignoring human ego (see in the above video as liberal democracy) was it something ever actually said by Giovanni? probably never, but it does match Giovanni's general outlook on the topic, if only barely.

 

4) Lastly, and to me, the largest takeaway, is that fascism, at it's core, is an authoritarian ideology, and at the moment, the left does indeed fit the bill far more than the right. but framing things as if the left were in some kind of grand conspiracy to hide the man? no. the ideology speaks for itself, and it's not exactly hard to make the exact same arguments, even without ever knowing who the founder of said beliefs are.

[Ninjask Is Bae]

In this comment I will not be argueing against the hypothesis that Fascism is a left leaning ideology. I actually think Fascism is neither left, nor right wing inheritely. I simply want to show that the video you showed has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I will show this through the sources that the video uses itself. Namely Gentile's works and La Dottrina Del Fascismo specifically, written by Gentile and Mussolini. It is basically a Fascist Manifesto.

 

The video tries to show Gentile is a socialist and a fan of Marx. This is very false. And a LIE. The narator MUST know this is not true.

 

La Dottrine Del Fascismo has a chapter called REJECTION OF MARXISM (written in all caps in the translation I'm reading, haha) which thoroughly debunks the thought that Gentile and Mussolini were in any ways fans of Marx. Next.

 

La Dottrine Del Fascismo also says that an ideal of fascism is: "No individual or groups ...  outside the state. Fascism is therefore opposed to socialism." It then blabla's on more about how different the two are but you get the point.

 

These things were written by Gentile. I think we have made clear that Gentile is NOT a Socialist.

 

This "extended family" thing they go on about is also not a all what fascists believe in. I don't have written evidence of it. But I have experience with fascists and trust me, they do not believe this. Fascism is actually focussed very much on the traditional family.

 

He also says National Socialists are socialists. But they are just not. Nazi's are capitalist extremists which privatized basically all state owned companies. They even privatized the roads. THEY PRIVATIZED THE ROADS DIDDLY DARN IT!

 

Also, communism is stateless. That's something right wingers try to ignore a lot. But the idea of communism is that there is no state. Saying that communists want to do the same as fascists is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

 

At the end of the video he also tries to say corporatism=fascism. Which, as a corporatist, angers me to my core. Corporatism is PART of fascism. The nazis were also animal rights activists, that doesn't mean animal rights activist=fascism.

 

Edit: I see you have basically boiled the discussion down to authoritarianism=fascism. Not true. Fascism is much more than that. Someone also said that the Republicans are less like fascist than Democrats. Which, no... Republican are far more likely to subscribe to ideologies which support nationalism, big military, traditional values and religion. That is a VERY large part of what fascism is. I'd say even larger than authoritarianism.

 

Edit Edit: Not saying that big military, traditional values and nationalism are bad. Just saying a they are a big part of fascism. So you don't misunderstand me.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

In this comment I will not be argueing against the hypothesis that Fascism is a left leaning ideology. I actually think Fascism is neither left, nor right wing inheritely. I simply want to show that the video you showed has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I will show this through the sources that the video uses itself. Namely Gentile's works and La Dottrina Del Fascismo specifically, written by Gentile and Mussolini. It is basically a Fascist Manifesto.

 

The video tries to show Gentile is a socialist and a fan of Marx. This is very false. And a LIE. The narator MUST know this is not true.

 

La Dottrine Del Fascismo has a chapter called REJECTION OF MARXISM (written in all caps in the translation I'm reading, haha) which thoroughly debunks the thought that Gentile and Mussolini were in any ways fans of Marx. Next.

 

La Dottrine Del Fascismo also says that an ideal of fascism is: "No individual or groups ...  outside the state. Fascism is therefore opposed to socialism." It then blabla's on more about how different the two are but you get the point.

 

These things were written by Gentile. I think we have made clear that Gentile is NOT a Socialist.

 

This "extended family" thing they go on about is also not a all what fascists believe in. I don't have written evidence of it. But I have experience with fascists and trust me, they do not believe this. Fascism is actually focussed very much on the traditional family.

 

He also says National Socialists are socialists. But they are just not. Nazi's are capitalist extremists which privatized basically all state owned companies. They even privatized the roads. THEY PRIVATIZED THE ROADS DIDDLY DARN IT!

 

Also, communism is stateless. That's something right wingers try to ignore a lot. But the idea of communism is that there is no state. Saying that communists want to do the same as fascists is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

 

At the end of the video he also tries to say corporatism=fascism. Which, as a corporatist, angers me to my core. Corporatism is PART of fascism. The nazis were also animal rights activists, that doesn't mean animal rights activist=fascism.

 

Edit: I see you have basically boiled the discussion down to authoritarianism=fascism. Not true. Fascism is much more than that. Someone also said that the Republicans are less like fascist than Democrats. Which, no... Republican are far more likely to subscribe to ideologies which support nationalism, big military, traditional values and religion. That is a VERY large part of what fascism is. I'd say even larger than authoritarianism.

 

Edit Edit: Not saying that big military, traditional values and nationalism are bad. Just saying a they are a big part of fascism. So you don't misunderstand me.

Counter pt, the GOP is less likely to silence wrong think, and suppression of speech and disarming the people is also a fascist thing. Not saying fascism is wrong just noting it's not all cut and dry. 

 

I take issue with you insinuating nationalism implies fascism. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Ninjask says that nationalism is a PART of fascism, not that it implies fascism.

 

"Suppression of speech and disarming the people is also a fascist thing."

 

I would say that the GOP calling the free press "the enemy of the American people" and reciting the Nazi rhetoric "Lugenpresse" is very much replicating those fascist techniques.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ninjask says that nationalism is a PART of fascism, not that it implies fascism.

 

"Suppression of speech and disarming the people is also a fascist thing."

 

I would say that the GOP calling the free press "the enemy of the American people" and reciting the Nazi rhetoric "Lugenpresse" is very much replicating those fascist techniques.

I mean Fake News was actually a leftist creation right after the election

 

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/07/31/who-first-used-fake-news-phrase-not-donald-trump/864396002/

 

Trump just took it over for a more fitting role

 

I'd say the News Media trying to insite a war with Russia makes them the Enemy 

[Phantom Roxas]

That's not what I was referring to, nor is Russia relevant to this discussion.

[Dad]

I'd try to incite a war with anyone who makes my President look like a slobbering puppy.  You don't have to be fascist for that.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'd try to incite a war with anyone who makes my President look like a slobbering puppy.  You don't have to be fascist for that.

Seems a bit off topic. And not very suitable for the section even if it were honestly. Not even fully sure what it means tbh

 

Edit: Oh, I get it. Still not as on topic as I'd like. A few other recent posts getting a bit off track, at that.

[Ninjask Is Bae]

Counter pt, the GOP is less likely to silence wrong think, and suppression of speech and disarming the people is also a fascist thing. Not saying fascism is wrong just noting it's not all cut and dry. 

 

I take issue with you insinuating nationalism implies fascism. 

These are two very important doctrines of fascism

1 The State=The Country

2 Extreme Nationalism

 

The democratic party embodies the 1st one more heavily than the republicans. The republican party embodies the 2nd one more heavily than the democrats.

 

I was simply argueing that fascism is more defined by the 2nd one than the 1st one and that the Republicans embody the 2nd one more than the Democrats embody the 1st one.

 

I did NOT equate nationalism to fascism, at all, in any way. If I did that I would call myself a fascist. I was saying it is PART of fascism. Which is most surely is.

[vla1ne]

 

Edit: I see you have basically boiled the discussion down to authoritarianism=fascism. Not true. Fascism is much more than that. Someone also said that the Republicans are less like fascist than Democrats. Which, no... Republican are far more likely to subscribe to ideologies which support nationalism, big military, traditional values and religion. That is a VERY large part of what fascism is. I'd say even larger than authoritarianism.

 

Edit Edit: Not saying that big military, traditional values and nationalism are bad. Just saying a they are a big part of fascism. So you don't misunderstand me.

 

before anything, i have to say, i completely agree that it does not matter whether fascism is left or right, that said:

 

Forcible suppression of opposition, as far as fascism would be directly related, is something that is currently more of a left wing stance than a right wing stance. The current right wing pillars are clearly against suppressing anything within the country by force. Military does not count in this instance, because military relates to out of country matters. Fascism is not (completely) a stance on the military policy, it's an internal policy of how to run the country. I grant that it would be the more likely to support larger military, but internal suppression is the question of fascism, not the external military, and in that facet, the current left (especially Europe, with it's budding "free speech" laws at the moment) would fit that bill far more then the right.

 

Traditional values are, as far as the right wing goes, more related to family than to policy. It's the belief in the standard household. it does not say anything about the collective, but is more of a take on the individual (household). Family traditions are not fascist, any more than they'd be communist or socialist, or capitalist. it's an invalid comparison.

 

Religion is separate from state, by law, and modern republicans have made no overt efforts to change that, but let's say it were connected. What does religion do for fascism? If we've learned anything from past religious regimes, it's that the religion, if taken too far, will eventually overpower the regime in question. Fascism and religion are not the same thing. Hell, even two religions under the same deity can be leagues apart in practice. Putting any of them to fascism inevitably puts fascism at odds with every other remaining religion simply because the question becomes: Which ideology is fascism going to align with more, and thus favor more heavily (notice how this still ignores the individual, and thus remains a valid complaint.) so with all that said, I'm gonna have to say separation of church and state makes that clusterfuck of an equation null and void (thankfully). there's far more i can go into to debunk religion+fascism=anything other than a complete mess, but i assume you get the point.

 

The right is more against regulations in business related matters, while the left is willing to plaster regulation after regulation upon companies. (For examples, look to California, arguably the most liberal state in the united states, and has incredible levels of restrictions upon businesses) for better or worse, control of industries, at the current moment, is indeed more left than right, if you look on a state by state basis, the redder the state, the fewer the regulations, and the bluer the state, the more the regulations.  Fascism, would be more aligned with the left here as well.

 

Again, the right wishes for a smaller government, (even if they desire a larger millitary). That puts them at direct odds with a core desire of fascism, that desire being authoritarian control. It doesn't have to be a murderous or destructive regime, but even you would agree that a fascist regime would be an authoritarian regime right? How exactly can that be done by shrinking the government? there may be right wing tenets and influences within fascism, but it definitely holds more sway from the left. At least as far as modern politics is concerned.

[Simping For Hina]

I think both sides are bullshit tbh. I'm all for the lack of a political party. All they seem to do is stir up trouble within a society. A country with such conflicting parties is a country divided, what is needed is a country united. Extremists exist on both the left and the right and the stigma that both sides carry is overwhelmingly toxic. People like PragerU, while all their facts are correct, are promoting the divide. Promoting more of the right and down talking the left. Conversion is not the key. Only by destroying the standards of the left and the right do people realize that they are on common ground. Politics is not a war.

People are divided more than just by politics. Anything singular thought has a bunch of branches that divide people. If you want to have a collective and not divide people, have a totalitarian government where only one thing exists. People have opinions and that will not change nor will it come to one collective thought. Politics, as much as anything, leads to trouble. It is disparaging and when pushed far enough, it becomes war. There is a common ground but not necessarily is that common ground better than the extremes.

 

I'm not dodging, I'm drawing relations. You stated in response to "Politics is not a war" that "Politics literally starts wars"

 

Correct me if I'm inferring this wrong, but to me you're saying that I'm wrong because politics is, in fact, the basis for many wars throughout history. I was simply replying that religion is guilty of the same, yet most people would not say that religion is a war in and of itself. So why should politics be treated differently?

The topic is politics and you're bringing up religion. It is a red herring fallacy. This is about the state of a politic belief, not religion.

 

I think if we are to bring a thought behind fascism, looking to the context of the definition is more appropriate. Ninjask brings the doctrines to note, which is important when looking at what has become of fascism and what it means to bring together a fascist state. I don't want to read anything by v1alne because I don't want to read that much text. Seems like a lot of additional thought from a pretty simple understanding.

 

The operations of the Right and Left have changed over time, as they are transitional on the ideals that are apparent. Socialism and capitalism don't essential equate the core values of either side and neither does the role of the leader of the world. There is no such thing as generic fascism, only the appeal of the movement and the people who operate to that movement. As of anything, it is a mess of a concept that delves deep but the deeper we delve into it the messier the concept becomes.

 

There are multiple ways to look at fascism from the individual standpoint; The generic definition that is brought together, the political notion of it, and also the personal identification of being a fascist. Fascism itself is left from and by Italy, nothing more than the origins of what Mussolini was trying to get out of breaking from the previous state. This disparagement was from the movements that were already in power versus the ones that were trying to compete for power. The model of fascism never solely defined anything but the movements that occurred in Italy, whereas others had details of fascism but only conductive to their own form of it.

 

Later on, from a politic field rather than a generic oversight, fascism seemed to take on a more modernization route with change the accepted definition that was already trying to come together. War, in this case, became necessary for societal development and advancement. It became a part of progress rather than take away from it, as the mentality was becoming a hierarchy above the competing states to see which influence could become more influential through battles in any form. Fascism seemed to be a dictatorial stance from underdeveloped countries competing rather than powers trying to assume power. Leaders could do what they want, as if they believed their reign was for the state which would be for the country.

 

This problem here is that there was a difference between what defined progress and regress from both Nazism and Italy circa 1920s, as to what defined what and the outcome being associated with the implementations. Nazism didn't fit the hold that the Italian Renaissance brought together and many states couldn't follow the same fashion. But it did hold itself to a certain stance by Nazism and the basis that developed the field.

 

Fascism is a tool that can be generally used to fit certain molds but takes away from the details that other places are defined by. If you bring in the concepts and details of a party, it does not exist in any stance nor can be defined as left or right. Only from a general sentiment can any party be consider fascist.

 

If one interprets fascism as a mass-mobilizing, developmental dictatorship in modernizing nations, fascists exist in abundance, Left and Right, across the world. It cannot exist in the details of the parties. If we go into the individual take on fascism, it is more apparent how vague the baseline of the word is. But that is too much to write right now.