That's not quite right.
Fascism is typically considered a far-right political ideology. It is characterized by extreme nationalism, aggressive militarism, dictatorial power, suppression of political opposition and individual freedoms, and a focus on the nation or race above all else. However, there is some debate among scholars about the exact positioning of fascism on the political spectrum, as it often incorporates elements from both the left and the right. But....
why not read the words of a treatise written by Mussolini, and co-authored by Gentile?
What is Fascism?
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism
Fordham U reports as follows on the above:
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile
Gentile considered Fascism the fulfillment of the Risorgimento ideals[21], particularly those represented by Giuseppe Mazzini[22] and the Historical Right party.[23]
Source [23] links:
The Right group (Italian: Destra), later called Historical Right (Italian: Destra storica) by historians to distinguish it from the right-wing groups of the 20th century, was an Italian centrist parliamentary group during the second half of the 19th century.[10] After 1876, the Historical Right constituted the Constitutional opposition toward the left governments.[11
It's well established in academia that the 'socialist' moniker was adapted by Hitler only because, at the time, it had propaganda value.
"German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”:
This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.
In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term:
[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.
The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve:
In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats."
Anyone who would call 'social democrats' as 'traitors' cannot possibly be a 'socialist'.
"... Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia:
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany."
The evidence definitely puts Nazism on the far right. Anarchy could be either left or right, depending on how it's structured (yes, it still is structured, despite what some say) Noam Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, (do a YT search for one of his lectures) and Chomsky is no right winger. Besides, your chart is wrong. On either extreme, there is tyranny. On the left extreme, it's communism. On the right extreme, it is a right wing dictatorship/AKA Fascism.. Libetarianism is a quality which can exist on either side of the spectrum. I'm a liberal/libertarian. William Buckley was a conservative/libertarian. Today's libertarian party is on the right side of the spectrum.
Last edited:
