I hesitate to even place fascism on the left/right dichotomy at all.
I don’t think left/right is a dichotomy. If we are to take the political compass’ method of organizing these things, where there is a left/right axis, and an authoritarian/libertarian, fascism is a right wing, authoritarian ideology:
Leftism/progressive ideologies generally espouse social equality, egalitarianism, and opposition to social hierarchy. The right/conservative ideologies generally espouse the exact opposite, that social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. That’s ultimately why fascism falls on the right on the left/right axis.
I think it is important to make a distinction between a real right wing ideology
All ideologies are "real’. Some are just incredibly terrible for humanity, some less so, and some are actually good. It’s all on a spectrum.
There are certainly more useful models to explain fascism than by interpreting it as a meaningful ideology. Authoritarians don’t perform fascism because they understand and believe in it. People acting ignorantly or at cynical the manipulation of others are not following any ideology. Fascists don’t know that they are fascists!! How then can their membership be ideological?
I don’t think left/right is a dichotomy.
But then you cite a diagram with a left/right dichotomy. Yes, there are other dimensions on the diagram, but it does plot in terms of left and right.
Things governments do that you will not find on any similar diagram: regulatory capture, kleptocracy, genocide, taxation without representation, raiding and pillaging foreign countries, executing children, nuclear terrorism. Those are all outside valid political discourse. Just like you could not put the moon or the feeling you get when you smell the rain on the left/right spectrum. It just doesn’t make sense to do so.
I argue that fascism is more at home among those things than among anything you can call left or right. All things that fall on the spectrum somewhere have something in common that allows them to be compared in the first place, and I argue that fascism lacks it: it is not valid political speech.
Further, I argue that it works against our goals of reaching a fair and safe compromise for everyone when we lump our erstwhile political opponents in with people who are simply doing evil.
You don’t have to agree with me, I am clearly just stating my own personal position. But you haven’t shown that I’m wrong.
But then you cite a diagram with a left/right dichotomy.
The above graph is a spectrum, and it was just an example.
Those are all outside valid political discourse.
To be clear, I do not think that all sections of the above graph are valid political discourse. It’s simply a way to categorize.
I argue that fascism is more at home among those things than among anything you can call left or right. All things that fall on the spectrum somewhere have something in common and I argue that fascism lacks it: it is not valid political speech.
I agree with that, which is why those things you listed, regulatory capture, kleptocracy, genocide, taxation without representation, raiding and pillaging foreign countries, executing children, nuclear terrorism, are all things that are accounted for with the authoritarian part of that spectrum.
Further, I argue that it works against our goals of reaching a fair and safe compromise for everyone when we lump our erstwhile political opponents in with people who are simply doing evil.
There is no such thing as a fair and safe compromise for everyone when fascists exist. There is no compromise for genocide. Somebody is going to have to be unhappy no matter what.
You don’t have to include our political opponents and fascists on the graph if you don’t want. I am simply stating the fact that if all is to be categorized, fascism is an ultra authoritarian, right wing ideology. That is the most accurate it can be described given current definitions.
You don’t have to agree with me, but you haven’t shown that I’m wrong.
I was using the term rather loosely, but even but even with a more strict definition of “ideology”, I think it fits.
I don’t think left/right is a dichotomy. If we are to take the political compass’ method of organizing these things, where there is a left/right axis, and an authoritarian/libertarian, fascism is a right wing, authoritarian ideology:
Leftism/progressive ideologies generally espouse social equality, egalitarianism, and opposition to social hierarchy. The right/conservative ideologies generally espouse the exact opposite, that social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. That’s ultimately why fascism falls on the right on the left/right axis.
All ideologies are "real’. Some are just incredibly terrible for humanity, some less so, and some are actually good. It’s all on a spectrum.
There are certainly more useful models to explain fascism than by interpreting it as a meaningful ideology. Authoritarians don’t perform fascism because they understand and believe in it. People acting ignorantly or at cynical the manipulation of others are not following any ideology. Fascists don’t know that they are fascists!! How then can their membership be ideological?
But then you cite a diagram with a left/right dichotomy. Yes, there are other dimensions on the diagram, but it does plot in terms of left and right.
Things governments do that you will not find on any similar diagram: regulatory capture, kleptocracy, genocide, taxation without representation, raiding and pillaging foreign countries, executing children, nuclear terrorism. Those are all outside valid political discourse. Just like you could not put the moon or the feeling you get when you smell the rain on the left/right spectrum. It just doesn’t make sense to do so.
I argue that fascism is more at home among those things than among anything you can call left or right. All things that fall on the spectrum somewhere have something in common that allows them to be compared in the first place, and I argue that fascism lacks it: it is not valid political speech.
Further, I argue that it works against our goals of reaching a fair and safe compromise for everyone when we lump our erstwhile political opponents in with people who are simply doing evil.
You don’t have to agree with me, I am clearly just stating my own personal position. But you haven’t shown that I’m wrong.
The above graph is a spectrum, and it was just an example.
To be clear, I do not think that all sections of the above graph are valid political discourse. It’s simply a way to categorize.
I agree with that, which is why those things you listed, regulatory capture, kleptocracy, genocide, taxation without representation, raiding and pillaging foreign countries, executing children, nuclear terrorism, are all things that are accounted for with the authoritarian part of that spectrum.
There is no such thing as a fair and safe compromise for everyone when fascists exist. There is no compromise for genocide. Somebody is going to have to be unhappy no matter what.
You don’t have to include our political opponents and fascists on the graph if you don’t want. I am simply stating the fact that if all is to be categorized, fascism is an ultra authoritarian, right wing ideology. That is the most accurate it can be described given current definitions.
That’s not how the burden of proof works.