With the word ' fascist' tossed around promiscuously, it’s extremely important to understand the term and where fascism belongs on the political spectrum.

Anti-liberty leftists generally apply this pejorative to whatever the pro-freedom right is doing at the moment, whether it makes sense or not, as in these recent examples:

A ‘climate activist’ recently stated on MSNBC that the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is ‘a judicial coup’ and ‘a clear descent into fascism’, never mind that the ruling was the exact opposite of that. Then there is the recent example of a woke Guardian US news reporter claiming that anyone who questions transgender ideology is a FASCIST.

As is the case with most of their weaponized words, their assertions are a kilometer wide and a tenth of a millimeter thick. It only works if you don’t look at it too closely and notice that it’s rife with contradictions, the prime indicator of a big lie. They have nothing beyond a few tired talking points, and as usual, they have to supplement their lack of facts with childish insults or mob techniques to shout down their opponents. Thus, you’ll find that their main tactic is to try to bluff their way through the subject with illogical intimidation.

We will prove our case with a two-prong approach. Starting with a mountain of evidence with the listing of the common elements between socialism and fascism. Then we will point out the major disparities between fascism and the pro-freedom right side of the political spectrum. But first, it’s important to establish a baseline in what exactly we’re talking about with the political spectrum.

The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) has one of the best and most straightforward explanations of the political spectrum we’ve seen:

Government is defined in the dictionary as "a system of ruling or controlling," and therefore the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of coercive power or systematic control which a particular system of government exercises over its people. In other words, the yardstick is not political parties, but political power. Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. At the one extreme of anarchy, there is no government, no law, no systematic control, and no governmental power, while at the other extreme there is too much control, too much political oppression, and too much government. 

A right triangle is the best way to visualize the political spectrum, with the horizontal base leg indicating the scale between the two sides and the angular hypotenuse as an indication of governmental control or power. The vertical leg indicates maximum governmental control or power on one side. With the point of the triangle indicating minimum government or anarchy on the other.

The collectivist ideologies of communism and socialism are generally associated with unlimited or maximum governmental control or power, since this is required to administer a centrally planned and controlled economy.  As well as take ‘From each according to his abilities’.  These actions can only be undertaken with an authoritarian regime with close to 100% government control.  As in the totalitarian regimes of the USSR, Communist China, North Korea.  With this being indicated by the vertical leg of the triangle.

Since socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology, we placed the triangle with the vertical leg to the left. 

Conversely, the pro-freedom ideologies favor liberty and limited government, so the point of the triangle belongs on the right indicating minimal government.  Thus, it follows that the apex of the triangle indicating 0% government control belongs on the right.

So, where do we place the fascist ideologies?

This is just a matter of comparing fascist ideologies to those on the political left and the political right to see how they are similar.

Have you ever wondered why communist, socialist and fascist regimes have so much in common even though they are supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum? Conversely, why is it that countries considered ‘right-wing’ and imbued in liberty and limited government are completely at odds with socialist and fascist regimes?

 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., then-Associate Professor of History at Harvard observed this in an article in New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948:

In certain basic respects - a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom - fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.

But we’re going to expand the examination to make the point, sort of like using a sledgehammer to drive a finishing nail. These are just some of the obvious commonalities between the observed behavior of socialist and fascist regimes:

They were both allies and rivals.

They are authoritarian at heart.

They are anti-Semitic and anti-religious.

They ban and burn books.

They exploit big lies.

They censor the press.

They have a centrally controlled economy.

They are based on collectivism.

They call for the common good over the individual. 

They dehumanize certain groups.

They deify their leaders. 

They use snitches to suppress dissent.

They exploit crisis.

They use force to gain political power.

They confiscate guns.

They obsess over guillotines. 

They are genocidal.

They use intimidation tactics.

They have secret police KGB/Gestapo.

They lie with language.

They were creating a ‘new man’.

They decree their opposition as ‘mentally ill’.

They control freedom of movement.

They lock up their political opposition in camps.

They murdered millions in those same camps.

They have national propaganda organs.

They suppress free speech to keep the people quiet.

They repeat lies over and over until they become the truth.

They have one-party rule.

They follow the science.

They venerate socialism.

They steal other people’s money to buy votes.

They use terror to control people.

They have unlimited government.

They exploit violence.

They weaponize words.

They indoctrinate youth - Hitler Youth, Young Pioneers. 

Some of them even goosestep the same and have silly mustaches.

So, consider all those similarities, and they are legion. Is it just a historical long shot those regimes of those ideologies just happen to be almost the same? Is that what we’re supposed to believe from the anti-liberty left? On an ideological issue that they have a vested interest in everyone accepting, hook line, and sinker? Or is it a case where this is the biggest load of BS in history?

Please consider what we previously pointed out, that governmental control is the only viable metric for the political spectrum. With it at maximum at the far-left, exemplified by all those commonalties and at a minimum at the far right. 

Now ponder what might seem to be a tangential issue:  Where does the ideology of no government anarchy (from anarkhos, from an- ‘without’ arkhos ‘chief, ruler’)  belong on the spectrum?  It is beyond minimal government so it doesn’t have any place on the left with maximum government.  Leaving the only other choice on the minimum government far right.

Raise your hand if you see a gaping hole the size of Mount Everest in the ‘logic’ of the anti-liberty left that fascism or Nazism is somehow way over on the “Far-Right”?   Are we supposed to believe that zero government anarchy sits in the same place as unlimited government fascism?  This is just another point that blows their ridiculous lie clean out of the water.

But wait, there’s more.

Then there is the fact that the ideologies on the pro-freedom side of the political spectrum are generally based on liberty and limited government. When was the last time someone described those as the hallmarks of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong? The word never seems to come to mind. Again, that alone should eviscerate the pathetically absurd theories of the anti-liberty left. 

With governmental power the only viable metric for a political spectrum and it at minimum on the far right, fascists and Nazis clearly belong on the anti-liberty left, QED.                            

Do we need to even go on from here? Anti-liberty leftists love to lie and cherry-pick the assertions made by the pro-freedom side. Combining their ever-present ad hominem attacks with outright lies. Did you know that “Hitler didn’t ban guns”? Along with many other liberticidal leftists? That’s just one item in our case that puts the lie to the biggest liberty grabber talking point.

If they’re going to incessantly lie about something fundamental like this, why should we trust them on anything else?

D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, and the director of communications for a Bill of Rights organization and a longtime contributor to conservative websites.  Find him on Substack.