-
Prove it. You are a hack, and your opinion by itself is worth absolutely nothing. Give me some facts.
Tell you what, since you are so deficient in knowledge, I will even give you two citations you can look up so you are not so ignorant:
Payne, Stanley G. A history of fascism, 1914-1945. Oxon: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconson System, 2005 (digital edition). p. 112.
Sternhell, Zeev; Sznajder, Mario; Ashéri, Maia; Massel, David (translation). The birth of fascist ideology: from cultural rebellion to political revolution. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press: 1994. pp. 190-193.
Of course, knowing erad who doesn’t like facts, he won’t accept that any of these are historians, and will state that his personal knowledge of the subject is superior.
LOL.
Oh, and if you have any faith in Wiki, here you go:
[i]Fascism is normally described as “extreme right”,[41] although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[42] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[8] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[9][10][11]
The historians Eugen Weber,[43] David Renton,[44] and Robert Soucy[45] view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.[46] Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements[47] Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a “fascist radical right”.[48][49]
Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism “did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either”, but that it “was always a coalition between radical, populist (‘fascist’) elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right”.[50] Payne says “fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center”, noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right.[51][52] However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.[53]
The position that fascism is neither right nor left is supported by a number of contemporary historians and sociologists, including Seymour Martin Lipset[54] and Roger Griffin.[55] Griffin argued, “Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own “beyond left and right.”[56]
On economic issues, fascists reject ideas of class conflict and internationalism, which are commonly held by Marxists and international socialists, in favour of class collaboration and statist nationalism.[57][58] However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism.[59] Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism.[60]
A number of fascist movements described themselves as a “third force” that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether.[61] Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism’s positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be “aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists”.[62] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism’s economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved “the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation.”[63] Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.[62][64] Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was critical of both left-wing and right-wing politics, once saying that “basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile”.[65]
Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional left-right political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of the ideology[66] and many other political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum.[67] In some two dimensional political models, such as the Political Compass (where left and right are described in purely economic terms), fascism is ascribed to the economic centre, with its extremism expressing itself on the authoritarianism axis instead.[68]
[/i]
