Fascism has always been about mimicking leftist groups and organization in order to dull the leftist movement. In Spain and Italy, it was National Syndicalism, in Germany, national socialism. They never actually implement anything proworker. It's aesthetics.

Regardless, enslaving Jews or anyone based on ethnic background is the inverse of what any left wing tendency believes

Left and Right wing politics generally are about their relationship to hierarchy and supremacy.

The Left are causes dedicated to dismantling structures which make the claim that people are inferior or less deserving. The concept of equality is core to leftism, and is what I feel is the core of the difference between left and right wing ideology.

The Right is dedicated to perpetuating or bolstering hierarchy. They don't see hierarchy as something to be opposed, but rather, as either a natural force that we have to just make do with, or as a positive quality of a system that needs to be emphasized. Because of this, concepts like workers rights, LGBT acceptance, and other things which emphasize helping the "lower classes" socially or otherwise are opposed to right wing politics.

Another way to see it is, left wingers want equality, and right wingers oppose that. Fascism is not an ideology based on equality, it's one based on supremacy. Fascism doesn't exist without stratifying social structures and finding a lower class to exploit.

in addition to all these answers, one of the first things fascists usually do is kill all the leftists

what you've got to understand about the Fascist Manifesto is that Mussolini did not implement that stuff, and did not write it.

It's literally illegal to be a member of a communist party but not a fascist party, clearly the capitalists think there's a big difference

It might be useful to look at The Doctrine of Fascism, and compare what Mussolini had to say in that later expansion on his ideas:

Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the “collective” century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality.

I think it's perfectly fair to say that the Fascist Manifesto is a dishonest advertisement. Considering Fascism's role as Capital's "immune system" against threats to itself, their co-opting of basic leftish demands is more or less common sense for them

Edit: I should probably clarify that when he talks about a collective, he in no way means the collective of humanity. He means Italy as a Volk

ctrl+f "capitalism" not found

why are radlibs like this?

fascism invented privatization by the state. to the extent that fascism in germany and italy pursued any sort of project of state organization of the economy, it was in active concert with the capitalists, and regularly crushed all explicitly left-wing social movements. in italy, the rebellion of socialist workers against the fascists was on the grounds of class warfare. in germany, of course, it was the social democrats choosing to form a coalition with the conservative party and the nazis instead of the communists that can most directly be linked to hitler's ascension to the chancellorship. at all turns, the nazi movement's left aesthetics are explicitly only intended to consumed as a utopian vision by the favored dominant ethnic group around which the fascist state project is centered, and these are coupled to incredibly conservative social norms and projects. consider for example that even before they came for the communists, they came for the trans people and hirschfield's institute in berlin.

but perhaps even more cogently when doing debate bro shit, there are records of the nazis actively planning out how to best co-opt the popularity of left movements in order to gain support. any "left" policy that can be attributed to fascists is always a thinly veiled, explicitly disingenuous ploy to gain supporters.

as for that fascist manifesto, it's pretty clearly, based on when those labor rights were won in america (early 1900's) vs when the fascist movements were controlling the states in europe (1930's), an attempt to dull any radical labor movement via a set of minimally viable concessions that don't actually threaten profits. and they especially don't threaten profits when your main plan for capital accumulation involves cannibalizing both your neighbors and the colonized peoples of the global south.

cuz all the actual fascists are right-wing. Their biggest enemies were left wing. You don't need to debate-bro anything if you look at real world examples and not some thing some nerd wrote in a book.

I believe fascism requires close collaboration between a bourgeoisie and ruling political party. So it’s like structurally bolstering the relationship the bourgeoisie have to the means of production whereas the “left” seeks to do the opposite with the bourgeoisie

lot of good resources in this thread to help develop your own understanding

but also worth talking about: how do you engage with someone who claims something like this?

it's worth remembering that fascist, leftist, rightwing, progressive, these are all signifiers for concepts which themselves are representations of real-world phenomena. there's a lot of play in the relationship between a signifier and a concept, between the concept and the real, and between your signifier/concept (sign) and another person's signifier/concept. when you get in the weeds about whether fascism means this or that, you risk getting tangled up in semantics, which often is a waste of time, especially when trying to communicate with someone (and even more so if they're engaging in bad faith, which is the whole point of this semantic dance fascists like to engage in).

so if someone claims this in good faith, they're saying the word fascism represents a concept or essence of leftism in their mind (likely big government or totalitarianism or whatever). in this case the problem isn't really in their choice of language, but in their conception of reality, the relationship between the real-world and the concepts they've inaccurately and reductively formed to represent it. so i'd probably push back on their understanding of "government" being scalable linearly, like the idea that you can understand a government simply as "big" or "small". explain how this "size" or "authoritarianism" value is a poor measure of experiential freedom and outcomes. is a government that enforces worker safety regulations equally as authoritarian as one that bans unionizing? might specific laws effect people differently depending on their economic class?

i like to push the idea of material interests as an alternative model to a one-dimensional authoritarian/free spectrum. instead of "is this good or bad?", ask "who is this good or bad for?" Nazi Germany was demonstrably bad for working people, as was fascist italy, as was Franco's spain, as was Pinochet's Chile. so then you may be able to introduce the idea that leftism may signify good for working people, which fascism (the real-world phenomenon) is clearly not.

Read blackshirts and reds by Michael parenti. The whole book is specifically about this and goes into it in great detail.

deleted by creator

Here's some economic analysis of the history of liberalism using austerity as a way to enact fascist policies. The barbarism is the point.

https://youtu.be/SIpi5Ui88MU

The far left seeks the complete and total victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie.

The far right seeks the complete and total victory of the bourgeoise over the working class.

The left/right spectrum is created by the primary contradiction of capitalism, the class struggle generated by the opposing interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie.