Reply #7: I don't have Meriam-Webster

[Prophet 451]

I'm British. I have the Oxford English Dictionary instead.

Now to address your points:
"To begin, I think the placement of Fascism as a "left wing" ideology comes from the extension of the lines of demarcation in current politics if you will. For example, Conservative platform planks are, as stated; smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, more freedom from government intervention. Liberal platform planks, as stated, are: social justice, economic justice, fairness and equality, government health care, economic rights, jobs creation."

I'd quibble where you said "government healthcare". We want everyone covered by some form of healthcare and, as we see it, only the government is in a position to do that. So it's a case of government being the only tool handy rather than a love of government per se. On "economic justice", you'll need to define what you mean because I learned a long time ago that the meaning I learned in PoliSci (my minor) and the meaning given to the term by layman are often very different. The interpretation I learned was that of, firstly, elimination of prejudicial wage disparities (i.e. paying men more than women or blacks more than whites for the same work) and secondly, equality of opportunity.

"If you look at that list dispassionately; The conservative(or right) approach relies on personal initiative, and less governmental help, they view government as the problem not the solution, while the liberal(or left) approach relies on government control and/or intervention/regulation."

And here is where we hit our first set of disagreements. Firstly, I see an almost knee-jerk anti-government animus in the right which believes government can never do anything right even where government is the only body able to do something (for example, in financial regulation). Secondly, you make the mistake a lot of conservatives make of assuming that we lefties love government for it's own sake. We don't. No-one wants to expand government just for the hell of it. Rather, government is a tool, one of several and in some cases, it is the only tool powerful enough to do the job at hand.

"If you extend those lines out to their extremes, on the right you would end up with total anarchy, no government, no intervention, no taxes, total freedom, but lacking the structure provided by a responsible government. On the left you would end up, at the extreme, with government control of everything, dictating every facet of your life in the belief that it is doing it for equality of outcomes, and in the best interests of society as a whole."

Sorry, there is no kind way to put this: That's just flat wrong. There's several points I want to make here. Firstly, the most left-wing ideaology of all is Marxism. I think we'd agree on that. Well, contrary to popular belief (and even more popular lies), Marxism doesn't propose the state taking control of everything. In fact, Marxism envisions that the state eventually fades away entirely in favour of a collectivist anarchy. Secondly, while it's true that fascism and communism look very similar from the outside, they are very different in reasoning. Fascism presupposes the eminence of the state above all; a fusion of state and corporate interests (Mussolini once commented that "fascism should more properly be called corporatism"), extreme and constant nationalism, hearkens back to a supposed "golden age" and that inequality is acceptable as some types of person are simply superior to others (the German ideal of the ubermensch is one example). By contrast, Marxism proposes the abolition of the state entirely (different versions propose different methods of achieving that), the abolition of corporations in favour of a socialist economic model (communism being an extension of socialism), an abolition or withering away of national identities (i.e. the Communist Internationale), looks forward to a supposed "glorious future" and holds equality as sacrosanct. So the two are entirely different and, historically, have often been violently opposed to one another (the Nazis, socialist in name only, presented themselves as the anti-communist alternative for most of the thirties). None of this is in dispute, it's all easily confirmable by the writings of those involved in both movements. Compare the contents of Mein Kampf to the writings of Karl Marx and the difference in aims could not be more obvious. Thirdly, as should now be obvious, the left-right distinction is rather limited (dealing purely with economic matters) and anarchism doesn't really fit into it.

"It is my belief that 99.9% of people fall somewhere short of the extreme projections in either direction. However Merriam- Webster defines Fascism as; a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It defines Communism as; : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

It defines Socialism as; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

While I would agree that the vast majority fall somewhere between the two extremes, I have to disagree with the descriptions listed here. For example, economic regimentation is not a required feature of fascism and was largely absent from many examples of historical fascism. Secondly, the description of communism is awful. It fails to draw a line between the collectivist anarchy that Marx envisioned and the effective dictatorship that the Soviets ended up with. Soviet Communism was entirely different from, and in some cases directly opposite to, the version of communism which Marx envisioned. The definition of socialism is likewise lacking. It inserts "governmental" where no historical socialist would have done so and fails to mention that, by the writings of the people involved, it means ALL teh means of production and distribution, i.e. if there are still private companies doing the same thing, then the result cannot be called socialist.

"If you accept those definitions, the common denominator is governmental intervention in the lives of the people, whether it be control, regulations, dictatorship, or totalitarianism. On the political line of demarcation described above, all of the government autocracies fall towards the left extreme, while the absence of them would be to the right."

Since I don't accept those definitions or the twisting of the political spectrum to place them all of the left, there's not much to say here. The current obsession in the USA with dividing political systems by whether they are for or against government's existence is a very new and entirely absurd development. It's similar to the debate over torture: Twisting the words until they have no meaning. To place fascism and communism on the same wing, you firstly have to ignore absolutely everything about the two systems that wasn't economics (and fascism had little to say about economics in the first place, it was mostly everything else). Then you have to throw aside the time-honoured and historical meanings of "left" and "right". Then you have to squint a little to obscure the fact that businesses were held privately and private fortunes amassed under fascism. Then you have to completely ignore the massive difference between Communism by Marx and Communism by Stalin. And then, maybe, if you squint a little and in the right light, they might, just might, look vaguely similar.

"As to the point about the right wing wailing of Obama as a "Socialist". He has fed those fears by using taxpayer money to assume governmental control of GM, Chrysler, the governmental influence over the banks and insurance companies through the stimulus bill. And the attempts at governmental control of health care management(or maybe just distribution) All of this expansion of government into traditionally private sector endeavors, lends itself to those fears materializing."

OK, I'm going to knock this one on the head from the start. No-one in government was ever talking about "governmental control" of healthcare (except Bernie Sanders). The only thing that any of the bills proposed was that the government set up a public option which would be just another insurance company among dozens. That's not socialism (because it would be competing with private companies) and it's not "governmental control". Anyone who told you it was is lying to you. Much the same applies to "governmental control" of GM, Chrysler, etc. If they are competing with private companies (and they are), it's not socialism. This accusation comes about not because the Obama admin has been socialist in any way but because so few Americans know what the word "socialist" actually means.

"As to which party is better for minorities, that opinion lies solely with where your political perspective originates. If you lean left, then you see welfare, affirmative action, as good things; if you were conservative, you see that while necessary at their inception, the legacy of affirmative action is that it has undermined the perception of black achievement on it's merits.( the words of Clarence Thomas) You see the rise of black dependency on government handouts as the poison that has robbed the black man of his family, values, and worth.(the words of Bill Cosby)"

Affirmative action, I'm going to leave aside. I have no strong opinion either way on that. However, it can't have escaped you that the black person you used to decry welfare is extremely rich (and fairly conservative). Without welfare, people starve. We know this because it's happened. Since high and mighty and entirely un-evidenced view about "dependency" (which presumes this is peculiar to black people and therefore presumes black people are lazier than whites) doesn't negate the fact that, without welfare, people will die. The idea that some classes are "dependent" on "government handouts" assumes a general laziness in that class and, further, assumes that alternatives are available. Also, I think many, many people assume that welfare is far more generous than it actually is. The vast majority of people would not choose to live on the pittance that is welfare in both our nations if they had any other choice.

"I have to go to work, and will apologize now for not being able to reply to any comments until this afternoon. Thank you for reading, and I hope we can discuss this. Perhaps these ideas will not be seen as so radical as to get me banned."

Well, I'm entirely willing to discuss these things with you. I have no idea how the mods on DU decide on bans and suchlike though, so if I don't see you again, thanks for reading.