Fascism vs. Communism: A House Divided Against Itself

If history is any indication, the antics of fascism and communism pool themselves on the same wavelength of tyranny and countries, governments and societies subjected to each of their political systems and influences have witnessed some of the worst atrocities ever committed in the annals of human history.  It is a fool’s errand to even make an academic attempt to separate one tyrannical philosophy from the other as having a better grip on the tenets of moral law.  In Europe, during the period of World War II and spanning from the invasion of Poland in 1939 to the invasion of Germany by the Allied Powers in 1945, the political system governed under the doctrine of Nazi fascism was responsible for the deaths of an astounding 20 million people, including 6 million Jews who were slaughtered in the gas chambers in the Holocaustic death camps (such as Auschwitz, Dachau and Sobibor) for the crime of merely being a certain race.  Stalin and his repulsive philosophy, under the flag of the hammer and sickle, was directly responsible for the deaths and murders of 20-35 million people, millions of whom were his own citizens.  His reign of terror wiped out a double digit percentage of the Soviet Union’s population.  In Communist China, under Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, the Communist revolution commenced a slaughter that wiped out the lives of 45 million people within just four years during the 1950s into the 1960s.  To put such an astounding number into context, the amount of deaths attributed to Mao’s Communism in China was comparable to 82% of the total recorded deaths in World War II, which is estimated to be around 55 million.  For one man, driven by an ideology, to be responsible for that many deaths, speaks to the premise of the ideology by which he is driven, and it can be assured that “virtue” plays no role in the construction of policy under such views.  For those who hate the concept of God in society, they must then operate under the materialistic Darwinian belief that “survival of the fittest” is the dominant and only prevailing philosophy amidst all things “life.”  This reality then keeps those who identify with the tyrannical “isms” of the 20th century from ever trying to make a moral case for their politics, let alone their views on human rights and liberty.

Survival demands power, and what better way to survive in a society than consuming as much power for yourself as you can under the guise of fascism, communism or socialism, duping citizens within your jurisdiction into believing that you as their “Fuehrer,” “General-Secretary,” “Chairman” or “Chancellor” are in a better moral and intellectual position to rule their lives than the authority of each individual person’s own convictions.  What a violation of the cardinal ethic of Darwinism that any dictator of the “isms” would try to make a moral argument to justify their “base appetites” in accordance with the rule of “survival of the fittest.”  Even Stalin, for all of his dictatorial and notorious prowess, showed intellectual honesty by revealing his Darwinian disregard for human life.  He said the following: “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”  If you’re going to be an adherent of either of the philosophies propagated by men like Stalin and Hitler, you should at least maintain the decency to be honest about your philosophy’s disregard for individual human life as Stalin did.

Whether you are a communist or an alt-right fascist, or even a socialist for that matter, you can rest assured that the philosophies you operate under as an adherent are a “can’s kick” away from those practiced by some of the most hated left-wing dictators in recent world history.  It is these forms of tyranny that are generated from the deceptive perceptions that individuals can be grouped into collectives and that it is the expertise of government that is fit and is given the right to rule them all.  The “individual” in both the fascist and communist doctrines of tyranny is considered irrelevant in respect to the collective as a whole.  If the good of the collective requires the destruction of the “individual,” his or her elimination or subjugation is thereby justified under such principles.  What despicable folly!  This is the same routine gimmick that is sold to populaces across the world and is the same sales pitch that many of the world’s most notorious dictators have used to subjugate their people and rule them with iron fists.  The questions of where such despicable philosophies originate from are much easier to answer than what is debated between politicians following the script typed into their teleprompters.

The leading narrative in today’s media is that the struggle between fascism and communism is merely the epitome of the “right vs. left” political scenario, which explains why everyone is quick today to label the antics of the alt-right movement as congruent with traditional conservatism and the patriot’s commitment to the protection of the Constitution and the liberty that enshrines it.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

While Communism is said to be indicative of the extreme left of the political spectrum, fascism (such as what was practiced under Hitler) is considered to be a creature of the extreme right of the political aisle.  This to the third-party observer seems like a plausible description of the political struggle we witness today.  But a dig deeper reveals that this is again yet another indication of the deception of left-wing thinking and ideological demagogic grandstanding.  This we know about both fascism and communism: both believe government to be the only legitimate ruling force over the populace; both believe in establishing collective-rule where the individual himself is deemed an insignificant facet of the community; both believe in absolute rule; both reject freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and anything else that reeks of individual liberty or the idea that such liberty comes from the hand of God who ordains it in natural law rather than by the state who partitions it. Finally, both disregard the individual as having intrinsic worth in and of himself and will willfully disregard him and his life if it means propping up the sentiments and collective security or superiority of the group.

Do any of those ideologies (alt-right fascism or communism), similar in their demagogic thirst for power over people, have anything to do with conservatism, let alone right-wing thinking?

Let me pose the question in this manner: If fascism identifies the extreme right and communism identifies the extreme left, on which side of the political aisle does the philosophy of limited government and individual liberty reside?  I challenge any intellectual to attempt to make the case that the classical liberalism of men like John Locke, Adam Smith and Baron de Montesquieu had anything to do with left-wing thinking.

So there must only be one conclusion: both fascism and communism are creatures of left-wing thinking, divided against themselves in a never-ending struggle for power over the other; a true Darwinian power-struggle perfectly emphasized in conflicts such as the veracious slaughter that commenced between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.

The term alt-right, in and of itself, is a misnomer to disguise its politics.  There is only one alternative to right, which is left, and that is why alt-right propagandists like Richard Spencer and the Ku Klux Klan advocate for left-wing policies with both new positions, like universal healthcare, and old positions, such as the racial politics of the old-guard Democratic party of the Jacksonian era all the way through the 1960s.  “But there are many variants of right-wing thinking!,” some might say, to which I counter with a question in the influence of the Socratic method: “Are there many variants of looking at individual liberty as being ordained by God in the natural law and not by men?”  When a Republican policymaker is advocating for increase in government power over the populace, is he or she advocating a right-wing policy or left-wing policy?  Does the label “Republican” automatically indicate that any policy proposal that is pushed forward must thenceforth be right-wing even if it is perfectly congruent to left-wing ideology?  This logic condemns itself.

The war between alt-rightism (New Fascism) vs antifa-ism (the New Communism), as was perfectly on display in the tragic events of Charlottesville, Virginia, was the modern-day example of two factions of left-wing branches of thought battling it out for power through fear and violence.  It was as if the Nazis and the Soviets possessed the belligerents and orchestrated a quasi déjà vu of the atrocious bloodbaths that occurred between the two ideologies in the 1940s.

It is then no question that neither alt-rightism nor antifa-ism have anything to do with right-wing thinking, nor do they have anything to do with the doctrine of individual liberty as enshrined by conservatives in their reverence for the Constitution.  It is because the “right” in the United States espouses liberty as a cardinal ethic that we tolerate even those ideologies and points of view that we find despicable, as long as they’re able to be openly debated and condemned in the public sphere of intellectual thought.

Constitutional self-government is found nowhere in the doctrines of alt right fascism or communism, nor the idea that all men are created equal and that each individual has intrinsic worth as a human being.  It’s as if two murderous warlords of different philosophies that hate each other are fighting each other for dominance but both find greater enjoyment in crushing the true resistance that is opposed to both their rules of authoritarian/totalitarian governance and worldviews of apathy towards individuals who seek to empower themselves to self-governance and individual responsibility.

The attempt to paint the alt-right as a branch of right-wing thinking then becomes an oxymoron.  For a philosophy that advocates left-wing policies like enhanced government and racial superiority is surely an alternative right, being that the only other alternative is “left.” As syndicated British columnist for the Telegraph Norman Tebbit concluded, “Over recent days I have become more and more irritated by the skill of those on the Left in labelling any event of unreason or violence as being the work of “the far Right”, and the foolishness of us on the Right for letting them get away with it.”

The principles of the Framers in crafting a government by the people and for the people established an ethic that such a government would only govern by the consent of the governed and not through the whims of tyrants.  I challenge anyone to describe how such thinking has anything to do with left-wing political thought.

You are no more righteous a communist for condemning fascism than a fascist is for condemning communism.  Both ideologies represent the epitome of the moral depravity in the 20th century “isms” and both of them condemn themselves. As the Adam Smith Institute concluded in 2009, “ It would be impossible to deny that Hitler discredits fascism and similarly the case stands for Stalin and communism.  The other countless million murders that have taken place under fascist and communist regimes in other times and places also add to the case for the joint condemnation.”  Both conflicting ideologies are worm-like spawns from the same madhouse of logic that’s destined to be in a never-ending internal war within itself, and both fascism and communism harbor an even greater hatred for individual liberty and the sovereignty of individual people because both aspects of this framework exist because of a God who created mankind in His image and likewise created each of them with intrinsic worth.  It is no wonder then that Stalin initiated the USSR anti-religious campaigns between 1928-1941 to obliterate “God” from the Soviet Union.

2nd Corinthians 3:17 states powerfully, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”  It is then no wonder that the Framers considered liberty an inalienable right endowed by our Creator and why fascist and communist ideologies hate liberty so much.  It is something that they have no power or authority in giving or taking away.  What better way to make a tyrant cringe.

Both the Naziism of the Alt-Right and the Communism of Antifa in modern day politics are two-sides of the same coin and both will collapse as the infighting between leftism continues to be prevalent in society.

As the Lord Jesus stated himself in Matthew 12:25, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”  If there’s one thing that we can depend on in the tyrannical “isms” is that they will always eventually be divided against each other in their Darwinian struggle for power (if world history serves us well), and a self-fulfilling prophecy ensues when both factions of the same house collapse under the slaughters of bitter civil war.

It is time to stop letting the left (and that includes the alt-right) deceptively try to pin their own history and thinking on the conservatives, who have done nothing but be at the forefront of condemning both alt-right and communist ideologies as being a threat to the principles of liberty and of the United States Constitution which protects it.  As Framer Samuel Adams declared in judgement, “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.  We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”  The American Conservative who cherishes Liberty shall and always will remain the enemy of Tyranny, no matter what “ism” it uses to disguise itself.



Matthew Day, 2013.“ ‘Shocking’ Holocaust Study Claims Nazis Killed Up to 20 Million People”. Business Insider. March 4. Accessed 8 August, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/shocking-new-holocaust-study-claims-nazis-killed-up-to-20-million-people-2013-3

Palash Ghosh, 2013. “ How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?”. International Business Times. 5 March. Accessed 8 August, 2017. http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

Arifa Akbar, 2010. “Mao’s Great Leap Forward ‘Killed 45 million people in 4 years”. Independent. 17 September. Accessed 8 August, 2017. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

Norman Tebbit, 2017. “ Today As In The 1930s, Real Fascism Comes From The Left”. The Telegraph. 28 August. Accessed 8 August, 2017. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/28/today-1930s-real-fascism-comes-left/

Philip Salter, 2009. “Fascism and Communism: Two Sides of The Same Coin”. Adam Smith Institute. 25 August. Accessed 8 August, 2017. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/fascism-and-communism-two-sides-of-the-same-coin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s