Why is communism considered far left & fascism considered far right?
Executive summary
Communism is classed on the far left because its core theory aims to abolish private property and create economic equality through collective ownership and the suppression of market capitalism, while fascism is placed on the far right because it centers the nation, hierarchy, and often racial or ethnic exclusivity, rejecting egalitarianism and liberal pluralism [1] [2] [3]. Historians and political scientists note overlaps in authoritarian practice, but place the ideologies at opposite poles because their foundational values—internationalist equality versus nationalist hierarchy—point in divergent directions [4] [5].
1. Why “left” for communism: equality, class struggle, and abolition of private property
Marxist communism begins from a theoretical commitment to overcoming class divisions by eliminating private ownership of the means of production and instituting collective economic control—an explicitly anti-capitalist, egalitarian program that situates it on the far left of the traditional spectrum [1] [6]. In practice, 20th‑century communist regimes presented themselves as revolutionary avant‑gardes aiming to reorder social relations and prioritize the working class over traditional elites, reinforcing their leftward position in political taxonomy [7] [6]. Educational treatments of the era teach that communism appealed as a radical alternative to market collapse during the Great Depression, underscoring its roots in economic redistribution rather than nationalist restoration [8].
2. Why “right” for fascism: nation, hierarchy, and anti‑egalitarianism
Fascism’s defining features include extreme militant nationalism, belief in natural social hierarchies, glorification of the state and leader, and hostility to communism and liberal democracy—traits that align with the rightward axis where order, tradition, and inequality are politically privileged [3] [5]. Classic scholarly definitions emphasize fascist aims to create a corporatist, hierarchically organized nation and to subordinate individual rights to the perceived interests of an ethnically or culturally defined community, which places fascism on the far right [5] [3]. Textbooks and museum materials contrast fascist appeals to restoring national greatness with communist appeals to class emancipation, reinforcing the ideological divide [9] [8].
3. Shared authoritarian practices, but different normative cores
Both ideologies have produced authoritarian, totalitarian states—with censorship, repression, and state economic intervention appearing under both banners—but scholars caution that similarity in methods does not collapse their normative cores: communism’s justificatory language is universalist and egalitarian, fascism’s is particularist and hierarchical [7] [5]. Comparative histories of the 20th century note that both generated immense suffering, yet attribute that suffering to different ideological logics—utopian class transformation versus mythic national rebirth—showing why classification rests on goals as well as tactics [6] [7].
4. Competing models and the horseshoe critique
Some analysts and popular commentators argue that extremes curve toward one another (the “horseshoe theory”), pointing to overlapping authoritarian features and state control; critics reply that collapsing left and right obscures key distinctions like internationalism versus xenophobic nationalism and the centrality of class versus race in each ideology [10] [11]. Scholarly debates persist: many historians warn against simplistic equivalence while recognizing moments of tactical similarity, especially when both movements sought mass mobilization and one‑party rule [5] [7].
5. What the classification hides and why agendas matter
Labeling communism “far left” and fascism “far right” serves analytical clarity but can be weaponized in political rhetoric; some sources stress that contemporary usages sometimes flatten complexity to score partisan points, while educators and historians call for granular comparisons of ideas, institutions, and historical contexts instead of shorthand labeling [12] [5]. Where propaganda or polemical writings compress the two into moral twins, scholarly work underscores different origins—Marxist critique of capitalism versus fascist reaction to perceived decadence and national decline—so readers should note motive and audience when encountering absolutist claims [8] [7].