Governments formally label their party ideals with terms that often steal away the generic meaning. For instance, in Canada, the âLiberal Partyâ doesnât assure that they are âliberalâ given they have a belief in the founding principles of conserving aspects of the countryâs original founders bound to the English Monarchy and the preservation of Catholicism for a separate school system.
âFascismâ, as a general term, as meant politically in the context of the Facist classed parties of the early 1900s referred to the original meaning of collective tribes of a specific shared cultural belief. It is generally referred to as âRight-wingâ ideology because it relates to the conservative favoritism of family as a priority versus universal collectivism of all cultures.
To compare, letâs use the general political division between the Republicans and the Democrats in the American system, based upon their basic defining aspects. Democrats (a Left wing ideology) believes that priority should respect EACH person as âequivalentâ in value to a vote; Republicans, by contrast, believe by priority that the general population should not be treated âequivalentâ but that specific classes of people with certain qualities of authority should represent more value over others. This originated from Platoâs concept of favoring a âphilosopher Kingâ. Donât confuse the meanings with actual reality though because the qualifying beliefs about what is âauthoritativeâ differs from the Unites States original foundation that gave them their âelectoral collegeâ, those supposedly intellectually independent authorities philosophically divorced from political biases and imposed upon to act as representatives by a sense of duty, as per Platoâs concept of the Philosopher Kings.
The concept of âfascismâ relates to all of our ancestral tribal days when distinct tribes argued that the strength of an individual straw is weak but that a collection is unbreakable. The borrowing of this by the political origins of the âFacistsâ (formal party class label) referred an additional point: that there are different kinds (ie, strains) of people based upon the âaboriginalâ inhabitants of a region, as opposed to the influence of immigrants through time.
See how this is âright-wingâ in that their conservation is in favor of some believed PRIOR state of cultural ideals, which almost always tie into something believed to be of some specific religious ideology. The modern conservative will use the term, âfamilyâ or âfamily valuesâ as their marked priority and refers to this indirectly.
So fascism is the ideal of collective representation of some specific culture believed to be based upon the native historical peoples of some defined country. Note that the North Americans tend to ignore the literal Indigenous peoplesâ as distinctly a part of their meaning of this because they define the formal foundation of the âcountryâ as what counts. The prior peoples, though some may respect, are not counted in this because they are thought of more akin to animals âŚespecially given the fact that to this day, the âreservationâ system still exists here.
I have pleny of learned background understanding of the logical foundations that even most fighters against fascism are aware of. But note that the Leftwinged ideologies have a form of this belief too. The difference might be to think of them as collective fascism given the predominant beliefs of most of the plural groups on the Left are also conservative but would side with the Left under a tacit agreement not to offend each otherâs groups when they generally lack the same power as the traditional conserving wealth of the largest monoculturalism that exists there.
I also happen to agree that this needs spelling out because our society is actually fostering what will potentially and likely end up going against any good intentions that many on the Left thinks they are supporting of reparations and reconciliations of the Natives by arousing their actual Indigenousâ pride in Nationalist ideologies. For instance, in Canada, we are rushing through a Multiculturalist agenda that believes in segregating people based upon oneâs racial or genetic identity and some arrogant belief that some ancestral âcultureâ is inheritable. This sets a dangerous precedence that is going unnoticed precisely because THERE ARE similar groups who DO believe in their own isolation.
So the OP has a definitely correct inference to this relationship but may (and is likely) fostering the false flags regarding the underlying logic of the political ideologies at hand. The Left winged ideologies tend towards this too and why you get what initially begins as âdemocraticâ intentions turning into totalitarian dictatorships, like North Korea. But note that these Socialist countries are also ârepublicanâ, and this may be a relevant issue. When you get any authoritative class becoming empowered by even the most intentionally designed system, it collapses when there becomes a distinguishing class of them passing on a culture of their offspring to the same positions of power by inheritance rather than merit. Even Marx should have known this given the cycles he argued in this same logic.
Edit: changed last word from âconcernâ to âlogicâ. I apologize for some long running sentences and where they get too hard to re-read, I will re-edit to make them more clear if need be.