But a better word choice by op might have been extreme authoritarians, but a sub-optimal word choice hardly makes a comment intentionally inflammatory.
Proof can be found in the aggressive tone and imposing the opinion that only the right can be this way.
Leave a little room for discussion.
> fascists on both the far-left and far-right of the political debate
According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:[0]
> a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such 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's true that some on both the "left" and "right" (which is an absurdly simplistic one-dimensional distinction) are over-the-top extremist and forcibly suppress their opposition. However, that's only one aspect of the definition of "fascist".
Even so, Merriam-Webster doesn't restrict fascism to the right wing, so I defer to it. But Wikipedia does.[1]
Last, I note that the Soviet Union was arguably fascist. While it didn't exalt any nation above the individual, it did exalt the Party, and more generally the state. And its government was certainly autocratic and dictatorial.
You appear to be starting from an assumption that everything USSR did, politically, was left-wing; and thus concluding that fascism can be left wing.
A dictator is diametrical opposed to left-wing ideology.
What you're doing is like saying uxoricide (murdering your wife) is part of FOSS, because a proponent of FOSS did it.
No, I did not. Basically I'm arguing that the USSR pretended to be "left-wing" but were actually "right-wing". So perhaps they were fascist, but that doesn't imply that truly left-wing governments and movements are fascist.
It's the natural progression.
No, it wasn't.
Fascism is not simply "what you don't like"
If USSR was arguably fascist, so are the USA then.
Do you think bombing other countries for their oil or to seize control of countries close to the enemy borders (like in Vietnam) looks more democratic or fascist?
USSR has been at war in Afghanistan for 9 years, mainly because USA financed the resistance, creating and arming those mujahideen that years later became "terrorists" simply because they weren't needed anymore...
USA has been at war in Afghanistan for 19 years now (and counting) and the evidence to go to war were falsified.
Fascism is a specific thing, if we broaden the meaning of that word, anything can be called fascist.
My grandmother died few moths ago, she was from 1922 and escaped from the fascists on one side and the Marocchinate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate) on the other side, while my grandfather was in jail even if he was ill with tuberculosis, my father house was occupied by fascists and he had to hide from the day he was born until he was five, and when the war ended his father never came back.
I think it's not long past when people that suffered from it are still alive, don't you think?
You're oversimplifying something that's been very hurtful for my country, the history of my continent and for my family.
But let me make a simple example for you: fascism was about separating people in classes, USSR was about eliminating classes.
Fascism was about colonialism and they did unspeakable things in North Africa, justifying their actions with he excuse that "black people are not humans, they are like animals"
USSR never did something similar, because of people's race.
Fascism was about individualism, USSR was about colletivism.
Etc. etc. etc.
Just to exemplify for you what fascism is and what is not: US is more fascist than USSR could ever have been.
And not because I like USSR, but because words have meanings and it's not for you to decide what fascism means when we are the ones who faced it, in our houses, fought it, defeated it, and rebuilt from the ruins and the trail of dead fascism left.
BL matters, Italian lives matters too.
But that doesn't mean that it's lost its actual meaning, when used professionally.
> If USSR was arguably fascist, so are the USA then.
I wouldn't argue too hard against that. It's just that the US hides it better. Or at least, it seems that way at times.
But my main point is that the term "fascist" is being misused to mean extremist and intolerant of opposition. So many today who are "left-wing" are so, but that doesn't mean that they're fascist.
While I appreciate your comment otherwise, fascism is universally agreed to be a far-right ideology and claiming otherwise at this point in history can't really be taken as anything but inflammatory, which isn't what belongs here in an otherwise insightful comment.