Once again, take a look at proxy wars between Fascists and Communists such as a Spanish Civil War and various juntas in Latin America. The Fascists and Nazis backed Franco in Spain and the military juntas in Latin America against peasant uprisings and labor unions. The Soviet Union backed the peasants and the labor unions.
By any definition of left and right wing, political movements who back the ruling classes and property owners are the right, those who want to overthrow them are on the left. Therefore, industrialists and aristocrats in Europe supported fascism as a movement that would defend their interests against communism and against the labor unions.
Saying that they're ideologically the same because they both killed and oppressed people misses the point. They killed and oppressed different classes of people for different and often opposite reasons. A terrorist who blows up a building in the name of Allah and Islam may use the same methods as an atheistic anarchist, but it would be asinine to suggest that they're ideologically the same because they both use bombs and kill people.
The National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party in Germany was a left-wing group. The fact that they were competing with Marxists does not magically make them right-wing extremists.
Mussolini was a Collectivist. He ran a Socialist newspaper. He declared that Fascism was a Collectivist philosophy.
How about this classic quote: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." -- Benito Mussolini
Does he sound like a Tea Partier to you? Do you think you can make the case that Mussolini and Hitler were somehow political opposites??
Socialists in the US liked Hitler well enough after Hitler signed the non-aggression pact with Stalin (they liked Stalin better, but American Socialists were ready to support them both as a Dynamic Duo). Well, after Hitler invaded Russia, socialists hated him. They didn't want to be on his team anymore. Therefore -- voila! -- he was a right-winger.
Look at the history of the Left -- they have failed for centuries and they continually change their name so that they can separate themselves from past failures. Socialist. Communist. Marxist. Progressive. Liberal. It goes on and on. The fact that Hitler was revealed as a back-stabbing, genocidal maniac did not make him a "non-socialist" (far from it!) but it certainly gave the Left a reason to play their classic "name game" -- Socialist? Hitler?? Oh, we don't like him anymore. So, let's call him right-wing. That way everyone will be real clear that Socialists are the good guys. Even though Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler. He's bad. He attacked Uncle Joe, so he's not a Leftist. No sirree!
Politics is bifurcated -- Collectivism and Individualism. Right-wingers support individual rights, property rights, and less government intrusion. The other guys don't. Where do you think Hitler fits?
“because they both use bombs and kill people.”
No, but somehow their policies and programs and ideology kills people regardless of their targeted intentions. Makes no difference to me what side they take in a civil war, nor would I expect opposing forces to take the same side.
Do you really think it would make any difference to the average Cuban if Castro was a Fascist or a Communist ?
Look I agree Fascism and Communism have separate roots. Fascism’s formations stem from Bismarck. Societies have experimented in communal living for centuries. The Pilgrims even tried it without success. However, I see little difference in the outcomes. Soviet Russia was never classless. Party members still had their dachas.
Is Fascism a right wing extreme ideology solely because it is nationalistic? And Communism is left wing because it seeks global power? The end point is still statist socialism or worse.
It seems to me your distinction between Fascism and Communism is one of class divisions. Fascism = Industrialists. Communism = Unions. So what does that make Obama with his unholy trinity of Wall Street, crony capitalism, and union bosses?
I never said Goldberg was a historian. But Liberal Fascism is a muscular tome for the armchair historian and low information voter. And you are correct. He is no Russell Kirk.