I’m always amazed at some of the ridiculous things that come out of the mouths of the so-called ‘conservative elite’. Here’s Jonah Goldberg, defending the premise of his book Liberal Fascism on Salon.com (h/t Crooks and Liars):
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
To quote Nicole Belle, who wrote the post at C&L (and provided the emphasis above),
Um, actually, not so much. Mussolini was dubbed a fascist because he founded the Fascist Party, you big, fact-ignoring dope.
This was a ROTFLOL moment for me! Where does Goldberg think the term ‘fascism’ comes from? It’s hard to take any other statement Goldberg says seriously after such idiocy. There are many other gems in the interview, such as this comparison of liberal and conservative sex policy:
You know, you have environmental groups giving out kits and instructions about how to have environmentally conscious sex. You don’t have conservative groups talking about what kind of condoms you should use or what positions you can be in. That kind of thing doesn’t really go on.
Yes, conservatives never make judgments about sexual activity. It’s not like certain religious organizations have banned the use of condoms, for instance. And I would say that abstinence rules and purity pledges, and sodomy bans, take a very strong stance on sexual positions (i.e. none).
But let’s get back to Goldberg’s definition of fascism. Is he right, that fascism is simply dressed-up socialism? Let’s dig up Mussolini’s rotting corpse to answer that question:
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.
Evidently Mussolini, along with pretty much every other person with a brain in that era, saw a pretty significant difference between ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’. Goldberg is guilty of a dishonest and even dangerous intellectual crime: unhappy with the position of fascism on the ‘right’ of the political spectrum, he broadens the definition until he can call it ‘left-wing socialism’. The right-wing is therefore ‘saved’ from having a blemish on its history. Ignoring and denying the potential excesses of a political wing, however, increases the risk that those excesses will be repeated (see: George W. Bush’s America). The left will openly observe that communism is an extreme and failed left-wing ideology which should not be repeated.
To be fair, the Salon interviewer points out that Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism seems to contradict Goldberg’s assertions. Goldberg’s response?
I’d need to know specifically what he wrote in “The Doctrine of Fascism.” It’s been about three years since I’ve read it.
*Sigh*
Skulls in the Stars 
Actually, if you read the definition of Fascism as published by Wikipedia :
Fascists support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[22][23] Fascism presents itself as an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[24]
What I appreciate about wikipedia is that they give the source and you can go and verify it…
In truth by modern definition any group, left or right can be labeled fascist when they become to radical and believe their opinion is the only correct opinion and all other opinions should be stamped out, destroyed, and/or censored…
22 ^ Peter Davies, Derek Lynch. The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge, 2002. p. 146
23 ^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. p. 78
24 ^ Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. New York, New York, USA: St. Martins Press, 1991. pp. 222-223.
Well, yes and no. A friend of mine once argued, similar to you, that the end limit of extreme left-wing policy and extreme right-wing policy is more or less the same place. That place is what one typically calls “totalitarianism”. As I pointed out in my post, the left has communism as a totalitarian extreme; fascism and/or Nazism is the extreme totalitarian limit of the right.
“Fascism” as a term, however, means a lot more than just totalitarianism. If you look at the previous paragraph to the one you quoted:
I’ve highlighted the concepts that are, as I see it, unique philosophical views of the Fascists, as compared to generic totalitarian; they are things that are rejected by the left-wing as philosophical concepts and embraced wholeheartedly by the right-wing.
Really, attempts to label “Fascism” as a left-wing phenomenon are shameful attempts by right-wing ideologues to pretend that their ideology is perfect; this is exactly the sort of thinking that led to Fascism in the first place.