When you go to the far right you end up at the far left, and vice versa.
Remember, that both the far left and the far right are dangerous. For all the talk currently about fascism, it was Communism in the 20th century that produced the most death, suffering, and misery.
The idea that regimes claiming to be Communist or even Socialist killed many does not lend credibility to your claim that the far-left is dangerous; you seem to be taking issue more with the tactics that were employed, and furthermore teetering on the edge of a 'golden middle' fallacy - of course the extremes are dangerous, we should just stay in the middle which has always been fine, right?
Centrism has this strange tendency to throw out valid complaints from either "side" (if we really must classify political thought into left and right) in favor of maintaining the status quo. Centrism supports capitalism, which is why as a Communist I'm against it.
No. Antifascists primarily protect those unprotected by the state from being assaulted by those claiming the "supreme white master race". We protect the democracy because fascists will use the institutions of democracy to dismantle it - look at Hitler for what already happened, and look at Breitbart for what happens now. What Steve Bannon is calling for is, essentially, the destruction of the state.
There is no worth in trying to discuss with outright fascists, they will not stop unless they are stopped. And for the most radical of the bunch, like Spencer, yes, this includes violent solutions.
Yes, Stalinism shared many elements with fascism, but saying "Communist art looked the same" doesn't really add to your point, and just makes me suspect the credibility of your point.
I'm interested in what you see as the racism existing in the USSR (I'm being charitable and assuming you are referring to the USSR rather than Communism in general, as Communism in general is not a racist ideology). I have to admit that I know very little about racism in the USSR.
How does Communism share totalitarianism in general? It is the very process of advocating the abolition of the state and all unjust hierarchies. It is anarchistic by nature.
>The way individuals just don't matter
In what way? Drawing these parallels is nothing more than saying "fascists and Communists both drink water, that means that they're the same".
Please provide some evidence or credibility to your claims about Communism other than a very restricted view of the political continuum.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Uni...
Mussolini himself said that fascism was basically a form of socialism, and his beef with socialism was more that - at one time - it had an internationalist and interventionist outlook. That didn't last long before "Socialism in one country" came along though and at that point the distinction between fascism and socialism largely disappears.
After all, what are the characteristics of the right? I'd say a preference for free markets over state intervention, a reverence for tradition, desire for a strong military, a leaning towards democracy and localism, and a general sense that government should do less. Would a far-right society then not be something like anarcho-capitalism? Whereas under Mussolini about 75% of Italian industry was state controlled and arguably fascism is about the fusion of the state and industry into a single whole (hardly distinct from bulk nationalisation).
I'm not sure there are any examples of far right societies in the 20th century, although perhaps Victorian England and the early years of the independent USA could be described that way.
Since most of what defines fascism are points along a different axis than the distributive effects of an economy, I think it's a good idea to be suspicious of people who attempt to use fascism as an argument about economic systems.
Forget about ideological differences. Talk is cheap. Instead look at how the societies actually played out: almost the same way.
Your list of what defines fascism describes communism as well, except maybe for nationalism. And I am not even sure about that.
These were not Communist societies. Arguably the existing Communist societies were those in the form of primitive Communism, existing very long ago. You seem to be taking issue with certain ideas of implementation rather than the ideal itself - that is, a stateless and moneyless society without classes.
What similarities do you think exist between the ideals of fascism and Communism?
Communism may be militant or pacifistic, i.e via reformism, gradualism or via violent revolution.
Communism is stateless, all powers of the government being transferred to the people.
Nationalism is impossible with Communism, as Communism is the recognition of a global market of the bourgeoisie, which requires workers of the world to unite against it.
Communism is not centralised, at least not necessarily. Distributed economic planning and indeed no economic planning at all are possible varieties.
Here's something else Mussolini said:
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
As Mussolini's professions of socialism, David Neiwert of Orcinus[1] said:
"Both Hitler and Mussolini pretended to have socialist aspirations as part of their propaganda efforts during their rise to power, largely as a way of encouraging working-class support. But they were unquestionably right wing politically by the time they obtained power, and in fact were viciously anti-left-wing as well."
"Those who repeat the "Nazis were socialists" claim are, in fact, falling for (and repeating) Nazi propaganda from the 1920s."
[1] - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/fascism-two-hoary-myths...