The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism

Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This "Anticenter-Fascism" is not good for the country. It's growing (on both the right and the left) because the left keeps fucking insinuating itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right' on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a bifurcation. Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to achieve for themselves—and that's still putting it simply. Yet the Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is essentially an antithesis to the Global-Centrist model, given the current political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout History, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion, in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo methodology, for the state.

Now notice, there are two distinctions here:

One: Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it, "rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than "everyone's"; similar to....

Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the necessities of the whole of the individual—this is what the Greeks taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually requires something akin to a "state".

[A last point is definitely that statism has nothing more than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].