Thank you for taking the time to write out that well thought response.

Obviously there are ideological differences on a more than cosmetic level, but they mirror each other in method and are closer together than they are apart.

To begin with, the horseshoe theory is bullshit and I think you know that. "Right" and "Left" are only meaningful relative to each other in a closed system. You can go from one country to the next and find issues in right and left politics completely switched.

The usual difference is seen as liberal vs conservative, but just look at how a few decades ago classical liberalism surged among the "right" at the same time neo-conservatism started from the "left". Another common distinction used to identify "right" is support for laissez-faire capitalism which fascism definitely does not have. I allowed integral nationalism, but tbh the fascists derived it from leftist syndicalists. Extremists will be extreme in their methods no matter their beliefs, that is why they look similar. But any Right vs left distinctions are useless.

It is important to note that nationalism is the most fundamental difference. Marxism allows for a State in order to achieve aims as a transitory mechanism, but despises it.

I am not aware of any of any States that actually transitioned past that mechanism (I am not talking about implementations that never created a new state) , so the Fascists might get a point for being more realistic. For that reason, I would just like to state that I do not think it is fair to compare aspects of fascism which are descriptive and based off of actual states identified as such against ideals of communism/socialism which are defined prescriptively. Because now we are comparing political application vs philosophy which is more generous to the latter. At the very least, you should accept that States which were formed to follow the tenents of Marx were not to far from fascism even though they failed your standards of ideological purity (one of which I disputed in an earlier comment).

So first of all, I would like to address some points you addressed. The assertion of a Bourgeois Nation would be a "dog whistle" against actual fascists because that was their label for capitalist states. Fascists consider themselves Proletarian Nations, much like socialists do and Marxism requires.

Of course, since I have decided to restrict myself to have fascism is in practice rather than whatever those who formed the ideology claim it is, lets look at Italy.

The aristocracy and capitalist class had significantly diminished power while workers as a class had increased power. Collectivization of workers (quite different than collectivization of property!) was enshrined in policy and their power as such. Anyway, the Government was at the very least a collaboration of politicians with the Proles, and the Bourgeois class was rejected.

In the vein that politicians lie, the fact that you think Hitler denying socialism is to appeal to moderates who are socialist with the name instead of moderates who are capitalist says a lot about your own beliefs. The Nazis nationalized foreign businesses and took over many domestic sectors. They only stopped short of killing the capitalists, but they made ownership a nominal concept in many cases.

I barely started making my case, but have no intention of writing an essay tonight. I don't feel like writing more right now though, so....