Re: Everybody's ethical
"Right" and "Left" assume that a sum total of all political belief can be placed on a monodimensional spectrum. As such, it fails to mean all that much anymore.
There's not a great deal between communism and fascism in practice. They're both collectivist, totalitarian ideologies that can only continue to exist by means of extreme repression, purges, disappearances, secret police, censorship, and propaganda. If you're creating a right-left spectrum and place these two ideologies on the extreme ends, you form a spectrum from "total censorship" on the left to "total censorship" on the right, and the same with all of that other stuff.
What I do know is that what people on the "right" in the US believe is about as far from both fascism and communism as can be. Low regulation, low taxes, small government, individual liberty, the free market... none of those exist at all in either fascism or communism. Ayn Rand, heroine of many on the right, dismissed both as collectivist, and on that I agree with her. It doesn't make a great deal of difference whether a government regulates business to the point that it may as well be government owned or whether it takes that final step and nationalizes it so that it actually is government owned. In fascism, the captains of industry are given party position and government power even while power over their own business is minimal, where in communism, to be a captain of industry means being a party member in the first place. It's a distinction without a difference. The same goes for a government that demands undying allegiance to the state and a government that demands undying allegiance to the "revolution," which is in practice identical to the state.
It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of what communism and fascism are supposed to be about, but the rhetoric isn't reality. Communists like to talk about being a worker's paradise or a dictatorship of the proletariat, but that key feature of communism has never and will never exist in any communist state. They like to talk about a stateless society, which SOUNDS like the opposite of "the state is everything" mentality of the fascists, but in reality the state is everything in communism as well. The rhetoric is different, but the reality is identical. Which matters more? Do you think the talk of communism being a dictatorship of the proletariat meant anything to the millions of Ukranian peasants (part of the proletariat) who were being deliberately forced into starvation during Stalin's collectivization? Talk is cheap; results are what I look at.
If you oppose totalitarianism so strongly that you have extreme suspicion of ANY government, and you thus want to reduce it to the absolute minimum possible, in the US at least, you'd be considered a libertarian, which is very much in line with Ayn Rand's "objectivism." If Rand and libertarianism are right, then fascism cannot be anything but left. That's a spectrum that makes sense; you have massive government that controls everything on one side and almost anarchy on the other. I hesitate to declare that anarchy would sit at the other end from totalitarianism, as most "anarchists" in practice support left-wing politicians who seek to impose massive government, which is anything but anarchist. What they really appear to be is people who like to shock others by being the members of a fringe movement, even though they vote for parties advocating massive government. The rhetoric means nothing; the vote counts.