Several years ago I answered a question on Quora. I would have forgotten it but every now and then, Quora notifies me that another discerning reader has upvoted my answer. As of 2025 it has a grand total of 14 upvotes.
It is an illustration of the inevitability of hierarchy.
Why do communism and fascism seem similar in practice even though they are on opposite sides of the spectrum?
That is actually a very good question. Communism and fascism do seem to have been similar in practice and it seems plausible to regard them as political opposites. Here is a lesson on how human society is put together. It is a non-polemic lesson.
Fascism is an extreme form of hierarchy. Hierarchy is a social structure in which people are ranked,
where you:
cooperate with your superior,
coerce your subordinates, and
compete with your peers.
Everyone is required to pull their weight for the greater good of the collective whole. Coercion is the
hierarchical specialty and dissent is frowned upon as disloyal.
Communism is an extreme form of egalitarianism which means no one can tell anyone what to do. There is no (need for) division of labor as everyone harmoniously works for the greater good of the collective whole. Cooperation is the key to egalitarianism and dissent is discouraged as it disturbs the harmony.
However, an orchestra needs a conductor and communism wasn’t going anywhere until Lenin wrote the tract “What is to be done?” advocating the formation of a “vanguard” to lead the masses. A leader may be accepted if he or she is charismatic which is to say seen as instantiating the egalitarian ideal. But, of course, if there is a leader, there is hierarchy.
To comprehend the relationship we need to introduce a third perspective. That “spectrum” is more like a triangle as proactive politics is a three-way tussle. In addition to the collective hierarchs and the collective egalitarians there are the non-collective individualists. They maintain a good society will be ensured if people are free to go their own way, wheeling and dealing in pursuit of fame and fortune. Out of this, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” will create beneficial social results. Competition is the key to individualism — and dissent is of little interest where everyone does their own thing.
But individualism requires regulation for without it, individualism is socially destructive; it turns into a dog-eat-dog free-for-all. Regulation means a hierarchical bureaucracy. The hierarchy is needed not only to prevent extortion and murder but also to prevent cooperation. Cooperation destroys competition and anti-trust legislation, and laws against insider-trading try to stop individualists cooperating. (Conversely, competition is similarly destructive of egalitarian cooperation.)
So hierarchy is inescapable; neither egalitarianism nor individualism can function without it. On the other hand, the hierarchy itself will be kept in check (i.e., prevented from tipping into fascism with its own agenda of power for power’s sake) provided there is both a vibrant egalitarianism and a vibrant individualism promoting their distinct ways of life.
Both are needed. If there is only hierarchy and egalitarianism there will be coercive conformism such as Pol Pot, Jonestown, or the communism of the Soviet Union. This is not called fascism but is just as bad.
If there is only hierarchy and individualism, wealthy individuals will suborn the regulator. The regulator then undermines competition by favoring cronies who, freed of regulation, exploit society (“the masses”) whose dissent is then suppressed by the regulator. This is the pattern in South America, eastern Europe and all other presidential countries (i.e., those where the chief executive is directly elected nationally by the people). This (when it is bad enough) would be what is normally called fascism.
We see that egalitarianism and hierarchy are not direct opposites. More directly opposed are the egalitarians and the individualists. They both object to coercion but otherwise have nothing in common — yet both are required, along with hierarchy, for a society that is not repressive.
Of the three drivers of social interaction — cooperation, competition, and coercion — it is all three simultaneously which characterise hierarchy; cooperation alone yields egalitarianism; competition alone results in individualism. (Coercion alone gives helplessness and fatalism.)
For a decent society all three: egalitarianism, hierarchy, and individualism, have to be present. Thus the hierarchs, with no agenda of their own, mediate, reconcile, and implement the conflicting agendas of the egalitarians and individualists.
Here endeth the lesson.