It is known that from a far-left perspective, libertarianism and classical fascism coincide in their belief in individual strength. And from a far-right perspective, communism coincides with the same fascism in their disavowal of individual freedom. This is usually called the horseshoe theory, but neither side wants to admit that it cuts both ways. The problem, of course, is that one is mistaken the political scale of being in a two-dimensional system with an x and a y-axis (left-right). When in fact it is a spatial, three-dimensional scale with three axes - communism, libertarianism and fascism. If you are at the end of one of the axis, the other two ends are further away from the centre, from origo. In this way, the paradox arises that the different extremes seem to "move", approach, and even coincide in different constellations, based on what perspective one has.
However, there is reason to identify fascism and libertarianism with each other from a left-wing perspective, because from a libertarian starting point with full freedom for the individual, fascism or monopolism inevitable arises. There is never an equilibrium, but inequality inexorably breeds more inequality until all power is concentrated in the strongest one. The pursuit of freedom always ends with the loss of it, except for the one who is at the top, who conquers all power/freedom.
The only alternative to this seems to be to give up individual freedom for the freedom of the collective, i.e. communism. Where everyone has the right to co-determination. The problem here is only that freedom/power can only be exercised by an agent, i.e. by an individual or a group with overlapping interests. It must be separated from the totality. The totality can never represent itself. It can never act freely. The only action totality can perform is a reaction. An event can trigger an action as a consequence, but this action is not free, and thus by definition, powerless. The claim to speak for "the people" or for "everyone" is always a chimaera. There is always a power struggle within each group, even within an all-encompassing group, and no single decision or action can represent the will of all. There is always something being expelled or suppressed. In a communist situation, some will always seize greater power, and this inequality will propagate by the same mechanics as before until all power is concentrated in one person with an underlying hierarchical structure.
So if both libertarianism and communism inevitably turn into fascism, is there no way out of this stalemate?
Well, one just has to remember that the exercise of power/freedom also requires resources. Through a system that compulsorily distributes all resources equally, one can balance the inevitable inequality that exists, and will always exist, in the distribution of power. Only in this way can individual freedom be maintained, but the spiral towards a fascist, monopolistic structure is avoided.
This is exactly what commensalism wants to accomplish. By taking as a starting point the inviolable equal value of every human, and distributing the resources equally, regardless of individual effort, a balance can be achieved. Commensalism does this by lifting human labour out of the market logic, by protecting labour from becoming a commodity, subject to pricing. Only when everyone earns equally, i.e. is rewarded equally for their contribution of time, can an equal society, which also safeguards the individual's freedom, arise. No rich and no poor, that is the price of freedom and equality combined.