Before any progress is made in real life, you first have to understand why we fight. This means having a firm political and philosophical understanding of why fascism is right, and anarchy, or any other individualist concept is wrong.
Collectivism, as commonly understood, and properly defined means "The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." This does not negate the importance of the individual. Rather it negates his supremacy to the state or group. This is a key factor when reaching out to debate Anarchists, Libertarians, Liberals, Capitalists, etc. The Usual argument coming from an individualist is "but who are YOU to tell ME that I must X?" This is both an attempt to force the debate onto their philosophical grounds, as well as a failure of their side, to even conceptualize a collectivist society. Here is why. The question is framed from an individualist standpoint. Let’s use free market Capitalism as an example, "But who are YOU to tell ME what I can and can't do with my property?" Well, first of all, I, as an individual absolutely do not have any right, burden or obligation, to tell you how to live your life. But state supremacy is not about enforcing my personal beliefs on anyone else. The state, although represented by a government, is actually the name which we give to a concept. It can be expressed like this: People + land + rules or government + sovereignty = State. So their question can be answered like this: "I personally, have no interest in mandating the standards by which you are expected to live and interact with others. However, from the moment you set up your business, you immediately benefited from the resources of this state. You drew your workforce from its people, you used its markets to sell your products, and you traded in its currency, so by participation in our state, you allow us claim over the supervision of your affairs. We, not I, have a right to set standards which we expect anyone doing business in our state to follow. This is because, our rights as a group supersede any perceived rights you have as an individual. People who own guns are not allowed to hurt people with them. People who own cars are not allowed to hurt people with them. And, people who own businesses are not allowed to hurt people with them. So we will supervise how you use your property and enforce laws which uphold standards of collective advancement and expect you to adhere to them. We, not ME."
But how do we get to the idea that the group is more important than the individual? Isn’t a group just made up of individuals? Wouldn’t that mean that it is the individual that creates the group, and therefore, should have rights over the group? No.
While a group may happen to be made up of people, a group can accomplish more than an individual. And while individuals make up the group, each member contributes only a fraction of input into the group. But, if everyone on earth disappeared in a single day, except for one person, what would his life look like Well, first of all, it would be very short. Most people would very likely die within one year without a society around them. This is not due to some weakness, but the fact that we were designed to live as a society. We do not function very well by ourselves. We even consider someone being stuck alone in the woods away from society to be an emergency situation. Even if a lone individual were to survive for forty more years, can we call what they are living a life, or is it merely survival? Without friends, neighbors, a family, coworkers, etc., life would be unrecognizable as life. Just maintaining enough nutrients to not die, is not the same thing as living. That’s survival. Even property would cease to exist. Property is that which we deem to be for our use, rather than public use. So, without society, there is no property. In the sense of a business, of what value would "owning" that business be without people around you? So it is even our collective existence that made it possible for you to own the business.
Now, on the other hand, if one person died, what effect does it have on Society? In the time it has taken you to read this, our American Society has lost more than a dozen members. Do you feel a difference? No? So, we can empirically show that the individual derives nearly 100% of its "life" from belonging to a society, but that Society derives only infinitesimally fractional benefit from the individual. Therefore, Society is its own existence, and its importance trumps that of its members, who only live because the society exists. So, No individual has any rights or privileges except as they happen to align with the needs of society or, at best, do not contradict the needs of society.
So then, who are "we" to tell "you" how to run your business? Well, "we are the ones who gave you life, property, your business, your home, your family, you education, and everything else in your life you value, you are essentially renting it from Us, that’s who we are. We instinctively recognize the importance of the group over that of the individual. A person, who kills another person or any number of people to satisfy their own interests, is a murderer, or a mass murderer. A person, who kills others to serve the interests of the group and protect the group’s members and interests, is a Soldier. When danger occurs, a Man who saves himself while abandoning others is a coward, a man who saves others without thinking of himself, is a Hero. Fascism is the pinnacle of evolutionary thought within the school of collectivism it is the absolute realization of what is best for the group. It borrows philosophically from many sources to provide guidance and leadership to the group. And, it demands of every individual to recognize their duty to the state.