Fascism

[bripat9643]

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

 

[owebo]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

Only because there was something else to leave to....

 

[bripat9643]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

Then who owned them if not the state? Were the residents allowed to sell them?

 

[Coyote]

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

To them, it is work by their choice...

In fascism, you can quit a job and starve or get another job...

In communism you can never quit a job.....

What kind of choice did they have in the old mining structure where they were paid in script that could only be used in the highly inflated company stores, homes owned by the companies, and the miners kept in debt and forbidden from working elsewhere or they and their families would be evicted? Eh...ya, lots of choice in Appalachia then.

Capitalism has it's faults too. Communism as a social and economic system beyond small religious communities is a failure.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Absolutely! Unregulated capitalism is every bit as bad as out of control socialism! Well, maybe not quite as bad... out of control socialism is capable of mass murder on a scale that can only be dreamed of by the worst capitalist asshole, but they would certainly try. And that is the problem.

I disagree. Unregulated capitalism is what made this country great. Unlimited socialism produced 100 million dead.

 

[owebo]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

To them, it is work by their choice...

In fascism, you can quit a job and starve or get another job...

In communism you can never quit a job.....

What kind of choice did they have in the old mining structure where they were paid in script that could only be used in the highly inflated company stores, homes owned by the companies, and the miners kept in debt and forbidden from working elsewhere or they and their families would be evicted? Eh...ya, lots of choice in Appalachia then.

Capitalism has it's faults too. Communism as a social and economic system beyond small religious communities is a failure.

Is it still that way? No....so they obviously had a choice.....or we wouldn't be here,,,

 

[Coyote]

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm referring to Hitler and Stalin.

 

[owebo]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Absolutely! Unregulated capitalism is every bit as bad as out of control socialism! Well, maybe not quite as bad... out of control socialism is capable of mass murder on a scale that can only be dreamed of by the worst capitalist asshole, but they would certainly try. And that is the problem.

I disagree. Unregulated capitalism is what made this country great. Unlimited socialism produced 100 million dead.

I agree...Liberty will check capitalism as needed....that's why we have the bell with the crack....

 

[2aguy]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

To them, it is work by their choice...

In fascism, you can quit a job and starve or get another job...

In communism you can never quit a job.....

What kind of choice did they have in the old mining structure where they were paid in script that could only be used in the highly inflated company stores, homes owned by the companies, and the miners kept in debt and forbidden from working elsewhere or they and their families would be evicted? Eh...ya, lots of choice in Appalachia then.

Capitalism has it's faults too. Communism as a social and economic system beyond small religious communities is a failure.

That isn't capitalism....that is indentured servitude......

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

To them, it is work by their choice...

In fascism, you can quit a job and starve or get another job...

In communism you can never quit a job.....

What kind of choice did they have in the old mining structure where they were paid in script that could only be used in the highly inflated company stores, homes owned by the companies, and the miners kept in debt and forbidden from working elsewhere or they and their families would be evicted? Eh...ya, lots of choice in Appalachia then.

They had the option of leaving. And once the situation in these towns became public knowledge, they had the option of not going there in the first place. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to live there. In the Soviet Union, on the other hand, someone did hold a gun to your head - literally.

Capitalism has it's faults too. Communism as a social and economic system beyond small religious communities is a failure.

Capitalism's "faults" stem from the limitations of nature. It has no faults that can be cured by socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm referring to Hitler and Stalin.

So?

 

[Coyote]

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Absolutely! Unregulated capitalism is every bit as bad as out of control socialism! Well, maybe not quite as bad... out of control socialism is capable of mass murder on a scale that can only be dreamed of by the worst capitalist asshole, but they would certainly try. And that is the problem.

The problem with economic systems and political ideologies is that what looks good in theory often crashes in the face of human nature. Socialism and communism, when you look at what they sprang out of - looks good on paper. People forget what it was like at the time - very restrictive class structures, which in Europe meant very little economic and social mobility - big gaps between the poor and the rich and few means of bridging them. Pre-union days meant horrible exploitation of workers and appalling work conditions in many cases. And that is unfettered capitalism. It's easy to see why socialism, with it's egalitarian structure and promises of social equality and wealth sharing was so appealing. But in real life it doesn't work that way because there are always people who want more and, in particular want power over others and there are always going to be people who don't want to work. More importantly, it fails economically because there is no incentive to work harder or better or more efficiently and no reward. That's the big failing - we humans are like our dogs - we need to be paid personally, altruism only goes so far and usually only works in small environments like religious communities where people share a common philosophy.

 

[bripat9643]

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

If you're talking about the left/right paradigm, the economic aspects are the only thing relevant. That's what it measures, the degree of government control you endorse. The rest is political propaganda that proves nothing and never can prove anything.

And, yes, government control of the economy and democratic government are mutually exclusive. It can't work and always devolves to totalitarian dictatorship whenever it's tried.

Tell that to the people for whom the "non-economic" caused to be killed.

The government's control over the economy is what allowed them to be killed. A capitalist government is a weak government. A socialist government has total control over the individual. It says whether you live or die.

 

[Coyote]

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

 

[Iceweasel]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

 

[owebo]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Absolutely! Unregulated capitalism is every bit as bad as out of control socialism! Well, maybe not quite as bad... out of control socialism is capable of mass murder on a scale that can only be dreamed of by the worst capitalist asshole, but they would certainly try. And that is the problem.

The problem with economic systems and political ideologies is that what looks good in theory often crashes in the face of human nature. Socialism and communism, when you look at what they sprang out of - looks good on paper. People forget what it was like at the time - very restrictive class structures, which in Europe meant very little economic and social mobility - big gaps between the poor and the rich and few means of bridging them. Pre-union days meant horrible exploitation of workers and appalling work conditions in many cases. And that is unfettered capitalism. It's easy to see why socialism, with it's egalitarian structure and promises of social equality and wealth sharing was so appealing. But in real life it doesn't work that way because there are always people who want more and, in particular want power over others and there are always going to be people who don't want to work. More importantly, it fails economically because there is no incentive to work harder or better or more efficiently and no reward. That's the big failing - we humans are like our dogs - we need to be paid personally, altruism only goes so far and usually only works in small environments like religious communities where people share a common philosophy.

That's why we are conservatives....any why you should join us and help tow the rope.......

 

[Coyote]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

 

[Iceweasel]

Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

All of that is interesting history but is not related to the US.

 

[owebo]

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalism needs some regulation.

If it doesn't have regulations who decides what a dollar is worth? Mad Max?