Its the Left that are most like the fascists because they like big government. The conservatives want small government.
So we know that its the Left that are the real fascists.

BTW, this so called "peace movement" is a false one. These peaceniks are in sympathy with the terrorists and they hope to undermine the American war effort at home.

Firstly, Darwin was British. His comments are classic 'social Darwinism,' and qhile fascists would have agreed, that isn't enough to make him a fascist. Lots of people around that time would have held the same views, but that didn't mean they all felt they had the right to carve out huge empires.

Otherwise fair point, I did use the race terms quite broadly. Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that because their race was superior, they had a natural right to rule over other races. This underpinned their attempts to found empires within Europe, and was a crucial aspect of fascism. Anti-semitism was a Nazi thing rather than a fascist thing overall. I don't see this in the American right. Nor do I see the kind of oppression that was found in fascist countries, though that is less an ideological thing than a characteristic tool. Also, don't a lot of the Republicans want small government and low taxes? The fascists spent shit loads of money on infrastructure and so on, so had quite big government.

You may have every reason to woory about the direction of your government, I just don't think fascist is the right label for it, and its also a term that carries a huge amount of baggage with it.

I don't think you've quite got to grips with the complexities of the issue. Fascist economics doesn't fit simply into the left-right equation. It has aspects of both. It's strong ties to big business are very reminiscent of the republicans, for example.

I can agree with almost all of this as I think that citizens and government both need to come to an understanding about themselves and political powers, the last thing I want is to see any more of my fellow Americans harmed although they can frustrate me at times.
However wouldn't deporting American citizens because they have beliefs contrary to the majority constitute a form of socialism/facism and thus negate your argument that the U.S. is not facist?

American citizens are not being deported, except the ones that come under false pretenses like spies, terrorists, and war criminals.

Illegal aliens are deported all the time, but not American citizens.

Do you have a problem with that?

The fascist economic system is more like the modern Euro-Socialist states. Business is heavily regulated, though still privately owned. Business is heavily taxed to support government programs, at the same time business is subsidized to get a competitive edge over foriegn businesses. A case in point is Airbus getting government subsidies so as to better compete against companies like Boeing.

I never said we should deport american citizens.... you read a bit too much into my statement there..... I said that anyone who dislikes the state of things should spend some time in a third world country so as to grow a better appreciation of our freedoms here..... no mention of deportation at all..... I dunno where you got that from???

But would a socialist government give tax breaks to the rich? Fascism did not heavily tax business - Hitler was very chummy with all the big industrialists. Socialism, crucially involves public ownership of utilities and so on as well, but I don't think fascism did. I've already said that there are many similarities between fascism and socialism, but there are far too many differences to call socialists fascists, even in the economic sense, never mind the other aspects.

Tax breaks you say? How about the way socialist governments in EU have been giving government subsidies to companies like Airbus?

On utitilies, why don't you go find out whether or not the utilities were publicly owned under fascist governments. Then find out if all other socialist governments do so too.

Too many differences you say? I don't see it. The ChiComs seem to share much of the same nationalist traits with the European fascists of the 20's & 30's. They do allow some private business, just so long as its profitable for the state to do so.

Of course not. On the other hand I don't always trust that the reasons given for someone being a Terrorist, a spy or a war criminal are always credible ones.

I think I did misunderstand you. The "If they don't like it we should deport em'" train of thought was what I immediatly thought you meant.

Pointing out that 'socialist' governments in Europe give tax breaks to the ich simply shows that they are not truly socialist governments. It's totally against socialist theory. A true socialist government would own Airbus.

The 'Chicoms' do have a massive nationalist streak, but again it is totally against socialist theory, which says that it is classes that are the natural divisions of society and that nations are artificial constructions created by greedy landowners who like to mark out their territory in various ways.

So, what you've done is spotted similarities between fascism and two things that are actually contrary to socialism.

About nationalisation. He did nationalise some industries. Was it because he felt that the means of productions hould be owned by the people? No. It was because he wanted control. Hitler actually banned the Trade Unions, so he can't have been too keen on workers' rights and wishes.

Fascism is not remotely confusable with socialism. Just because dogs and cats both have four legs and eat meat doesn't make them the same, but you seem not to be able to tell the difference.

Trade Unions were banned in communist countries too. The idea is that the workers are already represented by the state. Ditto for the fascists, as in German Workers Party which later became known as the National Socialist German Workers Party.

There are many different socialist parties. Some go by the communist model where all private enterprise has been outlawed, everything is owned & run by the state.
Most modern socialist parties today allow private enterprise but with strict government regulation.

Nationalism goes against marxism, but not all forms of socialism. I have pointed out that some forms of socialism where the collective is based on the ethnic/national model.

Read it and weep, leftys. :laugh:

The argument put forth in that article only pertains to soviet model socialism and as Arty pointed out there are many different models of socialism.

Quite. I agree with that article, but what it says is that they had common roots, not that they are the same thing or even remarkably similar. You've been trying to say that they amount to the same thing.

The fact that you can point out socialist societies with nationalist elements, such as China (actually I originally pointed that one out) doesn't change the fact that nationalism is entirely contrary to socialist beliefs. It just shows that China isn't orthodoxly socialist.

Hitler banned the TUs because they were a pain and he wanted control. It had nothing to do with the representation of the people by the state. The name is irrelevant. If it had all been the same except they'd called themselves the National Party for Promiscuous Sex would you now be arguing that they promoted promiscuity?

I am the nicest person on the planet. It's clearly true because I said so myself, didn't I?



Judge Hitler by his actions, not his words.

Er, your argument appears not to be logical in any way. As far as I can tell you're saying that, because left-wing governments were responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century, which we all knew anyway, Hitler must have been a socialist because he also killed lots of people. You're assuming that killing lots of people is something only socialists do. What you're not doing is looking at Hitler's actual policies, and comparing them to socialist theory. If you did you would find many differences.