It would be good if many of the folks here throwing around the Socialist label knew what they were talking about. Government control is not automatically socialist and the current push to concentrate more power in the executive branch and nationalize segments of the financial sector are not socialist in nature. They are fascist.

"Fascism versus socialism
Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism, although some early Fascists were themselves former Marxists. In 1923, Mussolini declared in The Doctrine of Fascism:
... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
... "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.... If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."
--Benito Mussolini, public domain, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook
While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state, for example: socialism considers the state to be merely a "tool of the people," sometimes calling it a "necessary evil," which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good. (Certain forms of libertarian socialism reject the state altogether.) Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in and of itself, which the people should obey and serve, rather than the other way around.
Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production."
http://www.indopedia.org/Fascism.html#Fascism_versus_socialism

One may argue that concentrating power in the hands of too few people always leads to abuse of that power at he expense of the powerless, but that is a far different argument than stating that all such concentration is socialist.

The ideological goal of all socialism is to move power down in society and to diffuse it more evenly. Please don't think I'm so naive as to seek to excuse the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. As I said, one can argue that concentration of power always leads to abuse of that power. The ideological goal of all fascism is to move power up in society and to concentrate it in fewer hands- hence the corporatist statism that all fascist apologists advocate.

Reagan's, and subsequent republican, economic policies were essentially fascist in their focus. Make the rich richer and they will take care of everyone else. Trust those at the top because they would never sell out the Fatherland.

The extreme, jingoistic patriotism pushed by the republicans over the past 30 years is another indication of fascism rather than socialism. Socialism seeks to unite the working class regardless of national orders and sees national borders as obstacles to be overcome. Fascism glorifies the nation and the exercise of national power. The fact that 'defense' spending has increased so much under republican leadership is another indication of the fascist tendencies of that party.

The final thing which indicates that the republican party is more fascist than socialist is the emphasis on religion. Socialism seeks to make religion obsolete. Fascism seeks to convince people that the fascists are on a mission from god. "God Bless Our Troops" is a classic fascist motto.

Can't wait to see Geezer and the other fascists on this board try to use a modicum of reasoning. Their heads are liable to explode with trying to shake off the rust accumulated after years and years of letting the echo chamber do Rush and WorldNet Daily do their thinking for them.

Die capitalistic pig dogs.

I have some knowledge of the subject, having majored in it decades ago.  Your origins of fascism in Italy are so removed from how it developed and how it merged with the socialist nations that it would seem your thinking stopped in 1925.

Indeed, your separation of the two is very artificial.

Facism, very roughly speaking, is a type of government typified by centralization of authority under a dictator, usuually with a lot of socioeconomic controls and, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.  

To say that Reagan was fascist is kind of silly.  How many of his opponents did he terrorize.  I don't remember anyone being afraid to write letters to the paper, organize protest rallies, make jokes about him on TV, or anything else that would be prohibited under Fascism.  

Same with censorship.  The NY Times was very critical of him for 8 years?  How many of their editors ended up in federal prison. How often did he shut down the Time? How often did he force them to print things?  How often did his minions physically attack them?  (Hint - thing ZERO)

Also, fascism is not tied to religion.  Hey, check out Hitler and the Nazis. Clearly socialists, but they never promoted religion.

Socialism is an economic theory, but it clearly can approach fascism, which is a means of state control that can adjusted to any economic theory. If you don't think Socialism and communism can also be fascist in terms of dictatorial control through censorship and oppression think for a second - Russia, China, Cuba, N. Korea....  All socialist. All fascist.

As for your comment that socialism tries to move power down in society and diffuse  - name one fascist society that moved power down in society.  (I am not just talking Stalin - but every Soviet leader. Every N. Vietnamese leader, Every Chinese leader.  Oh, power is so diffused in Cuba. Power is so difused in Syria.  

If that is your theory then no socialist nation is socialist.

Finally, your reference to jingoistic patriotism is just as applicable to socialist states as fascists.  Did you ever see any Soviet art?  Chinese ballet?  I remember little posters for babies nursuries with a childhood picture of Lenin and the motto (in Russian) "We will all be little Lenins."

Go to Soviet era movies. Look at Soviet era posters. Look at Cuban posters. Then tell me that fascism, UNLIKE socialism, appeals to jingoistic patriotism.  

That is the lifeblood of socialist societies.

Your distincions are nice and academic.  But they do not apply to any socialist society you can name.

ooops. Hit post twice. Sorry. Techo-challenged

-- Modified on 9/30/2008 7:44:31 PM

I also have some knowledge of the subject having  grad degrees in econ and public policy as well as having taught the subject for most of my 30 years in teaching. This was not decades ago.

German fascism didn't have a religious component? Then what about these?

"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!"

- Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people."

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

I could go on and on but you get the point. the NAZIs used religion to solidify their political power. There is absolutely no question about that and it is well documented.

As I said, one can argue, as do Hayek, Arendt, and Ayn Rand,  that all statist governments arrive at the same place eventually but that is far different from claiming that socialism is the equivalent of fascism.

Reagan's policies were fascist in respect to injecting more religion into public policy and concentrating wealth in fewer hands. Avuncular though he was, his policies moved the US closer to fascism than existed prior to his administration. You may argue that was a good thing and you'd have a point that could be supported pretty well. After all, you could make a good point about that exact thing concerning HItler prior to 1935.

My ideas don't apply to any socialist states? How about Sweden, Denmark, Germany?  All nations with measurably higher standards of living than the US unless you assume per capita GDP to be the only measurement of standard of living. All nations which work hard to distribute wealth and power downward. Also, all nations which are more democratic than the US by any measurement you want to use.

Can you point to any claims I made that China, Cuba or USSR were paragons of socialism?

My basic point here is that it is wrong to attribute things like the current bailout plan to some movement toward socialism which would be a leftward movement. The current bailout plan is much more a fascist movement to the right. If one insists on thinking of it as a move toward the left, then they conclude that the correct response is to move farther to the right, assuming that one disagrees with the plan. That would be a mistake and actually move the nation closer to dictatorship, which is exactly what has occurred over the past 8 years.

If one is interested in preserving democracy, then it's vitally important to determine first whether the threats to democracy come from the left or the right. Unless one can do that, then it's impossible to know whether a response will do any good or will actually exacerbate the threat.

To equate Reagan as a fascist would be to equate you with any semblance of intelligence.  Do you have a keeper?  Bet they must change your diaper and bib on a regular basis.

You are a great example as to why voting should not be a right. Can't imagine what your voices are telling you. Those must be fascinating conversations that you have.

Bet you are a star teacher at a government school.

What is it they say about those that teach?  You shouldn't be allowed to teach a retarded dog obedience class.

-- Modified on 9/30/2008 8:52:33 PM

and exactly what I expect from you. No thought, no dialog, just diatribes.

Why don't you go outside and play, Junior. The adults are trying to have an actual conversation.

Don't eat the sand in the sandbox.

are lightweight fascists around here these days. They have no real political threats in America.
Back in the 60's there were real murdering democratic party thugs running amok. You needed to pack heat to survive. You remember the revolution don't you WW?

-- Modified on 9/30/2008 11:07:13 PM

Fucking amazing:  You ignore the most important aspects of any definition of fascism when talking about Reagan - namely the use of terror and force to oppress the other side.  You managed to avoide every question that would make him fascist.  good job.

A defintion of socialism is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Accepting this definition, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany are not socialist.  The state does not own the businesses, nor are they owed collectively.  Except for a handful of things like airlines, most businesses are private.

They may have very liberal policies, but they are not socialist.

The countries you reject are the socialist ones.  I can't point to claims you made that China, Russia, etc were socialist. I am not saying you said they are. THE FACT IS THEY ARE, WHETHER YOU SAID IT OR NOT.  those are your socialist states. But you try to hide the true examples of socialism.


Hitler paid lip service to religion, but his expressions on the subject were not consistent.  He was born a Catholic, but you never see pictures of him in church.  

More importantly, German fascism WAS ONLY ONE of many of fascists states. SOME may enourage religion, but OTHERS do not.  Therefore, fascism may or may not involve religion, and thus to label religion as one of the hallmarks of fascism is just false, since fascists states exists with and with out it.




-- Modified on 10/1/2008 8:49:20 AM

Leftists in the US are so cute when they bandy about words like "dictator" and "fascist" when talking about the U.S. in general or people like Reagan in particular.

Most people have no idea of the level of control, through the use of criminal penalties and terror, imposed by real fascists states.

My favorite illustrative story is from Syria.  In 2000, I was going from Damascus to Aleppo and we passed a huge complex in the middle of the dessert.  I asked the driver what it was.  He didn’t know the word in English, so he said, “It is the place where they put very bad people. Like people who murder or steal or say bad things about the president.”  

It was a prison.  For him it was just a given that saying “bad things” about the president put you in a prison cell for an indeterminate term.  He could not believe that a major newspaper in the United States would print negative articles about the president.  He grew up in a fascist society, and count not picture anything else.

My second favorite story is we saw a poster of Bashir Assad on the street. At that time, his father, Hafiz, was still president, and there was no reason to suspect his health was bad or that he would not be president for another 10 or 15 years.  Nonetheless, our driver pointed to the picture of Bashir and said with certainty he would be the next president.

Now, can you or anyone else tell me who will be the president of the United States in fifteen years from now.  Of course not.  There it was a given.

I have a pen pal in Pelican Bay, the most secure prison in California.  He is very vocal in his criticism of the current administration.  He is also pretty well read, since he gets a lot of books and magazines.  He once told me how totalitarian the U.S. was.

I pointed out to him that being in the most secure prison in the state, he has more political and expressive freedom than the average person on the streets in any of the real totalitarian societies.  

Actually, I should have realized your mindset – being a teacher for 30 years. My guess is you are on the university level.  This is why you can spout out ideas like Reagan being a fascist – so divorced from any serious meaning of the word.  Only in academia.

Final question:  If it is so oppressive here under Bush, who is often called a dictator or fascist, why do so many people from Sweden and Germany want to move the the US.

There is some movement from here to there, but it is really insigificant.  If you look at per capita emmigration from Sweden or German to the US, and compare it to that from the US to Germany, Sweded (or any other country), it is clear that for some reason most people want to live here in oppression and misery.