julie wrong, confusing first post with this claptrap:
I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.
Ultimately I see the political spectrum from left to right as:
Fascists and Communists---- Socialist---- Leftist/American Liberal--- Moderate Left---Center---Moderate Right---Rightwing/Classical Liberal/American Conservative--- Far-Right--- Anarchists--- Klansman etc.
with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right
Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research
This gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs. It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum. Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left. Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.
Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and Salazar
Creepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.
Edit: I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.
The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.
I dont think that just because you have a planned economy you have a socialist economy. I.e. there is a difference between building an economic machine purely for military conquest and imperialism, and building an economy to promote a global workers rebellion against the bourgeoisie.
Right, the first is more socialist and the second is more comunist in their approaches. Thats not to say the Soviets were socialist instead of communist mind you, only to note that it is much more likely for a commie to talk about a global workers rebellion than a socialist
you have no idea what you talking about. what up, you just write C- paper on this for your high school?
Actually, I am guessing, based on your writing style alone that all of my papers have graded better than yours. Regardless, this is from a nobel prize winner:
It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers who have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought. Their system was developed with ruthless consistency. Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization.
What, then, caused these views held by a reactionary minority finally to gain the support of the great majority of Germans and practically the whole of Germany's youth? It was not merely the defeat, the suffering, and the wave of nationalism which led to their success. Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp. It was certainly not through the bourgeoisie, but rather through the absence of a strong bourgeoisie, that they were helped to power.
... the socialists of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.
The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.
Hayek, Road to Serfdom....
Who knows more/is more intelligent? A Nobel Prize winner in Economics or Julie Fern who can barely form a coherent sentence?