Fascism

[bripat9643]

Would you go to a barber to remove a burst appendix? What's wrong with Congress and state/local legislative bodies is not "career politicians", it is the cash that is necessary for each of them to remain in elective office.

Yes, the cash in politics and the cost of reelections is a problem, but "career" politicians seem to be more interested in consolidating power than in doing what they were elected to do. Do you think we should repeal the 22nd Amendment? I don't, but I also think we need election reform. Not just about the cash but to put a reasonable limit, say 2-3 terms for Senators (12-18 years total), apples-to-apples, 6-9 terms for the House (12-18 years total). I know many would like to make it shorter, but we have to realize that most Congress critters would fight this by inaction if it was too short.

That's way too long. 18 years is almost a career. One term in the Senate and three in the House is plenty.

Regardless if I agree or not, fat chance passing it through Congress.

True. That's why we need the convention of states.

That's long been a dream of those on the right, but the odds are against it for the same reason the election was so close; the country is fairly evenly divided. In such an environment getting 34 states to call a convention and 38 to ratify an amendment giving term limits to Congress would be difficult at best. If it did happen, I strongly doubt the required majority would ratify single terms for Senators. Three two-year terms for Representatives would be dicey too. All for the same reason some states keep reelecting the same people to office.

That said, a CoS isn't a magic wand. The human dynamics would remain the same; corporate and other well-monied interests would still be power players. The same loud-mouthed, politically active, but relative minority, groups would still exert influence. Delegates would be elected, and I suspect most would be proportional to state citizens, not necessarily "winner take all" like the Electoral College.

I think they would. People keep reelecting their own Senators and Congressmen, but they would all like to see the guys from the other states get the boot.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes, the cash in politics and the cost of reelections is a problem, but "career" politicians seem to be more interested in consolidating power than in doing what they were elected to do. Do you think we should repeal the 22nd Amendment? I don't, but I also think we need election reform. Not just about the cash but to put a reasonable limit, say 2-3 terms for Senators (12-18 years total), apples-to-apples, 6-9 terms for the House (12-18 years total). I know many would like to make it shorter, but we have to realize that most Congress critters would fight this by inaction if it was too short.

That's way too long. 18 years is almost a career. One term in the Senate and three in the House is plenty.

Regardless if I agree or not, fat chance passing it through Congress.

True. That's why we need the convention of states.

That's long been a dream of those on the right, but the odds are against it for the same reason the election was so close; the country is fairly evenly divided. In such an environment getting 34 states to call a convention and 38 to ratify an amendment giving term limits to Congress would be difficult at best. If it did happen, I strongly doubt the required majority would ratify single terms for Senators. Three two-year terms for Representatives would be dicey too. All for the same reason some states keep reelecting the same people to office.

That said, a CoS isn't a magic wand. The human dynamics would remain the same; corporate and other well-monied interests would still be power players. The same loud-mouthed, politically active, but relative minority, groups would still exert influence. Delegates would be elected, and I suspect most would be proportional to state citizens, not necessarily "winner take all" like the Electoral College.

I think they would. People keep reelecting their own Senators and Congressmen, but they would all like to see the guys from the other states get the boot.

Agreed that citizens of one state protect "their guy" but want to boot others. This same dynamic would continue to operate in a CoS.

Although I think we should try it again, getting 2/3's of the state's citizens to agree one amendment subject will make a Kindergarten's first fire drill look organized. The Lefties will want gun control. Even Righties will disagree on the subject of their (possibly) one shot at a CoS.

 

[bripat9643]

That's way too long. 18 years is almost a career. One term in the Senate and three in the House is plenty.

Regardless if I agree or not, fat chance passing it through Congress.

True. That's why we need the convention of states.

That's long been a dream of those on the right, but the odds are against it for the same reason the election was so close; the country is fairly evenly divided. In such an environment getting 34 states to call a convention and 38 to ratify an amendment giving term limits to Congress would be difficult at best. If it did happen, I strongly doubt the required majority would ratify single terms for Senators. Three two-year terms for Representatives would be dicey too. All for the same reason some states keep reelecting the same people to office.

That said, a CoS isn't a magic wand. The human dynamics would remain the same; corporate and other well-monied interests would still be power players. The same loud-mouthed, politically active, but relative minority, groups would still exert influence. Delegates would be elected, and I suspect most would be proportional to state citizens, not necessarily "winner take all" like the Electoral College.

I think they would. People keep reelecting their own Senators and Congressmen, but they would all like to see the guys from the other states get the boot.

Agreed that citizens of one state protect "their guy" but want to boot others. This same dynamic would continue to operate in a CoS.

Although I think we should try it again, getting 2/3's of the state's citizens to agree one amendment subject will make a Kindergarten's first fire drill look organized. The Lefties will want gun control. Even Righties will disagree on the subject of their (possibly) one shot at a CoS.

All amendments approved in a COS convention still have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, so the nightmare scenarios you envision just won't happen.

 

[danielpalos]

I have found in my life experiences that most people are morons and uneducated about the world around them.
Most people have no clue what Fascism is and where it lies on the political spectrum. It is PURE LEFTIST IDEOLOGY.

only if you resort to special pleading, like the right wing, usually does.

you don't mention, anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

I see trump as more of a Stalinist. He's already getting business to kowtow to his wishes. Though I suppose that is also a form of fascism.

ROFL You vote for Hillary and Obama, but Trump is the Stalinist?

You make it apparent that a fundamental requirement for being a leftist is a capacity for entirely ignoring reality.

capitalists can make rules in our republic, simply by having enough capital.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it first surfaced with one Goldberg's book - Liberal Fascism. He tried to make a case that fascists and Hitler were all leftwing The idea that it is leftwing is new revisionism. It's kind of like the current attempt to claim Islam is not a religion.

No ma'am. The revisionism occurred back sixty and more years ago when the fabians convinced the world that you could have left wing socialism, and right wing socialism. The common denominator being socialism. We are merely trying to set the record straight. There can be only TWO government types. Collectivist, and individualist. That is simple logic. The question about socialist vs fascist is merely the degree along the teeter totter you have traveled.

I think we are bound to disagree on this one....as, I see it squarely on the right side of the teeter with the fascists themselves even stating they were right wing

Except for that "socialism" part in the very name of their Party. Just sayin....

Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

People's Republic of China.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


None of those are/were Republics by any stretch of the imagination. A name means nothing, but actions mean everything.

Wrong, actually, we don't need a mix. Socialism provides nothing that individuals can't provide for themselves.

Yes, we do. Pure capitalism does not work any better than pure socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

It is now, but prior to FDR it was a passably free country.

what do you mean by "free"? we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

No we didn't. We had the biggest economy on earth. You're peddling a leftwing myth. Who do you imaging purchased 20 million Model T's before FDR ascended to the throne?

We also had, 1929. Capitalism died and socialism has been picking up the slack, ever since.

Where? In Russia? China? Is that why both have resorted to capitalist ventures?

your point? true AnCaps Only exist in the third world. We zoomed past the second world on our way to the first world, with FDR.

 

[kaz]

No, but government control over the economy is leftwing socialism, and Mussolini and Hitler were both socialists. ...

Yet they both advocated racial superiority, saw homosexuality as a perversion and were strong proponents of the death penalty. Meaning they were conservative.

See how that works? If you want to claim something is true, you need to eat the whole enchilada.

Race whores are a joke. What a fucking dick. People like you are destroying America. The Hillary loving butt hurt rages on.

 

[danielpalos]

No, but government control over the economy is leftwing socialism, and Mussolini and Hitler were both socialists. ...

Yet they both advocated racial superiority, saw homosexuality as a perversion and were strong proponents of the death penalty. Meaning they were conservative.

See how that works? If you want to claim something is true, you need to eat the whole enchilada.

Race whores are a joke. What a fucking dick. People like you are destroying America. The Hillary loving butt hurt rages on.

do you need a full body massage with happy ending? i got into some coconut oil.

 

[kaz]

505: Now you're arguing that authoritarian governments don't control the economy? WTF? You think the Nazis didn't control the economy? Name any authoritarian government that doesn't fascist or not. Authoritarian governments are all socialist left. Think about the term "authoritarian." How can that not cover the economy?

Authoritarian can be left or right. I don't know where you get the idea that the right can't possibly be authoritarian.
What makes an ideology left or right depend on a number of different factors, not just one

The fallacy you just committed is called "begging the question." You repeated your assertion as if true, you did not address my point.

Socialism is an economic policy, government control/ownership of industry. So by definition it's fiscal left. Now what if instead of repeating your assertion you answer the question? See the blue. Go ahead and name a right wing, non socialist government

 

[kaz]

====

Bullshit, you never answered once my question, which is where Hitler was against SOCIALISM You keep arguing he killed socialists. You seriously don't understand the difference?

Explain how the blacks in Chicago who kill blacks aren't black. That he kills socialists doesn't prove shit.

And you keep ignoring my question to name any real differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia completely

Bullshit is right. I brought up multiple points.

You repeatedly presented quotes that didn't say what you said they said and then kept repeating that you provided it as if you had.

I've asked you this at least 20 times and you ran away every time, "name any real differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia."

If you actually answered it, man up to a post #

Post #451, 505, 738, for a start. I'm not going to look any further but multiple times I outlined the differences. Just because YOU don't think they are differences doesn't mean I haven't answered your question. But, just to make it absolutely clear - I have now posted yet another post.

Three would work if they answered the question. Here's the problem:

451: You said fascism is "survival of the fittest, strict social order, authoritarian leadership. You're saying Communist Russia isn't that? You can't be serious

Yes. I am serious. In terms of ideology - there is nothing in communism that calls for authoritarianism (it just happens that is what Stalin imposed). In terms of ideology - fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Stalinist Soviet Union became authoritarian because of Stalin, not because of the ideology.

As far as survival of the fittest - this sort of Darwinian view of humanity is central to fascism and to Hitlers "racial superiority" visions. There is nothing of that in socialist or communist ideology

It's classic how you grasp Stalin then turn around and do exactly what you accurately pointed out was wrong about Stalin with Hitler.

Socialism is government control over the economy. Yes, when Stalin did other things, those weren't socialism. Do Shortstops like fast cars? Well, maybe maybe not, but that doesn't have to do with being a shortstop. Stalin was a socialist who murdered a lot of people. The murdering people neither made him a socialist nor not a socialist. He was just a socialist who murdered people. Sweden on the other hand are socialists who don't murder people. Stalin is a socialist, Stalin

Fascism is a minor variation in that industry technically has private owners, but they are economically fully subjugates their business to government control. Businesses in Germany were no more free than Russia, it's socialism.

Now on the other hand you're like,

Stalin was socialist, Stalin murdered people, that does not mean socialists necessarily murder people. True

Nazis are fascists, Nazis are racists, that means that fascists are racists! False. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system. Other things that particular fascists do doesn't make the other things they did fascism. Funny how you grasped that then poof, you didn't!

You're an intellectual waste land. You stroll through fallacies as wide as the Roman Colosseum. You seem capable of more at times, but you walk away every time you approach more

 

[kaz]

Blacks kill blacks in Chicago becuase that is the dominant racial make up in the areas where it happens - so what sort of comparison is that? It's not. It's dumb

I'd call you Captain Obvious, but you missed the obvious. No shit it's dumb, THAT'S THE POINT.

To argue Hitler hated socialists because he killed socialists is DUMB. As we've been discussing, socialists span from mob rule but relatively benign Scandinavians to Stalin.

The rest of your argument on this about why some socialists oppose him was just silly. Socialist is government control of the economy. Clearly Nazis controlled the economy. Nothing you said refuted that, it just went off into a discussion with the voices in your head, who interestingly agree with you. Who saw that coming?

 

[2aguy]

====

Bullshit is right. I brought up multiple points.

You repeatedly presented quotes that didn't say what you said they said and then kept repeating that you provided it as if you had.

I've asked you this at least 20 times and you ran away every time, "name any real differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia."

If you actually answered it, man up to a post #

Post #451, 505, 738, for a start. I'm not going to look any further but multiple times I outlined the differences. Just because YOU don't think they are differences doesn't mean I haven't answered your question. But, just to make it absolutely clear - I have now posted yet another post.

Three would work if they answered the question. Here's the problem:

451: You said fascism is "survival of the fittest, strict social order, authoritarian leadership. You're saying Communist Russia isn't that? You can't be serious

Yes. I am serious. In terms of ideology - there is nothing in communism that calls for authoritarianism (it just happens that is what Stalin imposed). In terms of ideology - fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Stalinist Soviet Union became authoritarian because of Stalin, not because of the ideology.

As far as survival of the fittest - this sort of Darwinian view of humanity is central to fascism and to Hitlers "racial superiority" visions. There is nothing of that in socialist or communist ideology

It's classic how you grasp Stalin then turn around and do exactly what you accurately pointed out was wrong about Stalin with Hitler.

Socialism is government control over the economy. Yes, when Stalin did other things, those weren't socialism. Do Shortstops like fast cars? Well, maybe maybe not, but that doesn't have to do with being a shortstop. Stalin was a socialist who murdered a lot of people. The murdering people neither made him a socialist nor not a socialist. He was just a socialist who murdered people. Sweden on the other hand are socialists who don't murder people. Stalin is a socialist, Stalin

Fascism is a minor variation in that industry technically has private owners, but they are economically fully subjugates their business to government control. Businesses in Germany were no more free than Russia, it's socialism.

Now on the other hand you're like,

Stalin was socialist, Stalin murdered people, that does not mean socialists necessarily murder people. True

Nazis are fascists, Nazis are racists, that means that fascists are racists! False. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system. Other things that particular fascists do doesn't make the other things they did fascism. Funny how you grasped that then poof, you didn't!

You're an intellectual waste land. You stroll through fallacies as wide as the Roman Colosseum. You seem capable of more at times, but you walk away every time you approach more

Excellent points...thank you.......and yet the left will still not understand....it is like trying to explain math to a dog....but at least the dog might eventually get the basics....

 

[2aguy]

Blacks kill blacks in Chicago becuase that is the dominant racial make up in the areas where it happens - so what sort of comparison is that? It's not. It's dumb

I'd call you Captain Obvious, but you missed the obvious. No shit it's dumb, THAT'S THE POINT.

To argue Hitler hated socialists because he killed socialists is DUMB. As we've been discussing, socialists span from mob rule but relatively benign Scandinavians to Stalin.

The rest of your argument on this about why some socialists oppose him was just silly. Socialist is government control of the economy. Clearly Nazis controlled the economy. Nothing you said refuted that, it just went off into a discussion with the voices in your head, who interestingly agree with you. Who saw that coming?

Their argument is that MS-13 is not a drug gang because they kill members of other drug gangs.....they are so stupid....and they still try to use that argument...

 

[danielpalos]

====

You repeatedly presented quotes that didn't say what you said they said and then kept repeating that you provided it as if you had.

I've asked you this at least 20 times and you ran away every time, "name any real differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia."

If you actually answered it, man up to a post #

Post #451, 505, 738, for a start. I'm not going to look any further but multiple times I outlined the differences. Just because YOU don't think they are differences doesn't mean I haven't answered your question. But, just to make it absolutely clear - I have now posted yet another post.

Three would work if they answered the question. Here's the problem:

451: You said fascism is "survival of the fittest, strict social order, authoritarian leadership. You're saying Communist Russia isn't that? You can't be serious

Yes. I am serious. In terms of ideology - there is nothing in communism that calls for authoritarianism (it just happens that is what Stalin imposed). In terms of ideology - fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Stalinist Soviet Union became authoritarian because of Stalin, not because of the ideology.

As far as survival of the fittest - this sort of Darwinian view of humanity is central to fascism and to Hitlers "racial superiority" visions. There is nothing of that in socialist or communist ideology

It's classic how you grasp Stalin then turn around and do exactly what you accurately pointed out was wrong about Stalin with Hitler.

Socialism is government control over the economy. Yes, when Stalin did other things, those weren't socialism. Do Shortstops like fast cars? Well, maybe maybe not, but that doesn't have to do with being a shortstop. Stalin was a socialist who murdered a lot of people. The murdering people neither made him a socialist nor not a socialist. He was just a socialist who murdered people. Sweden on the other hand are socialists who don't murder people. Stalin is a socialist, Stalin

Fascism is a minor variation in that industry technically has private owners, but they are economically fully subjugates their business to government control. Businesses in Germany were no more free than Russia, it's socialism.

Now on the other hand you're like,

Stalin was socialist, Stalin murdered people, that does not mean socialists necessarily murder people. True

Nazis are fascists, Nazis are racists, that means that fascists are racists! False. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system. Other things that particular fascists do doesn't make the other things they did fascism. Funny how you grasped that then poof, you didn't!

You're an intellectual waste land. You stroll through fallacies as wide as the Roman Colosseum. You seem capable of more at times, but you walk away every time you approach more

Excellent points...thank you.......and yet the left will still not understand....it is like trying to explain math to a dog....but at least the dog might eventually get the basics....

communism is socialism. socialism may not be communism. communism is not the same as liberalism.

 

[Coyote]

505: Now you're arguing that authoritarian governments don't control the economy? WTF? You think the Nazis didn't control the economy? Name any authoritarian government that doesn't fascist or not. Authoritarian governments are all socialist left. Think about the term "authoritarian." How can that not cover the economy?

Authoritarian can be left or right. I don't know where you get the idea that the right can't possibly be authoritarian.
What makes an ideology left or right depend on a number of different factors, not just one

The fallacy you just committed is called "begging the question." You repeated your assertion as if true, you did not address my point.

Socialism is an economic policy, government control/ownership of industry. So by definition it's fiscal left. Now what if instead of repeating your assertion you answer the question? See the blue. Go ahead and name a right wing, non socialist government

I addressed your point by refuting your claim that authoritarian governments are all socialist left. How is that "begging the question"?

Not all government control or regulation of the economy is "socialist". In addition economy is NOT THE ONLY FACTOR that determines whether or not an ideology is LEFTWING or RIGHTWING.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is BOTH a political and economic theory. An authoritairan leader is not necessarily the community or acting for the community.

If you want an example of an authoritarian state where the government doesn't control the economy the entire economy (in addition to the Nazi's) look at Iran.

 

[kaz]

505: Now you're arguing that authoritarian governments don't control the economy? WTF? You think the Nazis didn't control the economy? Name any authoritarian government that doesn't fascist or not. Authoritarian governments are all socialist left. Think about the term "authoritarian." How can that not cover the economy?

Authoritarian can be left or right. I don't know where you get the idea that the right can't possibly be authoritarian.
What makes an ideology left or right depend on a number of different factors, not just one

The fallacy you just committed is called "begging the question." You repeated your assertion as if true, you did not address my point.

Socialism is an economic policy, government control/ownership of industry. So by definition it's fiscal left. Now what if instead of repeating your assertion you answer the question? See the blue. Go ahead and name a right wing, non socialist government

I addressed your point by refuting your claim that authoritarian governments are all socialist left. How is that "begging the question"?

Because I keep asking you to name an authoritarian government that doesn't control the economy and you keep ignoring that and repeating your view that they aren't without addressing it. That is in fact the definition of begging the question

Not all government control or regulation of the economy is "socialist". In addition economy is NOT THE ONLY FACTOR that determines whether or not an ideology is LEFTWING or RIGHTWING.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is BOTH a political and economic theory. An authoritairan leader is not necessarily the community or acting for the community.

If you want an example of an authoritarian state where the government doesn't control the economy the entire economy (in addition to the Nazi's) look at Iran.

You are full of shit. Socialism is purely economics. Socialist Sweden and Soviet Russia both control their economy, but they are politically very different.

Economics goes from one extreme capitalism to the other extreme socialism

Politics goes from one extreme libertarian to the other extreme authoritarian.

"Conservative" is ambiguous. It can mean fiscally right or socially right. Here's the stupid trick liberals like to play:

Social Conservatives can be anti-gay

So you say conservatives are anti-gay removing the "can be" and the "social" parts, so you can ...

... then you apply it to fiscal conservatives by calling them "conservatives" using the same name to describe different groups. And whola, you have Republicans of whom only a small percentage are anti-gay being ... presto ... anti gay.

You're intellectual children. You're childish. It's about winning

 

[kaz]

The United States of America is the evidence that limiting government meddling to the maximum extent possible is what works best.

Bad bad example

The US of A is a gargantuan FASCIST bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

It is now, but prior to FDR it was a passably free country.

what do you mean by "free"? we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

No we didn't. We had the biggest economy on earth. You're peddling a leftwing myth. Who do you imaging purchased 20 million Model T's before FDR ascended to the throne?

Electing Hillary was also revolting to a majority of us, Buckwheat

 

[Coyote]

====

Bullshit is right. I brought up multiple points.

You repeatedly presented quotes that didn't say what you said they said and then kept repeating that you provided it as if you had.

I've asked you this at least 20 times and you ran away every time, "name any real differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia."

If you actually answered it, man up to a post #

Post #451, 505, 738, for a start. I'm not going to look any further but multiple times I outlined the differences. Just because YOU don't think they are differences doesn't mean I haven't answered your question. But, just to make it absolutely clear - I have now posted yet another post.

Three would work if they answered the question. Here's the problem:

451: You said fascism is "survival of the fittest, strict social order, authoritarian leadership. You're saying Communist Russia isn't that? You can't be serious

Yes. I am serious. In terms of ideology - there is nothing in communism that calls for authoritarianism (it just happens that is what Stalin imposed). In terms of ideology - fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Stalinist Soviet Union became authoritarian because of Stalin, not because of the ideology.

As far as survival of the fittest - this sort of Darwinian view of humanity is central to fascism and to Hitlers "racial superiority" visions. There is nothing of that in socialist or communist ideology

It's classic how you grasp Stalin then turn around and do exactly what you accurately pointed out was wrong about Stalin with Hitler.

Socialism is government control over the economy. Yes, when Stalin did other things, those weren't socialism. Do Shortstops like fast cars? Well, maybe maybe not, but that doesn't have to do with being a shortstop. Stalin was a socialist who murdered a lot of people. The murdering people neither made him a socialist nor not a socialist. He was just a socialist who murdered people. Sweden on the other hand are socialists who don't murder people. Stalin is a socialist, Stalin

You seem to completely overlook overlook the ideological differences between the two - completely. You focus on one point: defining an ideology on the basis of economy alone. Far rightwing ideologies are characterized by authoritarianiasm; nativism; anti-communism (and belief in a natural class order). Does that mean all governments and ideologies embodying those characteristics are therefore rightwing? Stalin, also embodied those characteristics. So does that mean Stalin was a rightwing authoritarian despite his adherence to communist ideology and economic policy?

Fascism is a minor variation in that industry technically has private owners, but they are economically fully subjugates their business to government control. Businesses in Germany were no more free than Russia, it's socialism.

Except socialism isn't just state control of the economy and that is your entire basis for defining it. The Soviets practiced complete collectivization and abolishment of private property. It was collective ownership. Germany practice a mix of private and state ownership and control. Germany, for instance, did not collectivize land, farms, homes. That is an ideological difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Now on the other hand you're like,

Stalin was socialist, Stalin murdered people, that does not mean socialists necessarily murder people. True

Nazis are fascists, Nazis are racists, that means that fascists are racists! False. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system. Other things that particular fascists do doesn't make the other things they did fascism. Funny how you grasped that then poof, you didn't!

Except that is not what I said - in fact, right there is a great example of a logical fallacy on your part.

You asked me the differences between Stalin and Hitler. I pointed out differences in their ideology - the reasons they did what they did (which were ideologically motivated).

Nazi's are fascists. Yes.
Nazi's are racists. Yes.
Fascists are racists. Not necessarily. But that was a distinct characteristic of the Nazi's. Mussoliini's fascism went along with some of Hitler's racist theories for a short time, but quickly abolished them.

You're the one attempting to distort it here by claiming I said that. Socialism is a political AND economic system, you consistently ignore the former.

Was it you that insisted on only dictionary definitions? Well, here's fascism, nothing about economic system.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
noun: fascism; noun: Fascism; plural noun: Fascisms

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
   Nazism, rightism;
   

You're an intellectual waste land. You stroll through fallacies as wide as the Roman Colosseum. You seem capable of more at times, but you walk away every time you approach more

Ad hom fallacy.

 

[Coyote]

505: Now you're arguing that authoritarian governments don't control the economy? WTF? You think the Nazis didn't control the economy? Name any authoritarian government that doesn't fascist or not. Authoritarian governments are all socialist left. Think about the term "authoritarian." How can that not cover the economy?

Authoritarian can be left or right. I don't know where you get the idea that the right can't possibly be authoritarian.
What makes an ideology left or right depend on a number of different factors, not just one

The fallacy you just committed is called "begging the question." You repeated your assertion as if true, you did not address my point.

Socialism is an economic policy, government control/ownership of industry. So by definition it's fiscal left. Now what if instead of repeating your assertion you answer the question? See the blue. Go ahead and name a right wing, non socialist government

I addressed your point by refuting your claim that authoritarian governments are all socialist left. How is that "begging the question"?

Because I keep asking you to name an authoritarian government that doesn't control the economy and you keep ignoring that and repeating your view that they aren't without addressing it. That is in fact the definition of begging the question

Not all government control or regulation of the economy is "socialist". In addition economy is NOT THE ONLY FACTOR that determines whether or not an ideology is LEFTWING or RIGHTWING.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is BOTH a political and economic theory. An authoritairan leader is not necessarily the community or acting for the community.

If you want an example of an authoritarian state where the government doesn't control the economy the entire economy (in addition to the Nazi's) look at Iran.

You are full of shit. Socialism is purely economics. Socialist Sweden and Soviet Russia both control their economy, but they are politically very different.

Economics goes from one extreme capitalism to the other extreme socialism

Politics goes from one extreme libertarian to the other extreme authoritarian.

"Conservative" is ambiguous. It can mean fiscally right or socially right. Here's the stupid trick liberals like to play:

Social Conservatives can be anti-gay

So you say conservatives are anti-gay removing the "can be" and the "social" parts, so you can ...

... then you apply it to fiscal conservatives by calling them "conservatives" using the same name to describe different groups. And whola, you have Republicans of whom only a small percentage are anti-gay being ... presto ... anti gay.

You're intellectual children. You're childish. It's about winning

Speaking of "full of shit": you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I've provided numerous examples of definitions and sources showing socialism is not just an economic system, you just keep stating the same thing over and over again and lobbing ad homs.

Whatever dude.