I think you and I are looking at a different spectrum though.
There is no different spectrum. You seem to want to confuse Governing policy (democracy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and so on and so forth) into it. A country can be socialist and not capitalist. A country can be fascist and not communist. There is only one spectrum to look at, its economic position. Fascism is for the consolidation of wealth. Socialism is for the distribution of wealth.
I'm sure I've read far more on socialism and fascism and communism than you have. Instead of declaring me wrong and suggesting I go educate myself on "the truth", you provide even the most basic evidence that you understand the concepts yourself?
Ya and you can be a fascist communism. China is, North Korea most certainly is. You can be a socialist communism, Russia is.
The "governing policy" contained a lot of economic policy as well. And how Hitler got to power was by playing on the fears of the public (btw, mostly economic), created scapegoats for those fears, and then used goon squads to force people to pick a side, with violence as the alternative to his side.
Governing Policy is your nations forming of established government. Economic Policy is a position that government takes be it authoritarian, or democratic.
As for Hitler, he had no money, his party was made up of the poor workers of Germany. His money came from corporate backing, by the end of WW2 Billions passed through Germany through the ****'s, into Switzerland, and then most went to the USA. Hitler did not have the funds to be a candidate, he toed the line because he needed to be admired, his one desire. He sold out to the corporate sponsors who raped Europe for all of its wealth, and drove nearly every nation into some form of debt. Consolidation of wealth.
That's one of the most skewed versions of this I've read. The communists worked with the **** party because both were opposed to free markets. The fascists believed in government control of industry. The difference between them and other socialists were more about details of how to go about doing it, not in the ultimate goal.
Hitler most certainly wanted free markets, considering he established Germany as the most economic free zone in the World at the time and was rewarded with the Olympics, Everyone else was still playing Isolationist, then again Hitler got to see a good 10 years of Germany being broke *** before the rest of the world joined in in 1929. But again your complete lack of understanding of the details shines through.
The difference between the ***** and other social movements was the investing power of rich white guys. Thats it.
No. It's consolidation of wealth in the hands of the government. That's what fascism is. You need to understand that when "the few" are also those the government puts in those positions and controls, it's no longer about free enterprise. The businesses are forced to go along because if they don't, their businesses will be taken from them and put into the hands of party loyalists who will play ball. The idea that anyone would confuse this for a free market capitalism is ridiculous.
Not entirely true. If the government was a few people who controlled everything, say like North Korea, then yes that would be Fascism. However over here in Canada as the Government (the people) buy more stuff for themselves collectively (say like healthcare) and need to consolidate more funds (revenue) that would be called Socialism.
You seem to confusing Capitalism and Communism again.
Yes it is. In the form of Obamacare most recently. There are elements of fascism in a number of industries though. Do you get that when the government tells an industry "you must do things this way or you can't do business", that's not a free market?
No that is Socialism. Your Government (the people) have decided to buy themselves some stuff collectively (healthcare) and now need to consolidate more funds (revenue).
This is the consolidation of wealth to the many, not to the few. Socialism.
As for your second question. That is called Regulation. You know like laws for companies....I mean America is a free country ya? Do you have rules?
Sure. Be nice if you'd stop associating fascism with capitalism. On the spectrum of "who makes decisions" they are at opposite ends. And that's the spectrum that really matters here because... wait for it... that's the defining characteristic of socialism. People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce.
So you can't buy health insurance in America? Wow sh*tty third world stuff if you ask me.
That's what makes it socialism. It's still remains socialism if the same government abuses the power it has to control economic outcomes to do other horrible things as well. Just as a dog doesn't cease to be a dog when it bites someone. The problem is that socialism has a greater potential for that abuse because it requires giving the government more power over people's lives.
What kind of government. In my country (a democracy) if it breaches its trust of power, it doesn't get elected again. I guess ya in North Korea you would be right, but then again the government isn't very socialist, I mean those people starve by the thousands a day.
When you give government the power to take from people unequally, you open up the possibility that the criteria used might shift from "greedy rich people" to "Jews, cause they're rich and greedy".
Whoa slow down Hitler. There are richer people than the Jews now...your fascist friends already cleaned them out in 1937. Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:17am by rdmcandie