Fascism is for the consolidation of wealth. Socialism is for the distribution of wealth.
I'm sorry, but that's just ... wrong. Socialism is for government control of wealth with the assumption that it will do a better job with it than the free market. Fascism is a method of socialism that uses regulation and control of industry to accomplish this. Communism is a method of socialism which eliminates the private ownership entirely and just gives all industry to the state. All of them sell their actions to the public on the argument that they'll do a better job distributing the wealth than a free market will.
Why the **** do you think the **** made such a big deal about bankers and the rich (scapegoating the Jews along the way)? They appealed to the working class and unemployed by claiming they could make their lives better by seizing the property of those rich people and using it to make their lives better (the working class and unemployed that is). They promised jobs. They promised better pay. They promised to force those companies to do the right thing. Sound familiar?
Ya and you can be a fascist communism. China is, North Korea most certainly is. You can be a socialist communism, Russia is.
You're equating "fascist" with "authoritarian" though. That's not what it means. You cannot have a fascist communism (not in absolute terms at least). Fascism uses government control over privately owned industries, while communism simply seizes those industries and controls them directly. There is no direct overlap in methodology, but the goals are the same (government control of industry). Obviously, any system can have elements of both (and most do in fact). Which is yet another reason why slinging around labels and insisting "we're socialists, not fascist" is silly.
Governing Policy is your nations forming of established government. Economic Policy is a position that government takes be it authoritarian, or democratic.
Don't feel like getting into a pointless semantic argument over this.
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 NAZI's, into Switzerland, and then most went to the USA.
You're kidding, right? You're repeating a pretty nutty conspiracy theory that has about zero grounds in reality.
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.
Um... Not even sure how to respond to this. Tinfoil hat time maybe?
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.
Um... Those are completely different things. Great projection you've got going on though!
The difference between the **** and other social movements was the investing power of rich white guys. Thats it.
Huh? There have always been a large number of "rich white guys" investing in social movements (and political parties, and governments, etc, etc, etc...). That hasn't changed. Hitler was no different, so let's stop pretending that this was some special unique aspect of his rise to power. And let's not forget the point I made earlier about the gap between what those seeking power want to do and what those giving them power want them to do. The danger of socialism in all forms is that once you give someone that power, you're basically just hoping he uses it to do what you want him to do, and not something else entirely.
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.
No. Now you're confusing fascism with a non-democratic system. It's not about how many people make up your government or how they come to power. It's about the degree to which the government controls industry. And I don't think North Korea is fascist. I think it's communist. Aren't most industries state owned there, and the state allocates work assignments and needs for the people? I could be wrong, I'm hardly an expert on their political system.
I just don't know how many times I can explain this to you. Socialism is about government control of industry. Period. Fascism and communism are two different methods to employ socialism. Something cannot be "fascist instead of socialist". If it's fascist, it's also socialist. If it's communist, it's also socialist. Remember, I'm not talking about the labels that people apply, but the actual concepts themselves. What defines socialism?
You seem to confusing Capitalism and Communism again.
Uh... No. What a random statement. We weren't even talking about those.
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).
Um.. As I've been trying to explain to you: It's both
. It is socialism because it's the government controlling an industry (health in this case), and it's fascism specifically because the means of that control is to regulate existing private markets rather that seize direct control of the industry itself. If the government creates a ministry of health and employs all doctors itself and doles out medicine to the people directly, then it's communist. If it creates mandates which insurance companies must follow and more mandates that businesses must buy that insurance, and yet more mandates that everyone must participate in the industry, that is fascism.
This is the consolidation of wealth to the many, not to the few. Socialism.
Huh? You can't "consolidate wealth" to the many. It's consolidated by the few, always. What's done with it is a separate issue. All forms of socialism gain power by promising the many that they'll distribute that wealth in ways which benefit them (although the specific methods vary of course). There's what they do, and why they do it. And all have the same answer in that case. Fascism does not use the government to consolidate wealth into the hands of the few in order to make those few rich. Or more correctly, this isn't what fascism promises to the people who support it. That's why it's identical to socialism. You only call it fascism after the fact if they don't actually follow through on their promises and instead use that power and wealth to enrich and empower themselves and **** over all the little people.
The problem is that this is indistinguishable ahead of time. That's why I keep saying that fascism *is* socialism. They are the same (certainly in modern terms especially). The citizens of Germany in the 1930s were just as certain that Hitler was going to usher in an era of prosperity, good jobs, good pay, good benefits, etc for all the people as anyone voting Labor in the UK does today. They did not imagine things would turn out the way they did. You're under the mistaken impression that they were somehow more foolish than you are.
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?
As I said earlier, it's a matter of degrees. There's also a difference between "it's against the law to dump industrial waste in the river", and "the law requires that X% of your cars meet a certain mph requirement". There's a difference between a law which require certain amounts of worker safety and laws which pay people to make product A instead of product B, and then pay people to buy product A as well. Regulation becomes control at a certain point. When it ceases to be about how products are made, but actually which products are made and which are bought, that's more about control. And when those controls exist with the assumption that government can make better choices about what people really need than the free market can, then that's socialism.
[quote][quote]People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce.[/quote]
So you can't buy health insurance in America? Wow sh*tty third world stuff if you ask me.[/quote]
Um... The operating assumption for implementing socialized medicine is that not everyone would be able to obtain health care if the government didn't act. Was that actually something you didn't understand?
[quote]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.[/quote]
You're assuming that socialism always produces good outcomes. You do this to such an extent that when it fails to produce good outcomes (or even produces really horrible ones), you just change the name and say "that's not socialism!". Um... yes, it is. Communism is a form of socialism. WTF? That's not to say that people can't starve to death in countries with completely free markets, but the sheer denial you're showing is funny as hell. You're playing word games to make it appear as though the ideology you espouse cannot possibly fail. That's really really bizarre.