Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stalin was also a fascist and Hitler was also a socialist. Stalin invaded other countries such as Poland, deriving fascist war policies. Similarly, Hitler adopted strict price controls and arrested/executed anyone who tried to publish information on just how bad deficits were or anyone who tried to conduct back alley black market transactions. When your own neighbor can rat you out for selling a loaf of bread for gold instead of Reichmarks, it would behoove you to obey.
Once you can get your little head wrapped around these consistent analogies, then you'll understand. You can be both fascist and socialist at the same time, just as Bush was a socialist and fascist depending on the policies, and just as Obama is both.
Come on, America, which is it? To tar-and-feather a politician, you only need one bucket, not three!
And everyone who doesn't agree that Obama is a nazi/fascist, communist, muslim, whitey hating, anti-american, terrorist loving, socialist better get out of the country.
Stalin was also a fascist and Hitler was also a socialist. .
Ridiculous.
The word you are looking for, and perfectly good and correct one at that, is totalitarian. Both Marxist-Leninist variations of Marxism, which include political practice and theory of Stalin and Mao, and fascism as layout by Mussolini, Franco and later Hitler were totalitarian regimes are diametrically opposed to one another. Being dictatorial regimes ruling both the civic and economic life of their respective countries by dicta is where the analogy begins and ends.
Did Hitler and Mussolini support "Traditional authority" in their respective nations? Or did they OPPOSE it?
I believe the evidence shows that the "Fascists" of WW2 were actually LEFT WING pirates, and were opposed to the people's absolute right to own themselves, their labor and the fruits of their labor.
D'Oh!
Good post. Though I don't wholly agree with the definitions provided, to every detail.
I do find it incredibly humorous that in many public schools we are taught that Hitler was an extreme conservative, when it seems that he was far more aligned with our modern connotations of liberalism, as you say.
Hitler was the head of the labor union party. He instilled a wealth redistribution state. He instilled nationalized health care. He was for extreme governmental regulation of the economy, including the massive printing of money he could not back. His initial support of the negative eugenics movement including legalized abortion does not seem all that far from some of these leftists' social ideologies of abortion and euthanasia. He wasn't much for traditionalism or traditional religiosity as he murdered, tortured, and harassed Christian clergy. Might I also mention the Nazis interest in environmentalism, anti-urban sprawl, anti-industrialism?
The only things I can think of that one would construe Hitler as a conservative is his extreme militarism (which is a modern Republican value, not a traditionally conservative one of minimalistic government); and opposition to homosexuals (again, another more Republican value rather than conservative).
By modern definitions, Hitler was an economic liberal; and far more of social leftist than right winger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
