Your problem begins with using purely American benchmarks. State control of industry and intervention in the economy is harldy an invention of the Left. It has a long (unhappy) history on the Right as well, not the American right to be sure, but … well come to think of it depends on the contex given recent proposals coming out of the Pentagon for review of all major M&A activity…
However, returning to the subject, one might better define this in terms of (obstensible) policy goals of such interventions. Insofar as Fascist ideology as it operated in Europe in the 1930s largely only sanctioned economic intervention in terms of the needs of the (military) strength of the nation, it in no way contradicted the overall philosophical orientation of the European right – excluding the Liberal parts.
Fascism is a certain kind of ‘Right’ --insofar as such terms are portable-- extreme authoritarianism linked with some degree of populist appeal to extreme nationalism.
JohnBckWLD three rather disturbingly half baked posts in one hour out of which two in threads that I OPed??? What’s your agenda here?
In any case I can only agree with Master Collounsbury; utter hogwash is what you’re coming up with. You might have scored half a point with me had you said Nazism (mark that I am talking of the NSDAP 1925-1945 and nothing else, i.e. not Neo-Nazism). There has been a case made for Hitler’s Nazism being a hybrid Left/Right ideology based on the unique feature that Hitler proposed the complete abolishment of ownership and collectivization of industry, agriculture and goods. He never made true of that, although he implemented something rather similar to the Communist five-year plan. Sebastian Hafner makes a pretty good case for it in several of his works especially “Anmerkungen zu Hitler’ I don’t have the English title at hand and I can’t be bothered to look it up… anyone care, just ask me.
One more thing I did NOT think that your hijack on my hijack reply in the “First European High School Shooting…” thread was funny. I could expand on the why, but I have bigger fish to fry. You seem like a slightly irritating fellow, but in general terms harmless…leave it at that.
We’ll take Hitler (it’s not like we could get rid of him, anyway), but not Mussolini. He was too whiny.
Anyway…
Hey, Anaximenes, I share your feelings and all, but don’t let yourself get too carried away, fella… you might end up saying something you might regret, and all that. But welcome to the Boards… hopefully your future posts will be under more pleasant conditions.
Oh come now, I’ll take Mussolini. Better sense of style (e.g. no cheesy little mustache!), more flair and catchier symbolism.
Come on man, you’ll take only some unstylish neurotic over a striking macho boy? What happened to marketing sense… I mean look at Lenin? Stylish, striking. Interesting. Ah well.
Second that. You might want to back away from such statements, however much our drooling little vermin may deserve the sentiment.
