Hiya Svin! As you can see I’m as tactful and gentle as ever with The Troglodytes. And as I can see, you’re still trying to reason with them.
Back to the future it is! 
mswas:
Nope.
Sorry. I don’t understand what you mean with this.
This is a good question, actually, and I don’t have a straightforward answer at the moment, only a few wikipedia cites. According to one:
So it is a form of socialism that opposes communism and Democratic socialism (?) Kinda weird. The term was coined, apparently, by Maurice Barrés, a French scholar, political activist and anti-semite, whose work primarily sought to bridge the gap between the far left and the far right.
The National Socialist Party was originally called the German Worker’s Party:
So, in essence, they used the term “socialism” to mean a state-run welfare system. The party’s hostility towards marxism and traditional socialism – as the term is usually understood, in its historic context – is pretty clear. It seems to me they were trying to appropriate the term for their own use.
Hitler joined the GWP in 1920 and shortly thereafter proposed the name change:
This was a cunning historical move as well, since it allowed future revisionists to claim that Hitler was actually a socialist!
Paxton makes some interesting observations as well, but the linked article is a PDF file, and I can’t copy and paste it; I hope you don’t mind if I paraphrase, and feel free to correct me if you think I’ve gotten it wrong. Basically he argues that one of the mistakes historians have made in studying fascism has been to approach as it if it actually possessed some sort of underlying, unifying ideology. According to Dr. P, this is not the case. Fascism is motivated primarily by “themes” involving unity, purity, and victimization (among others). There is no “fascist manifesto”, and fascist party programs “correspond only distantly with what fascist movements do once they have power.” According to Paxton, ideology and “founding texts” are utterly irrelevant to the actual practice of fascism. It’s not as if fascists go back after they’ve shifted positions and try to explain their actions in terms of their party program, for example; rather, the program is simply ignored. So, back to something you wrote earlier, and I agreed with, it seems very difficult to map fascism precisely on the traditional left/right political scale. It seems more of a kind of social movement that seeks power, and thus gravitates towards politics. We can say, however, that fascism was fundamentally opposed to socialism, as the term is usually understood, and that as the German and Italian fascism movements grew, they found a natural ally among Conservatives on the political right, for various reasons. In doing this they utterly abandoned all pretense towards any socialist tendencies that might have been incorporated as a part of the party platform at an earlier period.
I think this is a fair assessment, but, of course, YMMV.
I think that I’m fairly rational. I know that birthers aren’t. But otherwise, this line of argument is a bit of a non-sequeter. Of course, with enough ingenuity, you can shoe-horn Paxton’s “mobilizing passions” into any ideology; but you’re arguing in a vacuum. If you look instead at the historical record, you will find that fascist texts/programs/etc. are definitely preoccupied, in a very big way, with the themes Paxton has presented. Socialists, not so. Oh, there are certainly smaller movements or groups withing socialism that might display some (or even all) of these passions, and that could therefore be accurately viewed as really fascist (or proto-fascist). But in general, this is not the case. Socialist rhetoric tends to focus on social injustice, exploitation, class solidarity, and equality.
Red!
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…
But is mswas one of them? I can’t recall having had a debate with him before, and so far he seems fairly reasonable…
Hitler was originally sent to spy on that worker’s party by the police, and attended an unknown number of meetings. Finally, at one meeting discussing tactics in a coming political conflict, he got up and began speaking, urging the members to violent confrontation. He found his calling. He was a smash hit, demogogue wise. He resigned his position with the police, and was very quickly the leader of the party. After that, its platform and positions became irrelevent, they were the party of raw emotions. Remember, they drew a lot of thier early strengths from the violent resentment of German WWI veterans who felt they had been betrayed, and craved vengeance.
After this point, Nazism had no real political agenda at all. Just raw nationalism, militarism, and anti-Semitism.
http://obamaisliterallyhitler.tumblr.com/
I presume it is satire.
Yeah, he seems that way at first, but it’s a slow descent into sheer kookiness from there – crystals, ghosts, UFOs, magik, political incoherence as you’re seeing here…in short, quite the package. Here, a bit of background of what you’re getting into:
Threads started by mswas in GD
I’ve hardly read any of them – title usually tells me all I need to know. But this one I simply couldn’t avoid:
Iraq is a total failure and is still on the brink of civil war
This post, in the thread that generated that one, is worth repeating – over and over:
Yep, “stunning” indeed. 
But hey, not trying to stop you, 'cause I’ll be the first to tell you he’s good for a few laughs. And behind all the lunacy he seems to be a fairly decent chap…unlike others that shall remain nameless.
So…enjoy!..and don’t go hibernating so soon on us.
And many of those who were violently resentful of the loss of WW I blamed the Socialists for it.
Also, the idealistic part of socialism at the time rejected nationalism, and claimed that socialism was a movement that knew no national borders. How that worked out is another matter. So National Socialism is an oxymoron, actually. I think socialism has grown away from that, but it was still strong in 1919.
Just so. I remember Barbara Tuchman made quite a point of emphasizing the naivete of the European Socialist movement, who apparently believed that working class Germans would not fire upon their working class French brethren. Alas.
Even though the German and French socialist parties in their respective countries’ parliaments actually betrayed their purported internationalist principles on the eve of the war by voting for war credits.
I think that’s generally how socialism is used today. You’ve done a very good job at portraying the nuance between Hitler’s fascism and Stalin and Barack Obama.
Somehow I doubt he was thinking about how he could polish his legacy in case he lost. 
That’s a very interesting way to look at it and it definitely makes a lot of sense.
I think you are very rational too, but the socialism you describe is fundamentally irrational since it is based off of an irrational prejudice. That there is a class called, ‘workers’, internationally and that they have a common cause wherever they are.
Well the idea that there is a class (unifying in-group) that is struggling against ‘The Man’ (unifying and purging the outgroup) who keeps them oppressed (victimization) with whom they must struggle and even overthrow if it is necessary. (glorification of violence) It seems that on your bullet point list of characteristics they for the most part can apply to either side.
LOL, the need to lie to me eh? I’d like to see any posts I’ve made about crystals, ghosts, or UFOs.
And it appears that in your world, “political incoherence”, is a synonym for disagreement.
You’ve always been a fucktard who hides stupidity behind a layer of malice.
Well, at least he’s a Yurpeen fuctard. You’re domestic. Besides, he’s run with the bulls at Papilloma!
During today’s town hall, Obama got asked a question that was basically, “will you kill my Grandma?”
Obama got to answering it in around about way, but the surprisingly candid answer was “yes. I will kill your grandma.”
For someone who wants to look it up (I already heard it.) the question was the one the guy asked about his grandma’s will to live and Obama cried bullshit on the will to live question because, hey, who can quantify that? And someone disinterested and qualified needs to decide whether money should be spent on an operation for Gram, or if she should just take a bunch of pain-pills.
[Frankenstein monster]OBAMA scary!!![/fm]
Please find the clip or transcript . I can hardly wait.
Well, you knew it was bound to happen, Obama’s such a wildly emotional guy, loose cannon, sooner or later he was going to have a total public meltdown like this, surprising thing is it took six months, borderline psychotic that he is, amazing he lasted that long.
Do you think you stretched reality far enough on this one? Does this let you see how bizarro your claim is?
If you want to argue that universal health care may be inefficiently managed by the government or that it’ll cost too much in new taxes, fine, I may disagree but I’ll listen to your opinions and look at the evidence.
But when people start claiming that Obama and the Democrats are planning to murder old people, then my response is that their opinions are worthless and there’s no reason to listening to them. It’s like somebody claiming that the reason we invaded Iraq is because Bush was told to do so by the Jews who run the country. You should be out on a street corner screaming at pigeons.
Now see, if you had ever made some sort of effort to portray yourself as something other than a propagandist when it comes to political issues, this might be be worth checking out, implausible as it is. But of course there’s really no point in doing so.
Here is the transcript I assume he’s referring to. It wasn’t “today” unless by “today” he means “June 24.”
Honest? I have no friggin’ clue nor do I care to find out. Or don’t you remember the Scientology thread were I asked you write the mishmash of hokum you call your “beliefs” and then I’d pitch them to other idiots and we’d split the take?
At any rate, I did find this OP of yours a [del]doozy[/del] erm…edifying.
Actually explains quite a bit more than I needed to know.
No, not really, it’s just that when a dipshit like you calls Iraq “a stunning success” and actually starts a “debate” to defend said nuttery, well, yeah…I tend to be rather dismissive.
But near fear, you’re now engaged with Mr S, whose patience Job would envy. So go ahead and do likewise – dismiss moi.
Thanks. I’d be worried if you didn’t think so.
I kinda agree with Ezra Klein on this. Take a step back and look at the big picture.
There are people who appear to sincerely believe that the US government, the Democrats, the political Left in America, or the progressive movement (or some combination of the above) would actually promote a program to euthanize old people. That this is something countries with UHC (like Sweden) actually do.
Apparently, they think we’re monsters. To even make this accusation is not only to leave behind any pretense to rationality; it is also to deeply insult to one’s political opponents. It would be like me accusing those who supported the invasion of Iraq of actually wanting to kill innocent Iraqis.
Astounding. Imagine a news conference or town hall where someone stood up ask Bush, “Excuse me Mr. President; but I hear that the real reason you want to invade Iraq is because you enjoy killing innocent civilians. Could you comment on that?”
All the long years of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s right-wing propaganda really has broken the US, hasn’t it? Sure looks like I got out when the getting was good.