As the election gets near...

[TSDguy]

My claim is supported by dictionary.com. Fascism requires a dictator. Socialism, the Marxist variety, most certainly does NOT want a dictator. These aren't my opinions, Bill, it's the definition of the word. Your using the connotation of fascism to equate it to the Nazi party, which had a component of socialism. Very roundabout, and I'm not sure why you're arguing any of this.

The reason I said I could understand an argument that communism is relatively the same as fascism is because USSR brand communism was a dictatorship under the guise of socialism.

Edit: And just to prove Bill even more wrong:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

[Bill Glasheen]

Vote third party if you support neither socialism nor fascism.

The point I was making, TSDguy, is that socialism and facism are not opposites - something you implied by the above statement. They have more similarities than differences - the major one being redistribution of wealth. This is why folks such as Newt Gingrich often used the expression "jack-booted thugs" when describing the governmental manifestations of fiscal ideology that he opposed.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

They're absolutely not synonyms.

Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

The only redistribution of wealth in that scenario is to give it to party in power.

[Bill Glasheen]

Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

The only redistribution of wealth in that scenario is to give it to party in power.

You argue best when you argue my point.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

I'm not arguing your point.

[Valkenar]

In the Venn Diagram, they overlap significantly. Just look at my quotes above.

In fact I was specifically addressing your quotes. In Venn terms, all fascism is contained within socialism, but there are swatchs of socialism outside the circle of fascism. I don't know how to make it more clear. This is basic logic, Bill. For all X, if X is fascist then X is socialist. This does not imply that for all Y, if Y is a socialist then Y is a fascist.

There are several countries I think you could viably argue are more socialist than not, which aren't accurately describable as fascist.

Anyhow, I agree with your source that claims fascism necessarily includes socialism in the broad sense we use in politics. Redistribution of wealth, a component of socialism in this broader sense, is not inherent conceptual aspect of fascism. Fascism means the government controls the market and means of production. That doesn't imply that it redistributes wealth between citizens.

Facism - particularly the NAZI brand - is for all practical purposes socialism.

Yes, Bill, the Nazis were socialists, at least in name. Who here is talking about nazis besides you? I don't think anyone here is saying that either candidate is a nazi. This election cycle has included some ridiculous slander (e.g. Obama is a muslim terrorist or McCain is a gibbering lunatic) but it hasn't gone that far yet, at least not on this forum. So why are you talking about them?

It seems what you're really saying is that historically socialism and fascism have coincided, which I think is true. But that doesn't mean it clarifies anything to conflate the two.

[Bill Glasheen]

Fascism means the government controls the market and means of production. That doesn't imply that it redistributes wealth between citizens.

Redistribution takes on many forms, Justin. It almost never involves taking money from me and giving it directly to you.

It's usually done via purchased services that benefits individuals in a way not representative of their contribution either on an absolute or a percentage basis. Power consolidation is also a form of wealth redistribution. It's taking from the individual and giving to the government and/or those in power. Wanting a stronger federal government - at the expense of the states performing services on their own - is one example.

If you have taxation, by definition you have the means for wealth redistribution. The degree of it depends partially on the degree to which the tax rate is variable. The reason why historically it is so easy to foist on a population has to do with a law of nature that Vilfredo Pareto observed centuries ago (e.g. the 80/20 rule).

Business management thinker Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of income in Italy went to 20% of the population. It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales comes from 20% of your clients."

This rule of thumb also suggests that the upper 5% make roughly half of the income. Thus if you can get the lower 95% to overtax the upper 5%, you have what amounts to a very effective and productive form of legal stealing. Wealth redistribution is just a kinder, gentler term.

The degree to which a strong central government benefits from such a socialist tax structure is the degree to which the socialist government is fascist in nature. Obviously from the quotes I have above, you can see that there are myriad definitions and combinations of conditions that a majority of people would agree represent fascism. But that about sums it up.

- Bill

[fivedragons]

As the election draws to a close and the chips begin to fall...

I have realized that I am very emotionally invested in this election, for reasons that don't really have anything to do with policy or party.

I really want Obama to win, and for no other reason than we might have a "black" person, or African-American or whatever for president.

Call it irrational or sentimental, but I really want change and evolution in this world, and I hope and pray that we continue to approach the light of freedom and equality for every human being regardless of culture, spirituality, language or appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4hoq7pMh0

[fivedragons]

I'm not emotionally invested, I'm freaking out, and shedding tears for the power and promise of these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

You know, ten years ago to most people white or black, the idea of a black person even becoming a Democratic or Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States would have been seen as some kind of joke, or fantasy.

Lord give us your eyes, so that we may see....

[Jason Rees]

I really want Obama to win, and for no other reason than we might have a "black" person, or African-American or whatever for president.

How many people would be crying foul if someone said the same thing, with white and caucasion in place of their counterpart words?

[fivedragons]

It's okay, because I'm white as flour.

The commonwealth of Pennsylvania has spoken.

[Bill Glasheen]

I really want Obama to win, and for no other reason than we might have a "black" person, or African-American or whatever for president.

How many people would be crying foul if someone said the same thing, with white and caucasion in place of their counterpart words?

A novel from the past comes to mind. It's Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Vol de Nuit. It's been so long since I read it, and I read it in another language. But...

As I recall, the plot was about mail delivery with small planes in an era where pilots flew by the seat of their pants. Accidents were commonplace. However with this one group, there had been no (none, zero, nada) plane crashes. It was unusual. And it was a streak that seemed impossible to maintain. And the pressure to maintain that streak began to weigh heavily on the leader of the group. And then it happened; a plane crashed and the pilot was killed. And the leader oddly felt a sense of relief.

In a way, I'm not sure what it means for a half African, half American/European - raised by white grandparents - to make it to the presidency. He was not the descendant of slaves in this country. And as you would expect from nurture, he speaks the king's English and can think/act culturally like a typical American white. And he married African/American. What is he? A typical American mongrel. He has the DNA of a typical African-American and lives amongst them. Close enough, as they say.

Whatever it took, "it" is no longer "out there." It's no longer a country of WASPs. It's no longer a country of whites. It's the American salad bowl. That means sometimes the lettuce is going to be on top, and sometimes the tomato.

Nobody can say we collectively are racist. We are many things, thanks to our rich heritage. Nothing is assumed. No order is predetermined. Now we truly can judge people by the content of their character. And when we do so, nobody will be pulling any cards.

It's about time...

- Bill

[Jason Rees]

Now we truly can judge people by the content of their character. And when we do so, nobody will be pulling any cards.

I wish that were true, Bill, I really do. But there are too many sharks out there making money off the idea that people of X skin color are SOL.

[fivedragons]

Well Jason, if someone used the words "white" and "caucasian" in the same sentence it wouldn't really make any sense, because that has been the status quo for over 200 years.

You see, my sentiments run not towards any one skin color being indicative of the capability to lead this nation, but rather that skin color doesn't have jack ##### to do with the capability to lead this nation.

I guess if you actually performed the exercise, and put different words into my sentences like a game of mad-libs, you would come up with something that had an entirely different context and historical meaning behind it.

Hey, I'm not perfect, and I can't look into my crystal ball and tell you what is right for this nation or this world, but I can tell you that this is history in the making for the U.S. of A, sorry it had to an issue to begin with, but that's the way it played out.

I guess you could talk to a lot of people in Mississippi and Alabama and etc. about it if you want to get some clarification or perspective on the matter.

[Jason Rees]

I don't really want to talk to anyone right now, FiveDragons.

I wear the uniform of a nation that decided 'hope' trumped years and years of experience in national service.

I wear the uniform of a nation led by a man who believes the poor have the right to the money of people who earned it.

I wear the uniform of a nation that voted a man into office with not just a small hint of corruption behind him, but several hints.

I wear this uniform defending people who vote for a man whose sole qualification for the office of the President of the United States seems to be 'Hope.'

I can't tell you how that makes me feel, but I guarantee there won't be tears of joy coming out of my eyes.

I'm going to help my dad hide his money and his guns, and sell my stock in news organizations, because we can kiss gun rights, personal property, and freedom of the press goodbye.