And let me state explicitly I am not throwing around words like Nazi or Communist to vilify anybody. Not once did I call anybody either of those terms, although it seems that some assumed I did without reading the post. Not once did I call Teta a communist. You assume too sodding much and then stick up me the straw-man who slags of all left wing ideologies at every chance, uses misleading phrases (such as?), stereotypes (where?), assume that I won't listen and then state that in an argument; were it a more pronounced element it could be considered ad hominem.
You bring in an uncited definition; which in itself defines fascism as part of the extreme right ~ but then states that the state and business are merged and the aspect of nationalism. Both points which could legitimately be argued are not inherently right-wing and are features found in hard-left regimes.
Then the emergence of fascist regimes is attributed to a middle class love of the status quo and fear of a workers revolution ~ Von Mises certainly had a different view of where the Nazis had support.
"Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuehrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Stalin. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do"
link
The issue is not cut and dry, the Nazi's were able to attract working class members to the SA right from the beginning and just like the communists the leaders were often bourgeois as too were the staunchest supporters. The workers don't have the education or the connections that you find in the middle class ~ that is why any reactionary group will be injected with a significant element of bourgeois leadership.
Then you raise religion and religious themes as issues in fascism. Now this gets interesting because while Italian and Spanish fascism used religion strongly the Nazi's were opposed to many churches, some in their own upper echelons subscribed to a more pagan tradition. Just look at the 'Reich Church' where Nazism replaced Christianity or the hostility towards the major churches.
the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.”
from an entry in Joseph Goebbles diary.
Then you had Hitler telling his top aides that
“Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.”
The Nazi's barely used the existing religion rather than attempt to reshape a new one in their image. But the point about religion is a relevent one, most hard left states are atheist ones and that distinguishes them from states where particular forms of worship are encouraged or forced. But forcing people to not worship at all directly contradicts freedom of religion ~ this makes both systems equally authoritarian in that regard.
You then go on to state how corparate power is protected; now I would disagree, because the corparations and the state are entwined they have no freedom to act in a manner different than that the state desires, the entire system becomes centralised and run by the same group. It ceases to be a free market and becomes a state controlled one.
Then the point is made about unions, here the point is that unions, free associations of workers is also banned in authoritarian communist states, once the revolution has occured power never goes to the proletariat, they simply become slaves to the state rather than the industrialists. The labor movement ceases to be the driving force of the revolution once a regime is in place that commands a large number of guys with guns.
Then point raised about ideologies designed to serve the status quo. Now I disagree, Nazism was not adopted to preserve the status quo, it was adopted because the middle class was suffering and it offered a way out, it changed things; it changed unemployment, it changed the economy and brought the country out of the depression, it was truly revolutionary in it's vision to create a 1000 year reich, overthrowing the liberal system that came before.
I don't understand what you mean by labeling the USSR as a state capitalist beast, or right wing for that matter. The USSR had a bit of focus on international socialism whereas fascist sytems delivered socialism for their people on a national level. The times when it crossed over would probably be under Stalin when the USSR abandoned any goal of inspiring global revolution and consolidated within it's own borders. But the Soviet Union was hardly capitalist, it may have had a monetary system but it lacked the property and trading rights that would make a system inherently capitalist.
All points raised are debatable in a calm and considered manner; you may refute any element of my argument if you so wish. I am maintaining that there are similarities between Fascism and Soviet Communism (the distinction between communism as an untested state of humanity and soviet communism as the USSR both Leninism and Stalinism). These similarities do not contradict my statement that Fascism was considered to be an alternative third way system and do not mean that I am saying that Fascism is Soviet Communism. Just because each of them share
similar (not identical) aspects does not mean that they have to be the same.
I have been refering to specific political movements in the 20th Century which have each caused a lot of death and destruction. I think that if someone walk around wearing a T-Shirt with Hitler on it (in the context of a pro-Nazi shirt) then they are either a useful imbecile or somebody who has a misguided faith in an evil ideology, I think the same thing about someone who walks around in a Che Guevarra shirt.
I would consider myself a liberal but thanks to the American definitions that is a useless word around here and thanks to those that claimed the mantle I wouldn't like to be part of it ~ so free market libertarian seems to fit the bill closest.
And in consideration towards the radical left I find that the anti-Israel attitudes and sympathy towards the goals of Islamist groups among a few in the radical left is one reason that I abhor what they stand for. When you have a "progressive" defending the Taliban as a legitimate government something is seriously fucked up. Some support the "resistance" in Iraq ~ even when those groups are fanatical Islamists. A nihilistic embrace of barbarity for the "greater good" (just look at Lynn Stewart). There are not many of them out there, I can hardly think of anybody on this forum who has expoused such views but on that edge around Pilger etc. there is a very sickening and harmful worldview that would desire crack a few eggs to get their totalitarian result. I do slag off these types because they are dangerous zealots. I am not going to go around calling every green voter a communist or say that if somebody votes Democrat in the US then they are a pinko-freak.
, I think an evenly divided country will vote the other way when things go too far. And maybe now the country will recognize the Conservatives are maybe going too far here.
