Verbose
Deity
Is "socialist" being used in place of "collectivist" here perhaps? It's not quite the same though.
They’re all being used as epithets. Half the fun is trying to figure out when!Is "socialist" being used in place of "collectivist" here perhaps? It's not quite the same though.
If by coherency you mean whether fascism has some kind of philosophical theoretical framework, then yes, at least, if we talk about historical movement, and not whatever people decide to call "fascism" today. Fascism is based on the philosophical strand of Hegelianism formulated by Giovanni Gentile. Actually, it shares quite similar roots with Marxism, though the telos (the end goal) they propose differs. They (theoretical works of both strands) are equally hard to read. They are probably equally non-sensical.I don’t think so because I don’t think fascism has coherency. Liberal capitalism does, state socialism does, but not fascism.
So, if we compare fascism and communism, sure, they are different. But they both were — had to be — socialists. We might and will find differences in how different nations and regimes tried to approach socialism in real-life settings depending on the end goal envisioned and actual problems to solve. That's normal. Actually, USA had an interesting variety of its own kind of socialism — techocracy, which is based on works of Thorstein Veblen. It never took off but it is an interesting school of thought to study about.
Is "socialist" being used in place of "collectivist" here perhaps? It's not quite the same though.
Reimann gives a quite neutral description, considering he is a Communist. Maybe it is because he do not consider them real socialists, though he even notes similarity of some Third Reich's problems to Soviet Union ones. His perspective is different because unlike modern socialist which just say "fascism is capitalism", he certainly acknowledges National-Socialists do look a lot like socialists in action, though he seems to consider them to be reactionary overall. Why, then, asks he they are so socialist-looking like? And answers: well, we all know communism is inevitable, so elements of this glorious future are also inevitable to bubble up everywhere even in regimes we do not consider properly communist.
federalization is not socialismHere is a bit more quotes.
Sure, one might argue whether it is a proper "socialism" or not. In my opinion, extensive state-planning, fixed wages, abolishment of entrepreneurship et cetera does look very similar to many socialist projects. You are entitled to disagree of course.
^All conservatism is inherently collectivist. If collectivism is socialism, then the Republican Party is a socialist party.
it does use red a lot...All conservatism is inherently collectivist. If collectivism is socialism, then the Republican Party is a socialist party.