coolbeans said:
Fair enough. I can admit the preceding sentences weren't finely tuned. You see: this kind of myopic personification bothers me; as though a guy born to vocal socialist parents, continually utilizing similar rhetoric in his writing, etc. can just flip a switch on his political alignments (the Xbox One of European history conveniently!). That's especially so when you can find quotes from him like this: "Fascism recognizes the real needs that gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or cooperative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State." (Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions [1935]) Wait...if the mere existence of a private industry/privatization disputes the notion of one being 'socialist' then what the hell have I been hearing about Scandinavia's socialist utopias since my early teens, despite them hovering around a similar level of economic freedom as the USA? But now I'm just getting a little facetious. Not totally, no. As I previously acknowledged with some of Hitler's actions that'd make a Middle Ages theocrat envious; however, I still consider such a categorization lacking sophistication. |
Dude, enough, i was responding to the other guy who claimed that communism and fascism are the same. All im saying is, if your are gonna strawman the hell outta any left wing policy that some people like, at least quote Stalin, Mao or any actual left wing authoritarian leader u wanna throw at us. Hitler isnt one of them.
