True, that's why a lot of people consider facism left wing.  I disagree though.

Either way, since the actual right wing republicans are for smaller government, and specifically that being the driving force of the tea party...

to suggest that he's motivated by the right wing tea partiers is... the epitome of stupid.

Bull Moose party ruled.

Screw you.

What's your point?  Outside the fact... which you know... i've been saying.  He was just insane.

He wasn't leftwing or rightwing.  He believed in both extremes and shot at someone who was stradling the middle!

If he was like anyone politically in this thread... he's most likely like Mr Khan... but insane.  (No offense Mr. Khan.) 

Even then though it's a reach.

yeah, but everyone knows they were crazy illiterates that shot their way into power 

Yeah, but that'd of changed had Roosevelt passed his phoenetic spelling act.

We'd really be better off.

 Facism was created as a rejection of Marxism, much like neocons were created as a rejection of liberalism, if you see what Hitler said, he sought the destruction of marxism, also fascism is a corporatist economic situation, very different from the marxist ideal.

Contrary to what the right wing wants to propogate, the marxist ideal and fascism are nothing alike, the end point of marxism is the lack of need for any real form of government, even in its earlier stages it was much more intended to be a socialist democracy than a dictatorship.

anyone who tinks fascism is left wing, needs to study political history

Fascism is dpendent on nationalism, authoritarianism, and social darwinism, which are contradictory to the marxist ideal (now in practice what we call communist states have come out differently, but that is a different issue than the ideal)

Been a while since I've beat Kasz down in an intellectual argument.  It appears that he hasn't forgot, and that the whipping was bad enough to hold a grudge.

I'll keep it calm though, atleast until the NFL Prediction League is over so I don't blow my lead :)

riiiiiight.

I believe the last "arguement" we had involved me posting many many historians and scients views about how Galieo was persecuted for attacking the pope and poor science and not his actual views, since scientificically his premise was actually demonstraitably wrong experiments wise until the development of stronger telescopes many many years later, and the fact that Copernicus theories were taught everywhere for about 40-50 years until his trial.  After which it was banned.  Probably due to the fact that his science actually was wrong.  His main proof that the earth revolves around the sun being that there is only one high tide. (When anyone could tell you there were two high tides, everywhere.)

And your response was basically "Nu-uh, this one line in his conviction says it was for teaching helicoentrism."  As if there has never been a case for someone being convicted for something for show when the reason for them being convicted was clearly something else and then left the thread in embaressment.

It's just an old and predictable patern.  The scary thing is, unlike Numonex... I'm pretty sure your trying to be serious with half this stuff.

Have you actually read the communist manifesto or any of Marx's letters?  They show a pretty clear nessesity for complete resocialization of EVERYBODY including the proletariat.  This kind of thing can only happen through violent dictatorship or very very slowly through democracy. 

Except Marx didn't believe communism and socialism could work through democracy due to the corruptability of the higher classes money.  If Marx was alive now, he'd have a heart attack at how could the proeltariat has things.

He'd be completely dumbfounded how far things have progressed since he lived.   Marx held zero faith in any nearly any politician, let alone the ability of a group of them.  When the Paris Commune fell he attributed it to the loss of their leader who was imprisoned, figuring he could be the strong one to lead them to communism... and the vacuum of a leader is what killed them.

A social democracy path to communism is nothing but a revision of Marxism based on the very real positive changes that had occured through the system and a look of what happens when you go outside the system and give power to who you expect to lead you to the promise land.

The large difference as far as communist manifesto era communism was concerned is what they were molding them towards.  For Facism, it was the end game... what was good for the state must be good for the people.  For communism it was to mold things until people were ready to live equally with everyone.