Total posts: 542
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #133
and simply because someone is credentialed and published does not magically validate their illogical assertions
List the "illogical assertions" to which you allude. Also it is not magic that validates a published work.
You then proceed with an "argumentum ad populum" giving credence to an individual's definition over a widely accepted definition.
And you think you understand epistemology?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
On #135
Please expand on your comment.
I sourced that definition.
Definitions arent proven by sources lol
Oxford is rather well received in academia so it is well accepted and proven.
3ru7al ....."engaged in an act of repetition of a phrase, bit offed NO COUNTER DEFINITION."
Thus, absent a counter, the definition I put forth shall stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #130
I offered a definition of "socialist state:. I sourced that definition.
You engaged in an act of repetition of a phrase, bit offed NO COUNTER DEFINITION.
Thus by default we use the definition I put forth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #127
I rank the Central Intelligence Agency as more reliable than some random website.
All text in quotes is from the CIA,
Belgium is a"federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. "
"high-income, core EU and eurozone economy; slow but steady growth supported by household consumption and energy shock recovery; high public debt and structural deficits linked to social spending; aging workforce with weak productivity growth and participation rates"
Austria is a "federal parliamentary republic"
"one of the strongest EU and euro economies; diversified trade portfolios and relations; enormous trade economy; Russian energy dependence, but investing in alternative energy; aging labor force but large refugee population; large government debt"
Sweden is a "parliamentary constitutional monarchy"
"high-income, knowledge-based economy; EU member but non-euro user (refuses to peg krona to euro); large welfare state that complements its free-market capitalism; high living standards, environmental protections, income and gender equality"
Iceland is a "unitary parliamentary republic"
"high-income north Atlantic island economy; non-EU member but market integration via European Economic Area (EEA); dominant tourism, fishing, and aluminum industries vulnerable to demand swings and volcanic activity; inflation remains above target rate; barriers to foreign business access and economic diversification"
Finland is a "parliamentary republic"
"high-income, export-based EU and eurozone economy; major timber, metals, engineering, telecom, and electronics industries; emerging from recession triggered by inflation, weak consumer and export demand, and lower private investment; labor market reform plan to address structural rigidities"
Nowhere does the CIA lump these countries as socialist either in government or in economy.
'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #125
No. Epistemologically you are entirely WRONG.
i'm pretty certain you just demonstrated that you have no idea what "Epistemologically" means
More "clinical" behavior from you?
The definition of "Epistemology" is ...."the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion" ( per Oxford)
For the intellectually impaired, there are recognized rankings of levels of knowledge. While an opinion could be true; it could also be false. The levels of what are sometimes referred to as "the levels of certainty" are somewhat akin to hypothesis, thesis, and law in science.
Q.E.D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Since you keep on dodging the issue, I will propose a definition of "socialist state"
The definition comes from a reputable source, rather than some RANDOM OPINION. It is an ACTUAL PUBLISHED document posted by the "World Population Review"
The words used are not written by a "King of Words" or other such childish notions.
If you dispute the definition, respond with a worthy source for such.
Here it is ...
"What is a socialist state?
Broadly speaking, socialism is a political and economic theory that seeks to close the gap between a nation's rich and poor by ensuring that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services are publicly owned, not privately owned, so that the profits are shared by all, not hoarded by a few rich owners. However, that basic definition encompasses a wide range of real-world variations on socialism. In its purest form, socialism is decidedly progressive. In practice, socialist countries can run the gamut from impressively progressive to staunchly conservative, often hinging upon the level of corruption in the government." (1)
Broadly speaking, socialism is a political and economic theory that seeks to close the gap between a nation's rich and poor by ensuring that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services are publicly owned, not privately owned, so that the profits are shared by all, not hoarded by a few rich owners. However, that basic definition encompasses a wide range of real-world variations on socialism. In its purest form, socialism is decidedly progressive. In practice, socialist countries can run the gamut from impressively progressive to staunchly conservative, often hinging upon the level of corruption in the government." (1)
In distillation......A socialist state uses the "political and economic theory" of socialism..."ensuring that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services are publicly owned". ...."often hinging upon the level of corruption in the government." (1)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Comment #115
is so ridiculous as to not need a reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #114
All you need do is to find an example of a socialist nation state that allowed the veneer of private ownership.
you mean like every single government on earth ?
Not every government is socialist. That is a wild opinion even for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #113
Give me the comment number where I "agreed" to a definition/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #112
I said ...."Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level. "
wrong again
No. Epistemologically you are entirely WRONG.
but our main disagreementseems to bethe definition of socialism
NO. We are defining "socialist states"
P.S. Bernie sanders has a net worth of $5 million. Is he then a "successful socialist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #111
private schools are capitalistpublic schools are socialist
Mostly public schools are owned by the school system. They are not owned by the public.
private mail service is capitalistpublic mail service is socialist
generally the postal system owns the mail service.It is not owned by the public.
socialism is a form of ownershipnot a form of government
Again we are talking about socialist states.
You don't own a national park.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #105
You question Richman's authority in #98. You said ...
i don't give a flying ( intercourse) about THE OPINION of some random guy who wrote a book. ( Comment edited for decorum )
So in your mind a publisher took some "random guy" and said "write a book and I will publish it" . Seriously.
It appears that the fantasy land in which you live is a bit more "clinical" than I first imagined.
Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level.
So Richman's published opinions trump your shallow unpublished thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #103
I said ..."You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners."
i hope you realize you've just asked me to PROVE A NEGATIVE
How you conclude that is asking you to "prove a negative"is illogical.
All you need do is to find an example of a socialist nation state that allowed the veneer of private ownership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #102
we already agreed that THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT is to manage PUBLIC RESOURCES for the BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS
This was too broad to be an acceptable definition. Cite which comment number indicates that agreement. Perhaps it is one of many government functions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #101
now i see how your mind works
and it works quite well thank you
you don't care about logic
I care so much about logic that I understand its limits.
you only care about published opinions
Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #100....
public schools are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public libraries are a form of state socialist
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public roads are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public utilities are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public mail service is a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
there is absolutely zero "requirement" for 100% state ownership
Wrong again. You are thinking about socialism with some form of veneer.
You examples above are more in line with "infrastructure" which can occur in most forms of nation states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
List the market relations that were not "nationalized" in a socialist state. ( #93)
List where money and prices were not "nationalized" in a socialist state. (#94)
The YouTube video you cited in #95 is not well sourced.
You question Richman's authority in #98.
Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's Families and thousands of articles. " (1)
Now you need to find an authority of at least equal stature in support of your opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You argued against my citation ....."fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners" by saying
this is also EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY not socialism
You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners.
Perhaps what you think is socialism is really something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
your appeal to authority is meaningless if you can't identify logic
Richman is an "authority" and therefore this is not a logical fallacy. The "appeal to authority fallacy " requires citing someone out of their area of expertise. ( like an astrophysicist talking about climate change ).
You fail to understand the definition of "totalitarianism". Per Oxford.."Totalitarianism is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
Socialism requires centralized government. All capital rests with the state.....all power rests with the state....human nature then kicks in. There is the logic.
Examples include Germany, Italy and Argentina.
Now you must cite a work that supports your view. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.
You must cite real world examples of a socialist nation that meets your standard of "good" socialism. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer" ( per Sheldon Richman, https://fee.org/articles/fascism-socialism-with-a-capitalist-veneer/).
Now 3ru7al wants this explained......
First off, it is properly sourced from Richman.
Secondly here is more from Richman....( emphasis mine)
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)"
Thirdly, again from Richman...
"Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."
Fourthly , again from Richman...
"Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Explain exactly what you mean by "proper" socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"None are so blind as they who will not see". ( author in dispute, but possibly Titleman )
i guess you are the number one authority on the definition of "socialism"
That is an inference without implication.
I gave you many sources in support of my claim. You gave you tube videos of dubious quality.
You are obsessed by socialism as an ideal. Reality is a bit different. Even Marx knew that socialism made for bad government ( it needed to "wither away").
.your ultra-perfect number one definition of SOCIALISM = TOTALITARIANISM always every time no exceptions
I never put that idea forward. I said socialism is a necessary precursor to FASCISM. ( socialism morphs into fascism in Italy, Germany and Argentina )
Here is a source ...."as an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.." ( per "Fascism " By Sheldon Richman )
Perhaps we should debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Since you have descended into pejoratives, I win this discussion by default
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From the very site that you have cited.....
" Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government....."(1)
It has been shown above that socialism is where if nobody owns something, then everybody owns it, but mainly the government owns it and you don't own anything.
Thus all capital rests with the government, and no capital rests with anyone else.
Human nature being what it is, the government has everything and therefore has all power ( i.e. Fascism ).
Therefore socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism.
Now it is up to you 3ru7al to take at least a less idealist view of what socialism is and what it leads to.
(1) Sherman, Howard J.; Zimbalist, Andrew (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I said ...."Your definition of "socialism" is too broad and therefore lacks both utility and sound reasoning."
You then responded to the claim that your definition was "too broad" by saying.....
socialism" is a system of ownership - - ownership distributed to the citizens
Is there anyone following this forum who agrees that 3ru7al's definition is still "too broad"?
It appears that he is saying that socialism is where if nobody owns something, then everybody owns it, but mainly the government owns it and you don't. (???).
?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think it would be fair to say that all governments are implicitly "socialist" ?
NO.
Your definition of "socialism" is too broad and therefore lacks both utility and sound reasoning.
If the USA builds an Interstate Defense Highway System, that activity in no way defines that country as being a socialist state.
While the expressways make things better for most, if not all citizens, it is a development of infrastructure that many types of governments provide. It does not define them as being "socialist". Highways have been built in kingdoms, oligarchies, socialist states and even theocracies and communist states.
it is the function of government to manage public capital for the benefit of all citizens
We seem to disagree on the extent to which the term "public capital" can be applied. Actually, if one defines "public capital" as do you, one is actually saying that if public capital is owned by the government, it is then actually "private capital " ( i.e. it is owned by a single entity ).
Perhaps there is a real definition of "socialism" .... where everything is owned by the state.
All power then rests with the state.
The state then morphs from socialism to either fascism or communism.
And everything is done to benefit, not the citizen, but rather the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if roads are privatized, they become capitalif water and power utilities are privatized, they become capitalif public land becomes privatized, it becomes capital
They are capital regardless of ownership.
"Capital is a broad term for anything that gives its owner value or advantage, " (1)
The owner can be an individual, or a group of individuals, or a socialist state.
Therefore then you do agree that socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you agree with the statement in #70 above?
Yes you agree?
No you do not degree?
One word answer please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Someone once said.....
""state socialism" is almost always a lie. Ostensibly the goal of "state socialism" is to facilitate public-ownership of "capital" (the means of production, factories, farms, laboratories). If a state does not meet this goal of public-ownership, and instead becomes self-serving (filling the pockets of the powerful at the expense of the public)......at that point they are [Fascists ] ."
Do you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what percentage do you think qualifies as "good government"do you think perhaps that serving 90% of citizens is "better government" than serving 51% of citizens ?
On a macro level, a good government serves 100% of the citizens in terms mentioned above. It cannot serve 51% or even 90%. Only 100%. Otherwise it is not operating at a macro level.
Government...
protects 100% of the citizenry from invasion
manages resources that affect 100% of the citizenry
maintains infrastructure that affects 100% of the citizenry
supports standards that affect 100% of the citizenry
enhances mobility of 100% of the citizenry while inhibiting no one.
So now back to how fascism needs socialism as a necessary precursor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it sounds like you're saying "the government serves the citizens"
That is an inference that you have created. Here is your equivocation...
You asked ....
on what merits would you evaluate one type of government over another ?
You then went from my "how to rate" and inferred some generalization about "the government serves the citizens"
To clarify, on a MACRO level, a good government serves all citizens, but not each individual citizen. It works on NATIONAL issues, not personal issues.
On a micro level a good government leaves all the individual alone.
Again these are generalizations. Any inference you make about what I said or implied should be discussed with me on this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
on what merits would you evaluate one type of government over another ?
"You sure ask a lot of questions for a guy from New Jersey " says Emily Litella. ( A reference to a joke ).
How to evaluate a government? There are macro and micro judgments.
On a macro level...
How well does a government;
respond to emergencies?
protect from invasion?
manage resources?
maintain infrastructure?
What standards does the government support?
Does the government enhance or inhibit mobility of citizens?
However, on a micro level, the concern really comes down to how the citizenry is impacted by the government.
How much of an individuals earnings are kept with the individual?
How safe does the citizen feel?
Is the citizen's health inhibited or enhanced by the government? ( more along the lines of safe foods and medicines rather than national health care.)
This is not a complete list .... add to it if you wish.
So now back to how fascism needs socialism as a necessary precursor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As I said above...
"The function of government varies depending on the economic and social basis of the state being governed.
Government is different under capitalism, socialism and communism,
Which are you asking about?"
Note that until YOU clarify your question, there can be no clarified answer."
do you think it might be fair to say a government exists to enhance the wellbeing of all citizens ?
NO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
First you say to forget about utopia, then you ask about utopia when you say...
imagine you don't have a governmentlike maybe some small wild west town
Maybe YOU need to forget utopia, and think in real terms.
why would anyone choose to start a government ?
"Governments almost certainly originated with the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order." (1)
what is the most basic advantage of having a government
"Governments are necessary because they maintain law and order. Laws are necessary for society to function. Life in a society without laws would be unsafe and unpredictable." (2)
what is the core function you would personally want a government to perform ?
This has been asked in #56 above, to wit...
"The function of government varies depending on the economic and social basis of the state being governed.
Government is different under capitalism, socialism and communism,
Which are you asking about?"
Note that until YOU clarify your question, there can be no clarified answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you asking after a utopia?
There is no such place, ergo, there is no point in wasting time on it.
The forum question is the definition of fascism IN THERE REAL WORLD.
Hear ye this......
"utopia,
1.
a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
2
: an impractical scheme for social improvement
3
: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place....
There’s quite literally no place like utopia. In 1516, English humanist Sir Thomas More published a book titled Utopia, which compared social and economic conditions in Europe with those of an ideal society on an imaginary island located off the coast of the Americas. More wanted to imply that the perfect conditions on his fictional island could never really exist, so he called it “Utopia,” a name he created by combining the Greek words ou (“not, no”) and topos (“place”). The earliest generic use of utopia was for an imaginary and indefinitely remote place. The current use of utopia, referring to an ideal place or society, was inspired by More’s description of Utopia’s perfection." (1)
Note that above link may not work with older versions of various operating systems
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You asked ....
what is the function of "government" ?
The function of government varies depending on the economic and social basis of the state being governed.
Government is different under capitalism, socialism and communism,
Which are you asking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Before you descend more deeply into antagonism, let's turn to dialogue.
In post #47 it clearly states, with source ......"all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government. The government also determines all output and pricing levels and supplies its citizens with everything from food to healthcare."
The phrase "are made" is a function.
The phrase "determines" is a function.
The phrase "supplies" is a function.
Thus it has clearly been shown that socialism is a necessary tenet of fascism.
quod erat demonstrandum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You asked ....
what is the function of "government"
It appears that this has already been answered. ( SEE comment #47 above).
Created:
Posted in:
SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT - IT IS A SYSTEM OF OWNERSHI
Whether or not it is a form of government, in its execution it relies upon a strong central authority ( i.e. a government ).
To wit "In a socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government. The government also determines all output and pricing levels and supplies its citizens with everything from food to healthcare." (1)
If that government becomes strong enough, it morphs into fascism.
"That the National Socialists { NAZIs} embraced socialism is factually accurate. Though they did not nationalize to the extent the Leninists wanted, they did nationalize very vital industry in Germany, even if by outright intimidation rather than through the law. " (2)
(1) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp.....Socialism: History, Theory, Analysis, and Examples of Socialist Countries by Will Kenton.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
" Employee ownership is about capitalism, but a form of capitalism in which {every employee in that business } gets a piece of the pie." (1)
In reality what you call "market socialism' is essentially identical to "stockholder capitalism"
BTW.....still waiting for real world examples of socialist states without centralized governments.
Created:
Posted in:
"Dictionaries and economic texts define socialism as government control and ownership on the means of production, and the eventual abolition of all private business and private property. It’s collectivism, which inevitably leads to totalitarianism -- the total state. State socialism can only be imposed and maintained by a monopoly of force. Ultimately, by the muzzle of a gun. All individualism and individual liberty must be swallowed up by the“benevolent” state. This generally starts by democratic means, thus, the soft-sounding appellation “democratic socialism” to allay our fears. “Heroes” like Hitler were elected. In Germany and elsewhere, democracy was just a temporary means to a dreadful conclusion.Socialism, being an abject failure from the start, must always proceed in this way in order to maintain its total control." (1)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then give a real world example of a nation that has a socialist form of ownership which does not also have a central seat of power as its form of government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As I asked on June 20th....."Kindly give an example of a socialist state which has not been subject to a central government."
Make sure to use REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Read again......"fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer" ( sourced above)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is a scholarly view .....
"But as an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer....... Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions." (1)
(1) "Fascism " By Sheldon Richman .....www.econlib/org
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You stated "...Socialism can involve decentralized forms like libertarian socialism or anarcho-socialism, which do not require centralized state control."
Kindly give an example of a socialist state which has not been subject to a central government.
You stated ...."employee-owned corporations are another example of socialism (social-ownership-of-capital) that does not require state-ownership"
We are speaking here of state socialism.Also, employee-owned corporations are more an example of capitalism rather than socialism.
TOTALITARIANISM is not synonymous with SOCIALISM
No, but socialism in the real world appears to contain totalitarianism.
universal healthcare is NOT socialism (social-ownership-of-capital)
Correct. It IS NOT socialism. It was used here as an example of a tenet of socialism
To clarify I am trying to get input on "socialism as a system of governance".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The NAZI party did many thing to enhance the well being of the population, at least among those considered "true Germans". During the period of 1933 to 1939, many native Germans were quite satisfied with their own situation.
"The [NAZI's] early goals included physical education, a return to rural life, health care for all...." [ Hitler and Hitlerism: Germany Under the Nazis ....Nicolas Fairweather from the Atlantic April 1932.].
In my research, I have found that Europe defines "socialism" differently from the definition used in America. Even in America, different generations seem to define the word somewhat differently.
Socialism as practiced in its many forms has never existed without centralized state control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It appears that both Mussolini and Hitler "privatized" certain endeavors more as a way to bypass councils and boards of control rather than for an application of economic and political theory.
They were actually more in control of "crony industrialists" and therefore able to direct the power of the state toward their operations and goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You asked....."what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?"
Socialism is an economic and social system wherein the state controls the production and distribution of resources by means of regulation and , in some cases , outright ownership of said entities. ( my constructed definition ).
N.B. There are many types and degrees of "socialism ". No one definition can be taken as complete..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you conclude that "fascism is incompatible with socialism"?
The Nazi party ( literally the "North German Socialist Workers party ) was against both the communists and the capitalists.
Mussolini developed a "state socialism" as his basis for governing.
Both Hitler and Mussolini used state control over resources.
Thus socialism and fascism are "compatible".
Created: