Socialism and Fascism are ideological brothers.

Firstly, fascism and socialism are still intellectually different. The roots of fascism do not come from French philosophers or German philosophers, it largely comes from the political implications of the First World War as it had affected Italy. That being said, the philosophical ideas of the American Revolution were not just from English philosophers, but also from Scottish and French philosophers largely, and it can even be said that they were influenced by Ancient Greek philosophers. It's a red herring to say that fascists and socialists have the same philosophers, because it's simply a misunderstanding. The only way in which we can accept they come from the same ideas is saying that every single political ideology came from the same influential philosophers of Europe. It's not as if the line of descendancy for these ideologies is purely vertical, passed on down from every generation where fascism and socialism happen to have the same ancestry, but every political ideology that was developed in the Western world has the same ancestry, even if Rene Descartes or John Stuart Mill would disagree with either fascism or socialism or capitalism. If you want to say there are birthplaces, then the births of socialism and fascism are very much distinct.>> Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.I know of no capitalist system that you describe. In every country where capitalism persists, there is a government that owns property. One thing distinct to capitalism is the idea of free markets, which fascist ideologies kept in place as a means of their economy. That is contrasted with socialism which were centrally planned economies. Fascism has no such central planning, and just because you see fascism as evil, does not mean that it is the exact opposite of capitalism. There are similarities and elements of each ideology pervasive in other ideologies, but "capitalism" is simply a word that is too broad, especially when there is so much overlap between capitalism and many socialists.>> The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rightsMost governments of definitely capitalist countries are ones that actively intervene in the country's economy. Only a free market fundamentalist would think that free markets can only happen without government involvement.>> property rightsAgain, private property existed in fascist countries. It was not communally owned. It was not owned by the government. It was however an authoritarian system that did own parts of the economy and could requisition private property as they pleased, but until such time their property was privately owned. That is a massive contrast to socialism where by default the property is owned by society.>> Marx's view of a stateless society not only never existed, but I believe is impossible to exist.Of course it is impossible to exist, but the ideology exists. That's only as far as governments though, since socialism doesn't only have to be a government policy. It can be something like Mon dragon, a large manufacturing company in Spain, which is operated by its workers who are also collectively its owners, who elect the board of executives. This is the largest example of a worker's co-operative, and is very much both socialist and capitalist. Socialist in the way that the workers, but not a government, own the means of production. Even when we acknowledge that every socialist state was authoritarian, we must acknowledge that fascism has no room for anarchistic societies in its ideology, contrary to socialism.>> I claim that this is not only a false dichotomy, but that the Left-right spectrum is NEVER defined, the definitions differ depending where you look, and that the ONLY dichotomy that exists is (More Freedom / Less Freedom.) There is a left-right spectrum. It is defined. The only way that the only dichotomy can be between more freedom and less freedom is simply an American-centric view of politics and not even one that is endorsed by mainstream political science in the United States anyway.For anybody unfamiliar with the particulars of the left-right spectrum, I will explain it like this. The left-right spectrum describes heirarchies. On the far left, which we will use communism as an example, we see that everybody is forced to be made equal in the hope that this will create a utopian society. On the far right, which we will use fascism as an example, we see that people are subjugted into different groups to the extreme, with some people being exterminated for being in the wrong group, some people being idolised, others being the rightful property owners, etc.In the centre-right and the centre-left, we see the same. The centre-left in general wants to take from those who are richer and give to those who are poorer. Making a more equal society which they see as beneficial, but by no means confiscating all land and wealth like communists. On the centre-right, we see the opposite, with wanting the rich to keep more of their wealth which they see as more beneficial, but they are certainly not going to fascist extremes where the poor are deemed unworthy of living.The existance of the left-right spectrum is not a matter for debate, as it is something that most definitely exists in political science. Of course politics is more complicated than a line, but the line exists, and it is useful, especially in this case. The line has nothing to do with how involved a government is or how much freedom a person has, the line is a line of hierarchies. It's a complete fallacy to pretend that the only real dichotomy is between freedom, since the political situation of the United States simply cannot be generalised onto the entire world. This completely fabricated dichotomy only favours the right wing of the United States, since it places the left closer to fascism and communism.>> Francisco FrancoFranco was ultra-nationalist, and belligerently so. You only have to look at the nationalities of Catalonia, Anadalusia, Valencia, Basque, Galicia and others to see the brutality and belligerency of Franco's nationalism. >> I will just say briefly that the state's only property role in regards to property rights, are their protection.Again, I know of no government in the world that limits their role to laissez faire capitalism. Instead, most governments advocate a form of mixed market capitalism that includes a welfare state of differing strength, labour and consumer protections, and government involvement in an economy where it is deemed suitable. I hate to break it to you, but this also includes not only your country, but the opinion of even those in your country who would identify as right wing, it's only a matter of extent.[I'm in quite a hurry today so I will post my sources and quotes for this round on my next round.]