Socialism and Fascism are ideological brothers.

This is the Conclusion round, therefore I will try and limit any rebuttal and then summarize my case.Rebuttals: >>" 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" - Con This is absolutely not true. Even the Wikipedia page on Fascism's development plainly spells it out: "The ideological roots of fascism have been traced to the 1880s, and in particular the fin de siècle theme of that time.[21][22] The theme was based on revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and liberal democracy.".. "During the Enlightenment, a number of ideological influences arose that would shape the development of fascism… Another major influence on fascism came from the political theories of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.[4] Hegel promoted the absolute authority of the state.[4] Hegel promoted a powerful state and said "nothing short of the state is the actualization of freedom" and that the "state is the march of God on earth".[14]" - https://en.wikipedia.org... Sadly, the Wiki leaves out the huge influence of Nietzsche on Nazi Fascism which I think is very important. (The Nazis often cited Nietzsche as one of their philosophical precursors.) Yes, I am aware there are other influences, however if we were to list every minor influence from every single idea then we would be here for years. It is well established that the ESSENTIAL and most important influences on American thought during revolution came from the ideas of Locke. That being said, the Ancient Greek philosophers are an important topic in the discussion, but only as far as to point out that the primary influences were Aristotle and Plato, and that Aristotle had a greater influence on England and America, while Plato had a greater influence on France, Italy, and Germany. >>"I know of no capitalist system that you describe. In every country where capitalism persists, there is a government that owns property." - Con I am speaking of Capitalist Ideology. No, there exists no full laissez-faire capitalism society. The closest to it has been the US and England in the late 19th century. We are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. The west is predominantly Capitalist, but as you yourself point out, not fully so. This does not change the fact that Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. This does not change the fact that it's principles of individual rights and private property are in direct opposition to Fascism's collectivism and state intervention. >>"Again, 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."-con The institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term means the RIGHT to obtain, possess, use, and dispose of property, IE control. Again, for the 3rd time(without rebuttal), Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. If a person does not have the right to dispose of his property, he does not have a right to property. Similarly, one could not say that an American Slave had the right to his life and liberty, and that the southern states and slave owners merely "requisitioned" their actions "as they pleased". "It does not mean that all these concerns must necessarily be socialised, merely that they can be socialised if they transgress against the interests of the nation. So long as they do not do that, it would, of course, be criminal to upset the economy. . . . I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow-countrymen. That is the overriding point. The [State] will always retain the right to control property owners. . . . " - Quoted in Edouard Calic in Unmasked. Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931, translated by R. H. Barry (London: Chatto & Windus, 1971), pp. 31–33, 86 Conclusion: Again, the argument is that Socialism and Fascism are essentially the same. Essential similarities and differences are the absolutely necessary, indispensable characteristics of a concept, or in this case an ideology. Yes, fascism and socialism are different. This is not the debate. The absolutely necessary, indispensable characteristics of both Socialism and Fascism are: Collectivism, Altruism/Self Sacrifice, the abrogation of property rights, and Statism. Between a Socialist and a Fascist there is no argument for these issues, their premises are the same. The principle to both is that the Individual must sacrifice to the group or else. Which group one must sacrifice to is the only question. The Nation? The Race? The proletariat? How will they make this possible? The Fascist demands that you sacrifice to the group and follow it's needs and demands, else they will nationalize your property. The Socialist leaves out the 'or else', and simply nationalizes your property for the good of the group. Thus far, all of my points for the essential similarities of Socialism and Fascism stand, 1) "both hold the essential moral belief that the collective is superior to the individual"2) "both reject individual rights and property rights"3) "both require the concentration of power in the state" 4) "both are built on a morality of Altruism/Self Sacrifice." These are the absolutely essential similar concepts without which Socialism and Fascism would not exist. Only one of which(property) was challenged by con. Con could have challenged the other similarities as being untrue, or as unessential, but he did neither.Further, these are also starkly differentiated from Capitalsm which:1) Holds the individual is sovereign.2) Protects the rights of the individual, including property rights. 3) Requires the restraint and restriction of government power.(limited government)4) Declairs that you have the right to the pursuit of your own happiness.Con's only claim that Socialism and Fascism are essentially diffrent is based solely on the Left-right spectrum which traditionally places Fascism on the right and socalism on the left. I believe by arguing the actual essential concepts and principles that are the basis of both systems, I have proven my case.You be the judge.