Fascism and her 'Institutes'

Although this argument may seem to 'favour' the 'Socialist Movement', it is more-so 'favours' that of 'Social-Inclusive Unity', "based" on the very vast principles of 'Historic Socialism'. On the premise of definition . .. Communism is when the Government 'owns' the means and ways of the media, production, finance, and ect. ; Fascism is when the Government 'controls' but does not 'own' the means and ways of media, production, finance, and ect. ; Socialism is when the Government 'owns (for the most part) and directs, but does not control (entirely)' the means and ways o the media, production, finance, and ect. ! I also 'blindly' refer and associate 'Corporatism (Capitalism)' with Fascism and associate Social Unity with the basis of Socialism. If you would like to think about this for a moment . .. the current stage of 'Corporatism' is a step away from that of 'Fascism' itself and goes contrary to that of Society (Socialistic Principle). The 'Fascist and her Institutes' are really that of American and world 'Corporatism'. In light of this, I propose that this governmental basis is 'contrary' to the good of the people (Social well-being and universal equality), because it gives only for the basis of 'Big Corporations' in lieu of 'Big Government' working in tandem with labour of the people. In further to my opponents argument and blatant denial of Social Progression, I also offer another defining moment in clarified definition . .. Social Principle is the involvement of the government commanding and directing the 'Social' well-being and 'wholeness' of the people (as also, for the most part, the economical sector); Communism is involvement of the Government in direct control of the ways and means of the 'entirety' of 'Social' and 'Internal' conduct and principle; and Fascism is the involvement of the Government through 'entire' control of the information, and in extension, cultural beliefs and behaviours. "To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not; Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism and Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similitude can be seen in a common definition of fascism: 'A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc. )' " [Based upon: American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957] "Dr. Peikoff notes: In the final months the Communists viewed the growing Nazi strength with equanimity. The triumph of Nazism, they said, has been ordained by the dialectic process; such triumph will lead to the destruction of the republican form of government, which is a necessary stage in the achievement of communism. Afterward, they said, the Nazis will quickly fade and the party of Lenin can take over. The Social Democrats, meanwhile, were being "tamed" in another way by Chancellor Franz von Papen. In July 1932, using only a token armed force, he ousted them illegally from the government of Prussia. The party leaders understood that this coup, if uncontested, would mean the loss of their last bastion of strength. But they observed the swelling ranks of the Nazis and Communists; the Prussian police and the German army brimming with nationalist militants; the millions of unemployed workers, which made the prospects for a general strike bleak -- and they decided to capitulate without a fight, lest they provoke a bloody civil war they had no heart to wage and little chance to win. .. .There were not many Social Democrats who rose up in fury over 'the rape of Prussia. ' The party had long since lost most of those who take ideas or causes seriously. there was not much youthful ardor to summon to the side of social democracy. "Republik, das ist nicht viel, Sozialismus is unser Ziel" ("A republic, that is not much, socialism is our goal") -- such were the signs carried in parades by young workers of the period. " The highlight is the failure to practice 'Social Principle', with a consequence of the fact that Fascism (that of Corporatism) has been inconsistent in theory. It is fully possible to argue that each individual should sacrifice for the whole of society, and have the expectation that each individual knows what 'society's good' consists of, without the means of having a 'Dictator' (or that of Corporate mangling) to tell them so. "The main characteristic of 'Social Principle' is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, individual's retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the 'government' holds total power over its use and disposal. . . . Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it. . . . Under 'Fascism', 'the public good' is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are great differences of emphasis. The 'Social Principle' axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its people. The 'Fascist' axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The 'Social Principle' axis offers its people social ideal; the 'Fascist' axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national 'greatness' and merely extols leadership without purpose, program, or direction (and power for power's sake). " ~ Out of the book: The Fascist Frontier "Yet what dictator ever brought prosperity by interfering with the economy? History is littered with catastrophes that occurred because dictators couldn't keep their hands off the economy. A century ago, exporting beef and wheat helped make Argentina one of the world's wealthiest nations; but by the late 1940's, after dictator Juan Perï¿½n had introduced pervasive economic controls, there were chronic beef shortages. .. In China during the late 1950's, Mao Zedong ruthlessly enforced his orders about what people must produce, and the consequence was a famine in which as many 30 million people died. Russia used to be a major grain exporter; but the Bolshevik Revolution and decades of Five Year Plans brought shortages of grain and just about everything else ordinary people wanted. .. Wherever there is dictatorial power over an economy, wherever economic liberty is denied, people are sure to be suffering agonies of the damned. " ~ Jim Powell's Book: FDR's Folly, Chapter 18 (2003) "Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. At a popular level in recent years 'Corporatism' has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public. " ~ The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thoug