Nazis were socialists, the Nazi Party was called the National Socialist Party. The Soviets were also socialists. The Italians were socialists. The Japanese were socialist.The fascists and the communists were both socialists both they hated each other. Fascists aren't some special 'type' of socialist, there is no reason to lump them in a separate category so we can feel good about ourselves.In fact it would be more accurate to call the fascists socialists than it would be to call them fascists. Fasism is a made up word so the Allies could feel good about fighting Japanese, Italian and German socialists while allying with Russian socialists, creating a clear cognitive dissonance between what where basically identical forms of government.
>>18381167The Chinese are socialist.The Vietnamese are socialist.Half the countries in south America have been socialist at some point or another.
>>18381167The fascist aren't magically 'unique' just because they were our enemy. They were socialist. Fascism isn't some 'super-bad' type of socialism, socialist governments are the norm for most of the world throughout most of the 20th century.
>>18381167It was to the fascists benefit to label themselves as fascists rather than socialists, because it created an artificial distinction between them and the soviets that was politically useful in cultivating a cassus belli towards Russia.
>>18381201even if you account for the distinction between the 3rd and 4th international, Stalin was focused on socialism in ONE country, so even the 'nationalist' portion of the 'nationalist socialist' is inconsequential. They were both nationalists, they were both socialists.
The Nazis weren't fascists, they were the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.Communism is explicitly international.Fascism explicitly exalts the nation state as an apex of the human will, which both subsumes and elevates the individual will to it's natural teleological end. At least, as regards a radically idealistic (in the rigorous, academic sense of the word) metaphysics.Both are inherently modernist, and this is the area in which they agree.
