I freely acknowledged that Nazi Germany was fascist in response to your previous argument. But it was also socialist -- the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't see how calling it socialist is "simply wrong" unless you have another "characteristic feature of socialism" in mind.
I mean, this argument is very straightforward:
A) "The characteristic feature of socialism is not equality of income but the all-round control of business activities by the government, the government's exclusive power to use all means of production."
B) Nazi Germany demonstrated this feature.
C) Therefore, Nazi Germany can be correctly characterized as socialist.
Except that's wrong. Socialism, as it was understood at the time, was about putting the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, not the government. The nationalization of businesses is an explicitly nationalist move, not a socialist one.
But the economic axis is different from the social axis. It's possible to be economically socialist while socially conservative. And it's possible to be economically laissez-faire while socially liberal.
The aspects of the Trump movement you cited are interesting comparisons, but they are tactics, not ideals or positions. The positions are outlined on Trump's website.
I don't know that there's a real difference between the positions of the NSDAP and Trump's. Sure, he's not as big on importing communist positions as the NSDAP was (because you americans, and especially the sort of americans Trump hopes to attract, are absolutely allergic to those unless they come prepackaged with more palatable memes), but his emphasis on turning the US into a more autark, self-sufficient state, the constant blaming of social and economic illnesses on either bad policies executed by those above or immigrants from below, him building his image as the one strong man who can cure all these ills? Those are straight out of the fascist playbook. That he's also not really big on things like freedom of speech or freedom of religion just adds more icing to the nazi cake.
Very well. So then, what is your conclusion - that because only a few of those Fascist Manifesto planks were implemented, that Mussolini didn't really intend to follow it? Or that the Fascists didn't really believe what they wrote?
I am not as well-read on Mussolini as I am on the NSDAP (for fairly obvious reasons), and it's pretty clear that the NSDAP party program was never taken seriously. Gregor Strasser, the person responsible for the socialist policies in the NSDAP program (and who, by all accounts, took the "socialist" part of the NSDAP fairly seriously), was removed from power within the party by 1926 at the Bamberg Conference, and while Hitler declared the program to be immutable there, he changed it in 1928 to say that "despite the lies of our opponents, the NSDAP believes in the foundation of private ownership". Strasser himself was killed during the purges of 1934.
I'm not surprised the majority of historians take the opposite view, as it has been the prevailing consensus for around 70 years. But just because a majority holds a certain view doesn't necessarily make it correct. Most historians once believed that the city of Troy was mythological.
Except that, unlike Troy, we have plenty of surviving evidence and documentation about the second World War and fascists.
Also, this is weird: Trump is campaigning on a platform based around being someone not beholden to the political elites. He has positioned himself as someone who is "not a politician", as someone who is strong enough to break up the lock those same elites have on US politics. He's also making statements that are not reconcilable with a traditional interpretation of the constitution, and yet, you believe these statements won't matter because the elites he is campaigning against and that he says he will beat won't let them pass into law?
No, because it would require a tremendous amount of political capital for a trivial amount of gain. Trump is a dealmaker. He wouldn't take that deal.
Again, are you really, absolutely certain of this? Trump has a history of sticking his nose outside of his core business and getting it bloodied in return; his dealmaking skills (such as they are) do not seem to extend to realms outside of the real estate business.
Actually, anarchy is extreme right-wing, because it is individualism taken to its greatest possible extent.
It's also communism taken to its greatest possible extent. It's the end goal of Marxist communism.
Over the career politician who was extremely careless in handling classified information, exhibits no regrets or moral struggles with defending a pedophile on a technicality, accepts money from foreign governments, accepts money in pay-to-play arrangements, and has been associated with dozens of people who died under mysterious circumstances? Yes.
Hang on. You're one of the people who believe in the Clinton death toll? The list of people vaguely connected to the Clintons who have all died under mysteeeeriiooooous circumstances?
You know, this list?I'm sorry, but if I am going to be hard on Bryan See for rambling on and on about immortal russians, I'm going to be hard on you for jumping off into conspiracy land too, so either prove that snopes got its facts wrong, or accept that you're talking bull****.
And for the record, any "Snopes is part of it" idiocy will not be tolerated.
The thing is that Trump is supposed to be good at ~money~ but is demonstrably ****ing terrible with it.
He pulled out of Atlantic City right before it took a downturn. Whether that was due to good timing or simply luck, it was the right call.
Paris Hilton is a better businesswoman than he is. She built a brand using less starting capital that is worth more than Trump's was at the same point in his career. Investing in a very conservatively run hedge fund would have yielded a higher return than investing money in Trump.
And above all, all you know about Trump's business acumen is what he tells you about it. He has structured his businesses in such an opaque way that it is almost impossible to gather accurate information about it; he also refuses to release any clarifying information and lies about the reasons behind it.
