- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Nope, he didn't for example, take ownership of the means of production - a big indicator of a socialist government.
And Mussolini did not do this when in power
If Mussolini enacted socialist policies it would put him on the left economically with a theoretical goal of sharing wealth equally.
However far left economics has always failed and usually can only be maintained via a dictatorship.
A right wing political government would focus political power (the ability to make you do something rather than to persuade you to) on to one man (with the practical considerations that he'd have to delegate some power)
A left wing political system spreads political power equally, but as Republicans love to tell us that doesn't work for practical reasons and extreme left wing politics is impossible for all but the smallest groups. So we have the representative democracy you see in the USA today.
Again what evidence do you have to support this?
No, when you're talking about fascism you're talking about the political system employed in Italy in the 1930's. To call other countries "fascist" is technically wrong, like it's wrong to call any government "Nazi" other than the one under Hitler.
What most people refer to as fascism is really a focus of political power to a few people - frequently it's the military and frequently it's a response to a failing economy. Argentina from the 1930's - 1982 is a good example
Then you have a comprehension problem
I'm assume you've never studied politics.
You most definitely can occupy a position of right wing politics and left wing economics in fact it was very common in the last century. Stalin was a good example.
Here are a few quotes of Mussolini taken over the years (thanks to wikiquote)
I need you to admit Mussolini was a socialist before we can continue.
The Communist movement was still on its ultra-left binge (the so-called Third Period) when the Nazi movement began to snowball. To the Stalinists, every capitalist party was automatically "fascist". Even more catastrophic than this disorienting of the workers was Stalin's famous dictum that, rather than being opposites, fascism and social democracy were "twins". The socialists were thereupon dubbed "social fascists" and regarded as the main enemy. Of course, there could be no united front with social-fascist organizations, and those who, like Trotsky, urged such united fronts, were also labeled social fascists and treated accordingly.
Socialism has to remain a terrifying and a majestic thing. If we follow this line, we shall be able to face our enemies.
The law of socialism is that of the desert: a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. Socialism is a rude and bitter truth, which was born in the conflict of opposing forces and in violence. Socialism is war, and woe to those who are cowardly in war. They will be defeated.
The root of our psychological weakness was this: We socialists have never examined the problems of nations. The International was never concerned with it. The International is dead, paralyzed by events. Ten million proletarians are today on the battlefield.
You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.
Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my Socialist beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of Socialism and of the Revolution.
We want an extraordinary heavy taxation, with a progressive character, on capital, that will represent an authentic partial expropriation of all wealth; seizures of all assets of religious congregations and suppression of all the ecclesiastic Episcopal revenues, in what constitutes an enormous deficit of the nation and a privilege for a minority; revisions of all contracts made by the war ministers and seizure of 85% of all war profits.
We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility.
We assert—and on the basis of the most recent socialist literature that you cannot deny—that the real history of capitalism is only now beginning, because capitalism is not just a system of oppression; it also represents a choice of value,…