It is pathetic that this is all they have as discourse and that this is most likely their legacy.

6. Animal rights
Seriously, that is a Fascist ideal? But now I'm curious, do you think that animal rights are a bad thing? For example, do you think dog fights are okay?

You seem to think that the point of "Liberal Fascism" and my arguments, is to tar liberalism as "bad" by linking it to Nazis. Now, while I definitely am a man of the right, and generally oppose leftism, that is not to say that everything about leftism is bad, and that includes fascism. It should also be emphasized that the point of the argument is first and foremost a matter of historical and intellectual accuracy -- a desire to bring the truth to light. Liberals adopted the name "liberal" following the Nazi experience, largely in an attempt to bury their heritage. That's a normal political instinct, but it does a disservice to the truth. Biologists will reclassify organisms when they realize that their taxonomy is in error. Historians and political scientists should do the same.

(With respect to animal rights in particular, certainly people should avoid cruelty to animals, and most especially unnecessary cruelty. But there is a difference between setting forth human moral duties and establishing animal rights... so yes, there are some problems with animal rights)

Now, returning to the rest of your post:

I can't say that I've ever seen anyone on the American left ever propose a command economy. Surely you can provide a link to back that up?

Again, we're talking matters of degree... The more control the further left you're moving... but since you asked.

Woodrow Wilson established the War Industries Board, which pretty much nationalized industry and converted it to war production, fixing prices, establishing allowed profit, etc. Virtually all of the New Deal programs were about government-controlled economic planning, but to take one example, FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set cultivation limits on wheat, even for private consumption (see, Wickard v. Filburn) in an effort to stabilize prices. Hillary Clinton is calling for 5-year (sound familiar) home mortgage interest rate freezes.

Yes, but you don't label all National, German, or Workers parties as Fascist, so why does the Socialist part get all your attention?

Because my point is to highlight that the Nazis were leftists, and we all agree that socialism is a leftist ideology.

For my list of non-economic likenesses, check out Goldberg's book, or just do some poking around.

1. Racial essentialism: Roughly speaking, the idea that group identity is more important than individual identity is a staple of today's liberal politics. To take just one example, Michael Jordan's son would get preferential treatment under affirmative action by virtue of his race, despite the fact that he, as an individual, comes from a very privileged background. And yes, many early progressives, including Woodrow Wilson, were indeed white supremacists.

2. Eugenics: Check out Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Charles Van Hise (FDR advisor and President of Univ. of Wisconsin -- think of him as the wet-nurse in the cradle of the progressive movement). Both progressives, and both strong proponents of eugenics.

3. Paranoia about bankers: Probably not the strongest example, since the common thread is more along the lines of populism... but still steeped in class-warfare.

4. Anti-Individualism: I'm not talking about being "yourself" or a "non-conformist". I'm talking about subordinating the individual to the collective. See "It Takes a Village" by HRC and her insistence that "We need to get past the notion that there's any such thing as 'someone else's child." This is the tyranny of collectivism kicking in the door of the American family, and nobody seemed to notice.

5. Anti-Chrisitanism. Purging Christianity from the public square was common to Nazis, Communists and the American Left. I'd love to believe that the left is just "anti-you-trying-to-make-us-christian", but that hardly explains the ACLU's efforts w/rt nativity scenes, etc. More academically speaking, you cannot have "render unto Caesar that which is his, and render unto God that which is his" when EVERYTHING must be rendered unto Caesar.

8. Suppression of Dissent: Now you're just being silly. GWB did not pass an Anti-Sedition Act. GWB hasn't jailed anyone for criticizing the government, much less one of his presidential opponents (See, Eugene V. Debs). However, since you mentioned it, Goldberg is one of the people that have noted that GWB is a very "Wilsonian" president, and certainly his "compassionate conservatism" is far more leftish than Reagan-conservatism.

Actually, I associate both parts (planned economies & government services), along with other shared features, with all three: socialism, fascism and the American left.

I can't say that I've ever seen anyone on the American left ever propose a command economy. Surely you can provide a link to back that up?

Again (DPRK cracks notwithstanding) they were the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Yes, but you don't label all National, German, or Workers parties as Fascist, so why does the Socialist part get all your attention?

I think there's an error in your question, which assumes that socialism is exclusively about economics -- it's not.

I didn't assume that, I previously stated that you could only link socialism to fascism by their common planned economies.

if you're asking, aside from economics, what ideals that Fascism and the American progressives/leftists/liberals have in common; well, there's:

1. Racial essentialism (earlier, white supremacy)
Not sure what you mean here, are you implying that liberals are white supremacists?

2. Fondness for eugenics (see M. Sanger)
Still not sure what you mean, are you implying that liberals support eugenics?

3. Paranoia about bankers
I'm not sure this is a Fascist or Liberal view exclusively, I know many very conservative Republicans who don't trust bankers either.

4. Anti-individualism
Again, this doesn't seem to be a Liberal view. If anything liberals seem to be more strongly individualistic in my experience.

5. Anti-Christianism
Is that a Fascist thing? I know the Nazi's were, but that was because they were pushing Norse mythology, so I think it was more a Nazi thing than a Fascist thing. Either way, it's not a left thing, we're not anti-christian we're just anti-"you trying to make us christian".

6. Animal rights
Seriously, that is a Fascist ideal? But now I'm curious, do you think that animal rights are a bad thing? For example, do you think dog fights are okay?

7. Environmentalism
Right, only Fascists and Liberals care about the world they live in. Give it a break, you're just taking every right-wing talk show bogeyman and trying to label it as a Fascist and Liberal ideology, aren't you?

8. Suppression of dissent (see W. Wilson)see G.W. Bush too.

You used Socialism to bridge the gap between Fascism and the left.

No. There's no need for a bridge. They're both on the same side of the river.

You do this by associating one part of socialism, command economies, with Fascism, and another part of socialism, government services, with the American left.

Actually, I associate both parts (planned economies & government services), along with other shared features, with all three: socialism, fascism and the American left.

However, now you agree that Socialism can be taken out of the picture entirely, but still try to associate Fascism and the left.

Not sure where I agreed to any such thing. Again (DPRK cracks notwithstanding) they were the National Socialist German Workers Party. The fact that the label "fascist" was applied to them doesn't remove them from the left and require a fair-minded observer to come up with some new, unique justification for placing them on the left. It's not that I'm "still trying to associate them with the left" it's that you are trying to throw sand in people's eyes and prevent them from seeing that they were on the left, i.e., prevent them from taking note of the fact that Nazis and the Italian Fascists were both centralizing, socializing, economy controlling, welfare-states.

So now I have to ask, what non-socialist ideals do the two share?

I think there's an error in your question, which assumes that socialism is exclusively about economics -- it's not. But if you're asking, aside from economics, what ideals that Fascism and the American progressives/leftists/liberals have in common; well, there's:

1. Racial essentialism (earlier, white supremacy)
2. Fondness for eugenics (see M. Sanger)
3. Paranoia about bankers
4. Anti-individualism
5. Anti-Christianism
6. Animal rights
7. Environmentalism
8. Suppression of dissent (see W. Wilson)

So, no, this isn't a facile "they've got socialism in their name" argument. The commonalities are both deep and wide.

Indeed, there are. Nazis and Fascists, to name two. Hence, back where we started... Fascism is a leftist ideology.

You used Socialism to bridge the gap between Fascism and the left. You do this by associating one part of socialism, command economies, with Fascism, and another part of socialism, government services, with the American left.

However, now you agree that Socialism can be taken out of the picture entirely, but still try to associate Fascism and the left. So now I have to ask, what non-socialist ideals do the two share?

Like the Nazis, Liberals want to put all jews, gypsies, slavs and homosexuals into concentration camps, as part of the "final solution to the problem of undesireables in society...

Like Hitler and Mussolini, Hillary Clinton wants to create a New World Order that will create an American Hegemony over the lesser peoples of the earth...

You guys are a barrel of laughs. Thanks for the entertainment!

Then you aren't very well versed in the matter. Government intervention is not even remotely contained to socialism. There are any number of "command economies" to prove that point.

Indeed, you're correct... Govenrment intervention is not remotely "contained to" socialism (at least as you're defining it). One such type of government would be that of Nazi Germany, where Goering was given complete control over the German economy. Another would be Fascist Italy, where the National Council of Corporations (which was created by the government and included government officials) was given control over large sectors of the economy.

So, to recap:

I argued that Nazis are leftists.

Tlaloc said I was wrong because US corporations made record profits doing business with Nazis and record profits and socialism are mutually exclusive.

I argued (with examples) how profits and socialism are not incompatible, and the salient feature of socialism is interference in and control of the economy.

Tlaloc said that there are other control economies besides socialist ones.

Indeed, there are. Nazis and Fascists, to name two. Hence, back where we started... Fascism is a leftist ideology.

This is becoming a trend in this thread. Misguided folks clinging to an outdated taxonomy inadvertently proving the point they're trying to refute.

Hopefully, a trend is beginning to emerge for Tlaloc, and James Joyner and legion and Michael...

command economy... planned economy... socialism... naziism... five-year plan... four year-plan... New Deal... centralized decision-making... control ---> LEFT WING

market economy... laissez-faire... distributed decision-making... freedom ---> RIGHT WING

collectivism... socialism... fascism... progressivism... modern liberalism ---> LEFT WING

individualism... classical liberalism... conservatism ---> RIGHT WING

There really is very little whatsoever to identify fascism as a "right-wing" ideology.

I have been reading, and much enjoying, Goldberg's book. It reads like a mixture of Russell Kirk and Thomas Sowell with just a dash of P.J. O'Rourke -- but no hint of the viciousness of Ann Coulter. Fact is, Goldberg makes a strong case, and at the very least there is a tremendous amount of modern sociopolitical history there -- along with a warning against the Fascist within us all that I can't believe you woulnd't nod approvingly at. If you could be bothered to look beyond the cover.

I have visited your site from time to time over the years, occasionally posted comments, and even won a caption contest or two. But as far as I am concerned, you have finally jumped the shark. Your attitude towards Goldberg is profoundly hypocritical for a man who keeps calling Mitt Romney "Flipper."

I'm with Jonah: It is no longer clear to me that I should care what you think.

Why don't you read it and let us know what you think then?

Notice American companies did not rush to invest in China during its heavy communism days, or in the USSR.

Two points.
1) Apparently you've never heard of Armand Hammer. Big businesses LOVES socialism and even communism (in other countries) when their business gets the one big government contract.
2) You're also confusing socialism and communism. Socialism is a bit more loosely defined and encompasses a range of political philosophies. Plenty of modern day European Democratic Socialists are OK with private enterprise as long as government has a say in how it's run (almost exactly like Fascists the before them). And plenty of big businesses are very happy with that arrangement, they're big enough to have a seat at the table when policy is set, regulation is a barrier to entry that minimizes competition, and again, there are those big government contracts.

All government is about concentrating power.
A little government means a little tyranny.A lot of government means a lot of tyranny.
Socialism means a LOT of government, popular or not.

To paraphrase the Bard;
"What's in a name? That which we call fascism
By any other name would smell the same"

Actually, one thing I do associate with socialism is government intervention in, and control over, the economy.

Then you aren't very well versed in the matter. Government intervention is not even remotely contained to socialism. There are any number of "command economies" to prove that point.