Someone in here very recently inferred Hitler was a socialist. it was sort of like saying a crab-apple is a crustacean but has happened in here a lot and I'm not talking about JPOTTS this time.

teedubbya wrote:

All three of those are very different.... its not just semantics its knowledge

B ut again I wasn't referring to you. I don't care if you think Hitler was a socialist.

teedubbya wrote:

you're not doing a great job of digging yourself out of this one RH.

victor809 wrote:

I'm surprised that people who like to lump nazis, fascists, communists and socialists together never bother bringing in monarchies.

I mean... .that's kind of the ultimate top-down control of government.

victor809 wrote:

state ownership, community ownership, and uniownership (I suspect a made up word by one of my professors) is a good start. The later is more of a personal ownership by one individual as opposed to state ownership. All very different, but hard to capture on a discount cigar board.

teedubbya wrote:

I'm surprised that people who like to lump nazis, fascists, communists and socialists together never bother bringing in monarchies.

I mean... .that's kind of the ultimate top-down control of government.

victor809 wrote:

Thanks for your replies. I will read up on it. It's been a while...

RobertHively wrote:

I'm just surprised folks only have a superficial knowledge of the different forms of government. (Not talking about RobertH.)

Of course to defend that.... most or no models are pure. Socialism bleeds in to capitalism and possibly communism. Less so in fascism.

fascism is theoretically like monarchy but again neither is pure. England's monarchs don'town everything nor did Hitler. They are all models but I don't think there has ever been a perfect model of any of them.

So if everyone is a mutt then I suppose you could call Hitler a socialist. I stand corrected if that is the intent. Its just not his primary identity. Its sort of like calling Liz Warren (sp?) an Indian.

teedubbya wrote:

Hey I just dig this stuff.... I wasted a bunch of time in my undergrad and grad classes studying poly sci. If I came off as a deek its not intentional just natural. :)

teedubbya wrote:

I just disagree with the endings. They are distinct complicated models of economics and government. Religion even plays a role here. It's too complex to get in to here. There are plenty of academic sources that compare and contrast the different models. There are also multiple bogus sources that will convince you kermit the frog is a fascist.

Hitler was not a socialist is all I am saying.


As for hitler and MAO go look at the role of the church, ability to negotiate at any level, economic systems etc. They are very different. Just because they were bad dudes doesn't mean they have everything in common. Stalin as well.

teedubbya wrote:

I did too. My undergrad degree is in History and I used all of my electives up on Political Sceince classes. I guess I just filed these forms of govt away as doesn't really work, people die. Lol

But hey I just got them "state owned college" degrees. Maybe you really learned something...

RobertHively wrote: