The left right debate is dated. Google something called the Pournelle Axes and check them out.

I would classify myself and most conservatives as 2 4 on those axes with a healthy distrust of government and a belief and practice that problems are solvable if rationality prevails.

Check out http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Mr. Limbaugh's comparisons are correct. Left or right, socialists are the same. Since socialism and its big brother, communism, are a continuous struggle for control of the future, there is no set date to achieve their goal. Dedicated socialists, driven like the religious faithful, today work incrementally until each part of their global plan is achieved, even if it takes one, ten, or fifty years, then work toward the next. After American socialists eventually destroy our freedom and republic, they will simply go on to the next step, no matter how long it takes to gain control of the planet. Instead of God's heaven after death they envision a social justice heaven on earth. In truth, they will see neither.

I have long used the terms "left-wing fascist" and pointed out the real difference is international and national socialism. "Fascisti" is the plural of "twigs." A bundle of twigs will not break like a single twig. Hence whoever calls for "unity" (Pierre Trudeau comes to mind), has a fascist mentality (Trudeau put tanks into the streets of Montreal in 1970). It's the concentration of power that makes a fascist a fascist. Who wants a stronger more centralized government in fewer hands? Not conservatives. Conservatives' call for states' rights is always looked at by the left through a distorted historical lens: the lens of slavery. Greater states rights means racism (to them) for that reason. Who's stuck in the past? But it it they, Leftists, who are enslaving blacks through their welfare state.

Another fine article, Mr. Limbaugh.

"Fascist" is just a distraction. Democrats have no good ideas on the economy or anything else, obviously. The only way they can win is by deceit and vote buying. Conservatives waste time by long discussion of distractions. "Civility", "fascist", "balanced approach", "shared sacrifice", etc. are just clever deceits. Conservatives should give the one-line rebuttal - "Fascists are National Socialists; our platform is balanced budgets and means testing." When you hear a Democrat think "He's lying and distracting. Here's the real question and the real answer for America's freedom and prosperity."

Good article David. My own belief is that given a semblence of liberty, all humans would either gravitate to liberal or conservative ideology. Further, that each ideology is a mindset born out of the psychological realities of maturity or immaturity. Those who remain immature become liberal, and prefer the state to fulfil the role of the parent, allowing them to remain immature. Those who chose to do the work of maturing become conservative, and therefore want a more adult like existence, though not necessarily the parental role. This scenario is where the rift that tears a culture of liberty does so. The matured people do not want to support the immatured, which they must because the government has no money, it must take it from those who make it. Further, by remaining immature, and by being protected by the state, liberals can create an illusion that both allows them to bypass maturity, and pretend they believe their illusion is the truth of objective reality. This is so annoying, and makes arguing with a liberal useless.

To paraphrase Adolph Hitler:

"Anyone who thinks that Nazism is a political system doesn't understand Nazism."

Nazism is a particular brand of fascism.

Read F A Halek's "Road To Serfdom" to get a good historical perspective on who the real Facists are. See anyone you recognize?

Nazis were also big on environmentalism, on animal rights, on health and exercise, on economic policy, were virtually identical to the new left except in terms of race and internationalism. Mussolini coined the term totalitarian to mean a society intimately involved in all aspects of life.

Sound familiar?

I do have one quibble; nationalism was a concept of deification of the nation, and comes from Rousseau who sought to elevate the nation at the expense of the Church. It was the roots of Nazi and Fascist concepts of mystical nationalism. It was a substitute for religion. We conservatives are patriots who believe in the nation state, not nationalists. Our nation is a gift from God, not our god.

Very well written and intelligent comments from all. I am always amazed that when the U.S.liberals hurl the "Nazi" epithet, that they do not know the acronym stands for: National SOCIALIST Democratic Worker's Party! This though, should not surprise me in

a society wherein the mechanisms of propaganda are almost exclusively controlled by the left. Their messages are even rampant in the popular entertainment media. For example; you will never hear the words 'left wing' and 'nut' used together in either a police drama or on the news. The words 'right wing' and 'nut' will forever be linked. In reality, when asked to name a right wing nut, most people cannot name one, as the names they utter are all left-wing nuts; ie Ted Kasinski, Rev. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. T.McVie was neither left nor right, he hated our gov't no matter who was in power. If your Liberal friends' emotional immaturity over political issues is too much for you, try the Nut game. Ask them to name a 'right wing nut' and then politely correct the errors. Then it's your turn.You get to name Left Wing nuts. Start with Marx and Engles, Stalin, Mao, Beria, Che and the Castros, throw in all of the Banana Republic Marxist Dictators, and Hugo Chavez. Memorize a list as long as you can and reel it off without effort. They won't mention politics in your presence again!

"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and me is that I have really put into practice what those peddlers and pen-pushers had only timidly begun. I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempts to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties to the democratic order."

Adolf Hitler

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling alive everywhere in Russia, except where there are Jewish marxists. I have always made allowances for this circumstance and have given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a National Socialist. The communist always will"

Adolf Hitler

Seems as a young man in college I learned the differences between communism, fascism, republic, and democracy. In the use of these terms many RINO's use democracy to refer to our system of government. Veiled in terms like representrative democracy they denigrate the essential nature of our Republic.

Just sayin'

This video helps explain the similarity between the Marxist Left and the Fascist Left - both are Leftist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Leonard Peikoff discusses the economic similarities between the Marxist Left and the Fascist Left.

“Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property – so long as the state reserves to its self the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property. If “ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed… which conferred no rights on its holder. Under Communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.” Leonard Peikoff

http://www.peikoff.com/lr/review_rand.htm

http://www.peikoff.com/lr/chapter1.htm

It says that Communism and Facism are both left-wing economic and political ideologies what about Nazism?

Ronald, as I read your comment I thought under nazism, when the capitalists did well and made money the state would have little reason to interfer, only if they did poorly would the state have reason to interfer. This because being sucessful would help the nazis achieve their goal of superiorty. While under communism, the communist have a philosophical agenda they need to see as reality. That capitalists, and capitalism are bad, and that only they the leaders can do what is best for everybody. Perhaps this is why Germany was so sucessfull so fast with their depression to prosperity, while the Russians languished in poverty their entire existence. This makes good sense to me.

Thank you all - for reasoned and researched comments. Thank you for the quotes as well. It is encouraging to encounter such company. I am weary of vileness and name calling. God help us, God redeem us. Amen.

A pretty good summary of the differences between the "isms", but Jonah Goldberg is far better on the similarities among them. They are all movements of the left. Facism is a term used quite cavalierly but usually ignorantly; it is actually quite hard to define and characterize. To see that this is so one needs only to go to a library and read any (or all - there aren't usually many) of the books that attempt to do so. Once again Goldberg is pretty good on this score - especially in identifying Facism's debt to American Progressivism. Much better in promoting understanding of the subject is Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" where he clearly explains the fundamentals of all the "isms" without identifying any of them. As a previous comment put it, the left-right debate is dated. However, Obama and his movement is Facist pure and simple.

@ Cobraman

Hey guy the acronym on the Nazi standards was "NSDAP" National Socialist (Deutches)German (Arbeit)Work{ers} Party, FYI. And an excellent post RedCar, I enjoy reading Dr(s) Sowell and Williams myself. They have "brain-hurtin-smarts" but darn it's hard to dispute their relentless logic! I am more convinced that Obama is more like Il Duce than Der Fuhrer,but that differentation is like between Bezlebulb and Levithian....both evil, but had their specializations!!!(Hitler at least knew how to build up the military....Mussolini was a peacock! Need I say more????)

Socialism/communism are economic theories. Fascism is government coercion. Socialism/communism are ideologies while fascism is the methodology used to implement those policies.

There is no single succinct definition for fascism. The IRS Tax Code could arguabley be construed as a fascist law, intimidating the citizenry with a horribly complex set of rules, replete with minor bones thrown to various favored special interests.

The original fascism consisted of bundling similar corporations (corporatism)together in Italy. Fascism was popular among progressives here in the USA, as was Mussolini (who thought Hitler was a dunce).

I can understand why Mr. Limbaugh would be upset about the nanny state idea, but the main reason I'm a socialist is that I've met a lot of people who legitimately DO need help from society and aren't receiving it. Capitalism as an economic system really does alienate people. Marx definitely wasn't the "messiah" like some people think he is, but his criticism of capitalism does make a lot of sense. In general, socialist societies do right by their people while capitalist ones don't. Cuba's infant mortality rates and literacy rates are the best in the world, and it is a Socialist Republic. Their civil rights are severely curtailed, but aren't ours? With the patriot act and FBI seriously curtailing the liberties of everyday Americans, shouldn't we be worried about the powers of the government? Whether it's under Bush or Obama, people in the US should radically rethink the way our government performs.

That's why I'm a socialist: people should take care of one another.

Limbaugh claims that, "Nazism and fascism, by definition, are socialist systems, with the state owning or controlling the major means of industry and production." This is not true, and he cites no external references to support this claim.

Moreover, historical research on the Nazi economy blatantly contradicts this claim.

http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2006/200607.pdf

"The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments ofthe Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of anintentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party."

http://aida.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf

"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is oftenconsidered a mere formal provision without much substance. However, that isnot correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of thestate, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment patterns. Even regarding war-related projects freedom of contract wasgenerally respected and, instead of using power, the state offered firms a bundle of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency."