Now you're talking about 100% control of the economy.....which would include the means of production. Now that would be socialism.
No I was talking about 80 or 90% not 100%.
I said that would be socialism. Since it is, steps toward that would be steps toward socialism.
Increasing taxing, spending, and regulation is an increase in government control over the economy, so it is a step towards socialism, or if you want to be more technical about it fascism.
Obama is not fascist.
I didn't say he was, I said he's moving in that direction, in terms of the economy.
Besides, fascism and socialism are on different sides of the political spectrum.
Fascism and socialism are more like each other than they are like milder points "on the political spectrum". The traditional spectrum, to the extent its useful even with more normal or centrist government, breaks down at these points. They aren't opposite each other. Fascism is about government control without taking over and directly owning the means of production. Socialism (as a government economic system, rather than in small communes and such) is about the government seizing and owning the means of production. The other difference is that socialism is more focused on economic class, and fascism is more focused on nationalism. But that's not enough to make them opposites, they are the same in many ways. The socialists take over factories, banks etc. The fascists let the owners keep them (or perhaps they transfer them to cronies of the leader), but than they tell the owners what to do. Either way government (or party, when the party effectively becomes the government) officials make the decisions. Obama wants to increase the extent that government makes decisions, and decrease the amount that people make their own decisions. |
