My grandfather was an American born German Jew who, after his time in the O.S.S. during the war, hunted Nazi officers in hiding as a member of the C.I.A. He is mentioned in passing (just in one line an in passing) in this article:
My Father the Spy.
The book I mentioned in my first post I received from him after a few long discussions I had with him. The reason for these discussions was because I possessed the certainty and omniscience many teenagers do, and believed that naturally the exposure to history and political theory that my then 7th or 8th grade education amounted to surpassed a man who had interrogated SS officers found in hiding (among other relevant experiences) in addition to his
academic backgroumd. The several discussions that completely dismantled my adolescent (arrogant) certainty required someone with his intimate familiarity with fascism and his intellect (that so surpassed my own I can only hope to appreciate how far).
That was many years ago, but I have not forgotten it nor the looks in his eyes and the power of the way various emotions played across his face as he spoke. I have had no greater non-academic experiences with fascism than through that indirect one. And I freely admit that my knowledge of fascism is almost purely academic. However, had I grown up under the fascist regime of Hussein, I have been told by one who did that it would not tell me anything about growing up under the rule of Mussolini.
So my "theoretic" knowledge is inadequate and can be demonstrated to be so because familiarity with historical, political, cultural, and social scholarship is nothing compared to a website you found.
Of course they are. But the communism of Mao differs from that of Lenin and Stalin, and all three from that of Castro. Also, note that Nazism is not equivalent with "fascism", but rather one example. Nazi ideology shared much with Marxist political philosophy and similar intellectual movements.
They oppose each other in ways that demonstrate how problematic a label fascism is and illustrate how thoroughly related they, and similar parties, governments, ideologies, etc., opposed one another: they competed the way that predators compete for the same prey. That "National Socialism" opposed German communist movements is only truly illuminating once one realizes that any political parties supporting any system (from libertarianism to US representative democracy) that incorporated capitalist economics had already been long absent.
The methods of control used and the economic model adopted by the Nazis differed little from any given communist regime. Marxism as a word can describe both political parties/positions as well as what Marx actually constructed: a sociocultural theory based on suppositions regarding the ways in which economic evolution would lead inevitably to an overthrow of capitalism which (contrary to popular belief) Marx thought the best economic system yet. So thoroughly has Marxism been seen in opposition to capitalism that it is forgotten Marx's view was fundamentally teleological- each economic system was superior than the one before it and capitalism (the current system in his time) was the best yet. However, it was not the last but
next to last and would inevitably lead to a rise of the workers and
an end to political change and with a final and perfect economic system (a secular version of Christian millenarianism).
Everybody sees a difference if they know anything, because it takes only the faintest familiarity with the Nazi parties specifically German
mythos (which ranged from a secularized Christianity to a secular Germanic mythology, or better yet was a synthesis of both with other elements thrown in). However, Nazism isn't fascism, but one example of fascism.
From the OED (the real one):
1. A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community, and the organization of labour for the common benefit of all members; a system of social organization in which this theory is put into practice.
2a. A political doctrine or movement based on revolutionary Marxism, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution, the social ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a classless society
2b. A system of government in which all economic and social activity is controlled by the state acting through the medium of a single authoritarian political party, with the purported aim of realizing the doctrines of revolutionary Marxism
(entries 3 & 4 are "now rare" and are also completely different from yours).
Marxist thought is as fundamentally teleological as it is economic, and central to it is the notion of the rise of the working class. The Nazi party was the "workers' party" that seized power. This is quintessential Marxism. What happened after, however, was anything but. This is true, though, of every communist regime.
Which communist regimes achieved this?
It doesn't matter what it "stands for", as the Nazi party "stood for" the rise of the proletariat as much as any communist regime, and every communist regime failed to practice communist ideology. Your analogy inaptly compares communist/Marxist ideals with actual Nazi practice.
Right- just that some are more equal than others.
Recall that Hitler and Mussolini were both
Times "man of the year". The primary reason for the distinction between communism and fascism lies in the Marxist and neo-Marxist leanings of professors of political, social, and economic theories who, like the proponents of Eugenics throughout Western academia, were left with the uncomfortable results of both the failure of the Marxist revolution and the fact that a "workers' party" had resulted in perhaps the most horrific regime of all time. So arbitrary elements were used to describe particular totalitarian regimes as "right-wing", giving us a totalitarian version on the right as well as the left. In reality, the elements that were singled out to describe fascist regimes as right-wing relied upon comparisons between right-wing propensities that were distinct from right-wing political views. That Hitler was a vegan whose environmentalism surpassed that of any nation then or now didn't factor into whether he was "right-wing', but his nationalist and racist ideals did.
