Relations between Fascism-Keynesianism-Socialism

Your problem (since you are a marxist and an american), you have different vision of what corporatism really means.

In America, the left believes that corporatism is a variant of capitalism, when actually, they are different economic systems.

In Nazy Germany, the economy was "capitalist" de jure, but property was subjucted to menaces, price controlls, central planning of production and the destrubition of those products by the Nazi state, making the economy de facto, a form of non-marxian state socialism. It was Ludwig Von Mises who prooved that, mainly in his book Omnipotent Government.

But of course, there are people here who don´t agree with the Austrian point of view.

More of a anarchist tbh.

I define capitalism as capitalist ownership and control of the means of production, and corporations are gasp, run by capitalists.

No, no and NO. Socialism is Workers or public ownership of the means of production NOT heavy state regulation.

The combination of left and right is why I like to think of Fascism (or National Socialism) as the 'third way' (as opposed to New Labour's third way which seemed to be just the worst socialist overspending combined with the worst of neo-liberalism). Obviously such views are theoretical; i'm not saying that Nazi Germany was ever a some sort of harmonic utopia, simply because it wasn't. I still don't agree with this literal definition of communism as the abolition of the state. This is surely merely a goal (or Marx's conclusion) rather than the reality; state communism is no oxymoron; the post-Stalinist USSR was certainly not capitalist, therefore it can only be communist. It's like me saying that Hitler wasn't National-Socialist enough, or that Mussolini allowing the companies to get the upper hand in his corporatist state means he wasn't a true fascist and grrr, this isn't true fascism, how dare you call it fascist, wah wah wah!
Basically, we're all being too pedantic about what these words mean to us, and if we keep going on along those lines, we won't get anywhere (except a thousand pages of whining, which hopefully the mods and members won't stand for). For me, communism as a word defines more than anarchist communism; I hope you can all accept that.

Well, Marx would disagree with that, since he believed that socialism was a system where the "worker´s" state (dictactorship of the "proletariat") would own the means of production.

But I still don´t understand if you are a marxist or a bakuninist.

State socialism(or what you think Marx called the DotP) is when the workers own the means of production through a democractically controlled workers state, the Nazi state was far from this. As far as your question, I'm a mix of both.

Not to mention there are sections of Marxism that interpret the DotP as a non-state entity.

@AK Communism is the goal, Socialism is the "reality"(hint thats bullshit too, but for your viewpoint, thats what I should say).

Marxian socialism can only be achieved by a dictactorial form. History prooves it. Socialism is the supossed "period of transition" before communism.

Socialist dictatorship is contradictory, inorder for a state to be socialist it has to be controlled by the workers, hence the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx meant a dictatorship of the class not a person or party. If you want to say Socialism is impossible, thats different.

I'd like to think that you could achieve communism through democratic means; nothing can be achieved only by dictatorship; people can vote anything in. The fact they don't (perhaps this means by the same logic that history proves that democracy is a load of rubbish?) is why a dictatorship of the proletariat 'had' to happen. What i'm saying is that what actually happened is not what certain things are/were in theory (but we all know that anyway, right?)

The DotP is a dictatorship of the class, you might as well call it democracy between the working class.

Really because anti-communism has always been a part of the Nazi agenda. I can also tell by the name of the website the guy who runs it knows nothing.

You and your specific terminology! Okay, then a dictatorship of all the classes! Oh, that means there's still a party or something. It is true that anarchism represents the only true unadulterated rule of the people (and therefore democracy), but I still hold that the state can be communist, just not in the truest sense of the word (or Lenin Cat's preferred sense of the word), so hopefully we can all agree do differ on that one.

That and he seemed more interested in trying to connect the Nazis with Islam than the Soviets.

Even so, you cannot deny the fact that they allied to achieve their objectives (like in the Weimar Republic and the 1939 pact).

A state is always controlled by workers, in any kind of regime. A politician is a worker. He has a job and it receives a salary for his work.
It´s not a job in a farm or a factory, but it is a job nontheless.

And no, socialist dictactorship is not contradictory. The marxist principle shows that a socialist state must be a dictactorship and opress the supposed "rulling class".

Politician's receive lots of money from none salary sources.

A dictatorship of the PROLETARIAN CLASS. Not of a party or person.

As you say, 'achieve their objectives'. It was entirely pragmatic on both sides. It is likely that Stalin had almost as much intention of invading Nazi Europe (given the chance) as Hitler did of invading the USSR. Of course, it's not inconceivable that the two ideologies could have managed to get on for much longer, had they not been led by such maniacs.

It's not really working class though, is it?

The failure to understand socialism here is amazing.

They weren't allied. It was a non aggression pact. It is a completely different thing. May also be worth mentioning that the western capitalist allies (US/UK/France) also had a non aggresion pact with germany, signed around the same time.

Please tell me realize that the words dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean a specific person or group but litterly the working class has control.

The article it's self seem like an utter fail of an attempt to throw Hitler, Marx, Keynes, and FDR into one huge grouping using only quotes.

Fascism and Socialism fall under the same ism, Populism. The fathers of socialism and fascism go back to Rome and the Romans with the Gracchi brothers.