Again, I give you precise definitions, and you respond with vague equivalencies that exist only inside your own head, and stand on your right to define words in whatever way you please.

You can’t make an argument based on correct use of terminology, just as you can’t make an argument that is moored in any common sense reality, because you can’t deal with complexity.

So, next time I point out you are using words incorrectly, don’t challenge me again and retreat again. Just don’t misuse the language in the first place. Look it up in the dictionary yourself. Show a little self reliance.

Pray tell, were the pros/cons of lo stato corporativo versus Bolshevism?

Can you even speak intelligently about either? I doubt this very much.

Once you wrap your head around both concepts, perhaps you’ll come to the conclusion that, regardless of the Wikipedia definitions, they are nearly identical in practice. And that practice consists of centralized control, rather than DECENTRALIZED – that is, Market – control.

If you aren’t keen enough to recognize that your boy, Obama, is taking over the American economy one piece at a time, well… I suggest you ask yourself when the last time the man lifted, rather than imposed, restrictions on business – i.e., when he afforded more control over private interests rather than exercised every more control. What industry has benefited from Obama lifting its terrible regulatory burden?

You think you’re so clever, and yet you are a clear ignoramus. If not, write something passably intelligent on the topic of economics.

It’s not up to me, or you, to define words.

You don’t seem to get that.

Here:

“Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

“Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

These are the definitions. There isn’t any debate on that score.

A government that is proposing a spending freeze on social programs, a health care reform bill that doesn’t include a publically funded plan, a stimulus bill that includes hundreds of billions in tax cuts, and props up the private banking industry isn’t socialist.

If you persist in using these words to define either of the major political parties, you are just embarrassing yourself. I’m not going to waste my time with it. Try to learn something, instead of spouting off whatever ignorant swill some radio charletan peddles to sell airtime.

So again – why don’t YOU define socialism and fascism and I’ll tell you how you’re wrong.

You still have trouble with basic terminology.

In addition to your continuing misuse of such easy terms as “socialist” and “fascist” you have confused “political movement” with “paid entertainer with a fan club.”

Furthermore, the only principles than you hold dear are redistribution and self-promotion of your own expansive ego.