Inception

Well, socialism basically equals fascism

NOTE: Sarcasm Alert

Define socialism. Then define fascism.

Almost exact opposites

That's not definitional of either. Ho hum.

This is off the top of my head, feel free to correct me

Socialism: *In theory* Everyone helps bring the wealth distribution to an even field (high taxes on higher classes to bring the lower class up)

Fascism: The government controls everything and usually gets everything, degenerates into the government acting on every whim. Synonymous with dictatorship

Basically, socialism tries to distribute wealth evenly, and fascism takes everything for the government

Pretty close, however, modern socialism has adopted the control mechanisms fscism used to control industry. Fascism and socialism are both statist, both collective in nature. Fascism is a derivative of socialism.

Nazi=nationalist socialist workers party. By definition. The left often arhues against it, but when you really dissect how they operate... Not so different. See killing fields, gulags, Ba'thist Party, Bader Meinhof, red brigade.. Yadda yadda

Well of course, because no one would pay taxes if the government couldn't enforce them. So I stand corrected: in practice, socialism uses elements of fascism because of humans' inability to share. LOL, I think that a society of robots would function so much better.

Czech word... Robotnics

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism

"A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy."

Spurred and developed from? That's a great wiki def. It lacks the full substance.
Most socialist entities have had charismatic leadership
All control markets
Most have higher forms of censorship
Lesser. Say in the UK. But they banned a US speaker once because he had a long running critism of the Heath care system.

Socialism controls markets by definition since it is an economic ideology.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism
(Marxism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism in Marxist theory in which the state has control of the means of production.

And this was the final objective of communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

Just another post to underline the confusion that surrounds Sanders to the point where his picture is featured on the second link despite what his own page says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Political_positions

gotcha

I don't understand what the bottom caption is saying.

If you mean the second frame here's some links for reference.

http://sandersisnotasocialist.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
http://mylittlenorway.com/2011/02/roosevelt-monument-in-oslo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states (<= all considered as communist)

"In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."

One form of propaganda is using one word to mean another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfarism

Haven't you heard of 1984's newspeak ^^ ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

In reference to below, the rights of the citizen are second to the state. redistribution isin fact limiting of freedom's. You in fact steal my labor by giving it to others in the form of social welfare, health care, etc. That is statist now matter how many sites you choose to put up. By the way, I hope your not using wiki as a source for any papers you may be writing.

Yes, there is a contradiction between them as you underline.

However, nothing about FDR's "economic rights" says how they should have been implemented.

Read them and say where it mentions redistribution.

The economic dimension is kind of the Achilles heel of political aka negative rights in that they can be disrespected anyway.

One could in theory act indirectly through this medium in such a way as to go against your political rights.

In fact, this is happening today with bail-outs and the more recent bail-ins in such a way as some people have committed suicide following the loss of their savings.

In the specific case of healthcare it is possible that you end up in a life-threatening condition in such a way as your entire savings will not suffice to get treated. So you end up dying which is kind of dumb.

Due to this inelastic demand, it would in theory possible to have healthcare run according to a co-op model in such a way that it's out of the state's hands.

Also this guy explains why healthcare costs are so high.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

If you are thinking along the lines of rewriting the UDHR then you should join the libertarian party.

Also, if you are full on against socialism according to the original meaning of the word, you should steer clear of any form of insurance as it is pseudo-socialist or mutualist.

Finally, you may not like Wikipedia but their articles are sourced. So read the sources in case of doubt.

"In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause." in case you missed it

Replied above.

Ya...wierd