“Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper… What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.

People who think socialism is great. Who go on about it. Who mention socialist non-thinkers like Piketty and how great his inane theories are.

Who look to socialist Euro-trash countries as being fantastic — and to be emulated. Like Warren, Obama, and all the Democrat crypto-socialist.

But then when it’s pointed out that they are, in fact, espousing socialism, it’s all…. HOW DARE YOU CALL ME/HIM/HER A SOCIALIST.

But only because even today SOCIALIST is a dirty word in America. And rightly so.

Of course the banal, so called rebuttal goes along the lines of — well Obama/Warren/et al aren’t calling or implementing the NATIONALIZING OF THE MEANS OF PEODUCTION so that “proves” they’re not “socialist.

Well, #1 They can’t do that constitutionally anyway. Obama can’t just “nationalize” an industry with an Executive Order.

But then he doesn’t have to. As both he and Warren know they can effect exactly the same results by fiat via rules, TAXES, regulations, laws.

In effect, it’s a quasi-nationalization by making the industry and business so beholden to the state — and particularly the Democrats, that they are, to all intents and purposes, nationalized.

Why overtly nationalize the means of production when you the “government” and the admin state can covertly CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

Since when?

Massachusetts is liberal. The country as a whole is liberal. Its about time we conservatives start admitting that rather than pretending we can listen to Rush Limbaugh all day while no one who doesn’t already agree with us ever hears a word he says.

We have to admit that so we can start changing how we do things. Not becoming more liberal, but changing the population’s opinions.

Getting conservatives nominated or even elected changes absolutely nothing.

Italian fascists were NOT nationalists.

German fascists were, but only incidentally.

Wilsonian fascists were, but, again, only incidentally.

Nationalism is NOT REMOTELY central to fascism. Not any more than making BIG unions part of the mix is necessary to fascism.

A biggie is that the fascists were/are intensely nationalistic. That’s the “Nationalsozialistische” part of NSDAP.

Because of that, there’s a problem calling the Democrats “fascist”, as they certainly aren’t nationalists.