I suppose I should have been clearer in the terms I used as well. When I say "socialism", I'm referring to democratic, non-authoritarian socialism; the way I see it, an actual socialist country would necessarily have a democratic political system. However, state capitalism, fascism, and Stalinism are so often referred to as socialism that it's probably best to specify.
I also see your point that Stalinism or authoritarian attempts at socialism can be quite similar to fascism in practice. That's more of a general trait of authoritarianism, though, and not specific to capitalism or socialism. I think we can agree that a less authoritarian government is a good thing.
It's also true that the countries closest to socialist democracies still maintain significant aspects of capitalism. I think they still have some room to improve by further reducing the capitalist aspects of their economies, but those countries seem to do quite well as long as they have at least partial socialism combined with a socially libertarian government.
I'll concede the links between Socialism and Fascism are tenuous other than the Fascist party we all know best, were the Nazi's which comes from "National Socialist". If you define the term "Socialist" in the strict left wing sense, then Fascism doesn't fit.
Socialism is correctly defined in what you call the strict left wing sense. The Nazis used the word "socialist" as part of their propaganda, but it didn't actually have any of the characteristics of socialism.
If you define it as a huge government intervening in the economy and lives of its citizens, and allow it to have left and right wing forms, then Fascism is the right wing form of Socialism.
Sure, but that's big government or authoritarianism, and not necessarily socialism.
I think part of the problem here is the U.S. political and economic system is so completely confused at this point I'm not sure you can cubbyhole it in to any of the traditional definitions. It defies definition. Components of the system seem to be rampant free market capitalism bordering on Libertarianism. But the government intervenes so frequently in those markets you can only refer to it as state capitalism, certainly all the recent bailout and interventions are exactly that, so were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by design.
I agree; that's why it's capitalism with aspects of both libertarianism and corporate state capitalism.
Other components, many dating to FDR, are blatant left wing Socialism, Social Security, Medicare, unions.
Social Security, Medicare, and unions are things that socialists generally support, but they're not really socialist programs. They're more like reforms put in place to moderate capitalism and try to fill in for some of the things that a free market does poorly.
But this country's massive expenditures on its military and intelligence apparatus, launching aggressive wars based on fabrication(Iraq), pronounced nationalist tendencies, support for right wing dictators the world over, unrestrained warrantless spying, torture, shredding the Constitution and the ignoring basic due process(rendition, arresting and detaining people without charge and denying them access to lawyers, courts or fair trials) are all the hallmarks of a Fascist state, as are the disturbing ties between government and corporations.
From Wikipedia:
"Fascism, pronounced, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum."
I think Fascism is still probably the closest term we have for the current governments of the U.S., Russia, China and the U.K.
I agree with the first part of what you said. I'm as concerned by these as you are, but considering that the basic democratic institutions of the country are still in place—look at the recent non-violent transfers of power between the two parties, for example—I don't think we've reached the degree of authoritarianism necessary to be considered a fascist state. A corporatist economic system alone isn't sufficient to constitute fascism.
Socialist democracy probably applies best to most of the rest of the E.U. since they are mostly harmless nanny states. Don't think there are many actual representative democracies left, or if their are they are tiny(I don't know India well enough to know where it sits).
I'd still consider the U.S. a representative democracy, even if it's an often dysfunctional one with some tendencies towards fascism. I'd also attribute some of the problems in the U.S. to the influence of capitalism; for example, the military-industrial complex is a major force behind the aggressive tendencies of the U.S.
People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.
