Yes, corporations go where the money is, but you oughtn't to dismiss corporate leanings out of hand. When the politically-active leadership of major corporations are dominated by anti-Leftists and traditional elites, then it's a little disingenuous to say that corporations are neither liberal nor conservative.Okay. How?I don't believe anybody said that they were, but academics have noted that the potential seedlings of fascism can be read in Locke. And this really doesn't matter because I'm basing my evaluation of fascists off of their actions, not whatever Mussolini read in the days when he used to be a socialist.They approved of Roosevelt because he employed similarly Keynesian methods to tackle the Depression. They didn't approve of him for any other reason, much less for being a liberal or a progressive, which both Mussolini and Hitler hated. Hitler often complained about "Rosenfeld" and his "mongrel" administration.
And when you say Hitler "approved" of Roosevelt, are you talking about when he did things like this?This is horrendously misrepresented. Lenin spoke approvingly of those Italian socialists who were becoming more revolutionary, of which Mussolini happened to be one (he was never referred to specifically). This was in 1912.
I have never been presented with anything that would indicate that Mussolini "admired" Lenin. After 1919 Mussolini did nothing but ferociously denounce Lenin and the Bolsheviks.Apart from both being police states, what policies did Hitler and Stalin share?I'm sure they did. And I'm equally sure that they were speeches made before Mussolini became a fascist. Besides, BP groups tend to be radicals, which many of the early fascists definitely were.Statism is both conservative and socialistic. Liberalism tends to be less in favor of state intervention. But you're using the American labels, which, as an American, I freely admit confuses things.
I always found it funny, though, that conservatives always wanted a government that wouldn't be allowed into the boardroom but would be allowed into somebody's bedroom.
I have to make this brief as I am leaving to go on a trip for a few days in about an hour and I still need to pack, but I still maintain that Hitler wasn't anti-Liberal, but anti-communism and only and for the sole purpose because they were fighting for the same demographics of people.
Hitler had a vehement hatred for the 'bourgeoisie' and the 'ruling class' and had large chunks of voters from the 'proletariat'(populism speaks!) and the working class. How much of the vote is a current?(and most assuredly future) debate. Also, Jews were typically well-off. I don't doubt he stole their money for his war effort.
Hitler and Mussolini, of course, didn't like Roosevelt once they began their independent nation invasions! Also, many of FDR's brain trust praised Communism and Fascism as successful social experiments, which were all the rage to Progressives. The Nazi Party paper, the Volkischer Beobachter said in 1934 that Roosevelt was a man of "irreproachable, extremely responsible and immovable will" and "warm hearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs". Mussolini praised FDR's book
Looking Forward.
Perhaps it was still when Mussolini was a socialist on the Lenin-Mussolini admiration thing. I dunno, I'll have to research it more. And refer to Communism and Fascism battling for the same constituents as per the hating Bolshevism later.
Perhaps, I don't know which speech the Black Power radicals got jazzed up to.
I still maintain that Statism for the purpose of unifying a people is a completely Liberal trait. Fascism and Communism did that. Some Liberalism favors less intervention(Hippies), but most says more, more, more(especially economically and with social programs)!
As for the Religious Right 'in your bedroom', I completely agree. It is ironic and stupid. I have harsher judgement but I don't want to go out of bounds.