Bolshevism = version of socialism that seeks to achieve its ends (abolition of private enterprise & property) through revolutionary terror & a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which amounts to nothing more than a one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party.

Democratic Socialism = softer variant of Bolshevism that seeks to achieve the same ends, a socialized state-run economy & abolition of most private enterprise & property, through mobilization of socialist voting blocs. Will probably end up in a similar "dictatorship of the proletariat" style government because socialists can't allow non-socialist competitors to compete with them in elections or else their system is jeopardized.

Fascism = National variant of Marxist socialism with emphasis on national identity, also seeks to socialize/collectivize most of the economy with heavily limited/restricted property rights. Indistinguishable from National Bolshevism.

What they all have in common is a disdain for private property and business that isn't controlled or directed by the State. Fascism is a superior upgrade to the first two versions of socialism, but it's still intensely hostile to you owning property or directing the affairs of your own business if it doesn't serve the economic or political goals of the State. You are a slave of the State in all of these systems.

Follow @redideologies

Keith Woods explains that Mussolini "was held back" by conservatives, the constitution and the monarch from implementing his full program of revolutionary economic socialism. So despite bragging of socializing 75% of the economy, Woods contends Mussolini would have gone further if not for saboteurs.

So then what is the difference between Mussolini's economic policies and Lenin's and Stalin's in the USSR? Precious little. Hence why Mussolini quickly recognized the Soviet Union in 1924 and signed a friendship pact with the country that he admired.

Follow @redideologies

In this debate two Marxist-socialists (Haz & Logo Deadalus) are purity spiraling against two fascist-socialists (Woods & Davis) and vice versa.

The contention of the communists' here is that "fascism is not socialist enough" and the fascist response is: "yes, it is mate".

This is ideological infighting between two groups of economic leftists, both arguing that they're "the real socialists!"

Follow @redideologies

Nazi-Soviet collaboration.

Soviet and Nazi German troops met and held a victory parade together in the Polish city of Brest in 1939 after the joint conquest of Poland.

"On the left – Soviet officer, on the right – German officer, in the middle – German unteroffizier and probably translator. USSR and Nazi Germany worked together in conquering Eastern Europe of which this picture is a testimony. This photo was taken during Soviet-German Military Parade in Brześć-nad-Bugiem, Sep. 22, 1939. Soviets and Germans met to celebrate the victory over Poland. That September, in violation of their own treaties with Poland, both of these allies invaded and partitioned the Second Polish Republic. Thus began World War II.The Soviet and German troops met on numerous occasions. The most remarkable event of this kind occurred at Brest-Litovsk on 22 September. The German 19th Panzer Corps—commanded by General Heinz Guderian — had occupied the city, which lay within the Soviet sphere of interest. When the Soviet 29th Tank Brigade—commander by S. M. Krivoshein — approached, the commanders negotiated that the German troops would withdraw and the Soviet troops would enter the city saluting each other. At Brest-Litovsk, Soviet and German commanders held a joint victory parade before German forces withdrew westward behind a new demarcation line. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939 included a secret protocol that divided territories of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union."

---

"The German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk was an official ceremony held by the troops of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on September 22, 1939, during the invasion of Poland in the city of Brest-Litovsk. It marked the withdrawal of German troops to the demarcation line secretly agreed to in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and the handover of the city and its fortress to the Soviet Red Army."

Source 1
Source 2

If they were such ideological foes, why did they work so closely together during this time?

Follow @redideologies

"From 1939 to 1941 the Soviet Union was a German ally, fighting in the eastern theatre and supplying Germany with the minerals, oil and food needed to make war against Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and most importantly France and Britain. During this stage of the war Stalin was eager to please Hitler, and in general fulfilled not only obligations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Treaty on Borders and Friendship but also specific requests of his German ally."

https://www.eurozine.com/when-stalin-was-hitlers-ally/

Follow @redideologies

"Between 1939 and 1941, as the Soviet Union presented Nazi Germany in its own internal propaganda as a friendly state, Soviet society ceased to criticize German policies and began to publish Nazi speeches. People in public meetings occasionally misspoke, praising “Comrade Hitler” or calling for “the triumph of international fascism.” Swastikas began to appear on buildings or even on posters of Soviet leaders. A similar level of ideological confusion is evident in Russia today."

https://www.eurozine.com/when-stalin-was-hitlers-ally/

Follow @redideologies

The founder of the French fascist party Jacques Doriot was a high-ranking communist before becoming a "fascist".

Follow @redideologies

Video footage of the German-Soviet victory march in Brest-Litovsk, September 1939. Big smiles all around.

Why were Nazis and Soviets collaborating if they're such ideological enemies?

Follow @redideologies

Marx's own definition of socialism was centrally planning economic affairs. Don't let other economic socialists who don't like Marx for other reasons tell you any different.

Follow @redideologies

National and international socialism are the same thing in the end. Every socialist state ever in existence was national (Cuba, Venezuela, China, USSR, East Germany, etc... they all had physical borders distinguishing them from other countries) and the end goal of Marxists is to create a global nation-state under economic socialism... or an "international nation" with workers in control.

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&t=38s

Follow @redideologies

How the Third Reich exported its economic inflation to other countries while sucking their resources back into its own. This was a necessary process of their heavily socialized economy and autarky practices. International trade was drying up because of their aggressive foreign policy, so the only way to keep the ship (the bloated welfare and warfare state) afloat was stealing from other countries.

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&t=38s

Follow @redideologies

The philosopher king of Fascism, Giovanni Gentile, called his ideology "practical Marxism".

"Let me tell you this, none of them had sympathy for traditionalism, let alone cried about returning to the past, figures such as: Sergio Panunzio, who saw Fascism as the highest realization of Marxism; Nicola Bombacci, who believed that the actions of Mussolini were in line with the Marxist-Leninist dialectic. Bombacci would aid Fascist thought by bringing mainstream Communists into the fold, individuals such as Giovanni Bitelli, Federico Giannini, Dino Fiorelli, Mario Guarnieri, Bruno Ricci, Sigfrido Barghini and Alibrando Giovannetti. Oh, and let us not forget how Giovanni Gentile, the main philosopher of Fascism, believed that––not only did fascist doctrine achieve the only feasible form of Socialism––but Fascist Philosophy had become a form of Practical Marxism." - Source

Another quote from a fascist:
"Giovanni Gentile does not reject Marx, but rather builds upon Marx by pointing out that Marx was actually just a "confused idealist", and that Fascism is in actuality just "a better Marxism". In other words, Fascism is not "Anti-Marxism", but more accurately "Post-Marxism". It is a "superior Marxism" or “practical Marxism” in praxis because it’s built upon a coherent ontology unlike the vulgar materialism of Marxists that follow figures such as Engels and Lenin."

So how exactly is it off-base to call this ideology a variation of Marxism? That's just what it is.

Follow @redideologies

According to David Irving's book Hitler's War & the War Path, Hitler regretted supporting Franco in the Spanish civil war and liked the Republicans better because they were "socialists" and could be made into "good national socialists" later.

The quote:

"Early in November 1937 Hitler told his staff that an outright Franco victory in Spain was not desirable: ‘Our interest is in maintaining existing tensions in the Mediterranean.’ That Franco was fighting the Communist-backed Republicans was of only secondary importance. In April 1938 Hitler would muse out loud to Reinhard Spitzy, Ribbentrop’s private secretary: ‘We have backed the wrong horse in Spain. We would have done better to back the Republicans. They represent the people. We could always have converted these socialists into good National Socialists later. The people around Franco are all reactionary clerics, aristocrats, and moneybags — they’ve nothing in common with us Nazis at all!""

Follow @redideologies