[Phlyer]

A distinction without a difference.

Leaving someone a piece of paper that says they 'own' a business, but they can't decide what to produce, or how much to charge for it, or how much to pay the workers, or which workers to hire and fire, or . . . anything else about the business is not a real difference with a system that where the government has the 'title' to the business.

They are both socialist systems. The key issue is whether rights and responsibilities are individual or collective. In both fascism and socialism all rights belong "to the people" . . . which is to say, no rights belong to anyone but the people collectively - that is, the government.

There was a distinction between 'national' socialism and 'international' socialism, but when Lenin declared that the homeland of socialism (that is, Russia) must be protected, that became another distinction without a real difference.

[Eva]

I think that you are mis-stating a factor of fascism. In fascism the “people” don’t own anything. It is privately owned and state controlled. It is a kind of symbiotic relationship between the state and elite group of citizens and industries. The people are just serfs. This is where Obamism differs from fascism, under Obamism there is no private ownership or even stockholders or creditors of regulated industries.

Obama’s fascism is really a new form of feudal system. The government are the nobles and the academics take the place of the state run church. The industrialists are like the overseers who manage the private interests at the direction of the elites and union serfs.