I've never been a strong believer of happenstance, honestly I'm basically certain most everything is by design. So, with that in mind let me state the obvious and see if you reach the same conclusion as I...
First we need a couple of quick definitions.
Socialism- a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc, in the community as a whole
Fascism- a governmental system with strong central power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation.
Statism- the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
Now we have traded morality and principles for the criteria of acceptability. Doesn't the news immediately turn to polls to see what the popularity of any action or proposition within our governmental structure? Our definition of what is right for our country has turned into emotion. What ever stirs the masses as good for them has been deemed acceptable, side stepping principles and morality. We have forgotten that often what is good for us as a nation, as define by morality and principle based thought, is not sometimes easy to swallow. It's like a diet plan, or personal savings, they demand sacrifice for long term gain, or in a diet's case, loss.
Now what has this to do with Socialism, Fascism , or Statism? Well, since we've defined or morality as what is acceptable to the masses driven by emotion, can we assume whomever assembles the largest "gang," and pose the greatest threat by riling up it's base, will drive popular opinion, thereby encouraging government decisions? If this starts to sound like the unions, stop me. A mixed economy ruled by pressure groups is an amoral institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies all fighting for control of the legislative process, seeking to exhort some special privilege at other's expense. At best they are attempting to change the size and scope of government by using this pressure to gain compromise. Enough compromise in your direction, and you've moved the nation toward your goal.
The doctrine of compromise, that we hear so often called for in Washington, applies to everything except one issue: any suggestion to expand the power of government. It's also mandatory it's not used to water down morals or principles. There is no use for moderation there.
If you've noticed our President has no specific policy, in fact it changes daily with the wind. a blank check on power is all he seeks. Thereafter he adjusts to whatever pressure group fits his needs. He's made the average businessmen the milch-cows of his economy demonizing them as the wealthy who need to pony up more to feed his welfare projects, social and industrial as his next election requires. A random mongrel of socialistic schemes, communistic influences, fascists controls shrinking the remnants of capitalism and personal freedom, rolling in the direction of a fascist state. His vision extends barely beyond the next election.
Our President, and the left, view our wealthy businessmen as domestic animals who need to be trained to carry the nation's burden, and do their bidding. And they are using the emotion of the "gangs" and calling for compromise to achieve this goal. The notion of a "partnership' between a private group and public officials, between business and government, between production and the force of government on those businesses is a corruption of free market principles, and typical of a fascist ideology, that imposes force as a basic element and ultimate arbiter in all human relationships. This is where the left uses union pickets, uprisings, and small riots inspired by emotion, not principle to apply pressure.
While we have embarked down the path of Socialism influenced by compromise, and maintained by emotion; the grim joke is on them. Their alleged ideals have paved the way for, not toward Socialism, but toward Fascism. Soon the class warfare will allow the privileged "elite" of "intellectual" profiteer of this Fascist oversight of our nation. The camel's nose is under the tent, and compromise of morality and principles has allowed that.
Fascism requires one party rule.- What will the notion of government by consensus do then? We've seen the result of one party rule prior to the 2010 election, it isn't pretty. How was the opinion regarded during the health care debate?
Fascist goal is the conquest of the world. George Soro's and his "one world order" comes to mind, along with the global minded United Nations. Are they not currently interfering in changing the government of a sovereign nation?
See if this sounds familiar....
We demand the sharing of the profit of big business.
We demand a broad extension of the care for the aged.
The government must provide an all around enlargement of the entire system of public education. We demand the education of poor students at government expense.
We demand every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education.
The government must undertake the improvement of public health.
Sound like the talking points of our current administration? It isn't...It's the excerpts adopted by a certain political party in Munich, Germany on February 24, 1920. That party was the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, which was later shortened to the Nazi party. The premier fascist regime.