> The end point and most consistent form of Socialism is Communism which is an evil system of sacrifice of all to all. Almost every "communist" state perceived

> The end point and most consistent form of Socialism is Communism which is an evil system of sacrifice of all to all. Almost every "communist" state perceived themselves as a state in the socialist mode of production for which communism had not been reached yet. There were "communist parties" in these states that were seen as overseers of the task of transitioning to communism and "communist" became a convenient shorthand in the west for the governments of second world nations. "USSR" means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Furthermore, the organization of society under ML(M) countries was not perceived to be socialist by theorists from the left communist, trotskyist, syndicalist, and anarchist traditions of socialism who developed ideas like state capitalism, the degenerated workers state, and bureaucratic collectivism to characterize the USSR and their satellites. For many of these theorists, the fact that the USSR had commodity production and waged labor made them non-socialist (libertarian communists go further and suggest that the punitive state apparatus is incompatible with socialism as well). > Fascism is also a type of Socialism and also based on sacrificing the individual to state, nation or race and equally deadly. Explain to me; what does Capitalism, historically the freest and most productive and pro-life political/economic system have to gain by combining with any variant of Socialism, systems that have a track record of mass death and destruction? This is Hayek's characterization in "The Road To Serfdom", which has been strongly rebuked by almost every socialist and expert historian on fascism I'm aware of including Robert Paxton, Ernesto Laclau, and Umberto Eco. It can't account for the fact that fascisms "anti-capitalist" threats were almost always tied to a kind of national chauvinism that attacked "rootless cosmopolitans" and other anti-semitic and nationalist imagined boogiemen (Nazism for instance went to great lengths to distinguish between "Jewish capital" and "productive capital"). To the extent that industries were expropriated, it was to consolidate a national identity and dispossess perceived national enemies, however the fascists also pumped millions into the national bourgeoisie and arms manufacturers with no interest in collectivizing them. Oskar Schindler is only comprehensible with this understanding, as a German national who was well integrated into the nazi party and saw fascist Germany as an opportunity to extract greater profits with the fascist laws setting wages for Jewish people. Fascists greatly deemphasized class conflict, killed socialists in the earliest days of their rule, purged or killed the Strasserist third-positionist members from their ranks (don't mistake that for sympathy with Strasserists, they were just as bad, even if they're sometimes characterized as "the left wing of the Nazis"), outlawed unions, lowered the wages of workers, and waged battles in pursuit of imperialist conquest. A large part of fascism's success must be traced to collaboration with the national bourgeoisie and urban petty bourgeoisie as a reaction to the enormous growth of socialist parties in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Russia. A socialism that allied with the bourgeoisie and preserved private property rights and their accumulation of capital is an absolutely baffling idea. In almost no sense are they legible as "socialist" and it's telling that Hayak was quick to characterize them as such yet worked for his mentor von Mises while he was an economic advisor to Austrian fascists (von Mises also went on to characterize fascism as a movement which "for the moment, saved European Culture"). That's not even getting into the attitudes of every socialist of the time, which you can read about in almost every work published by a socialist after 1922 (and especially in the works of socialists under fascist regimes such as Antonio Gramsci). Socialism is not "government centralization" and to say this is to basically ignore the entire body of works of socialists informed by the Marxist tradition (which is to say, basically every socialist of the past 150 years even if they don't call themselves a "Marxist"). Socialism and capitalism are completely irreconcilable modes of production, and the only people who claim otherwise are generally social democrats and third-positionist fascists (for both of whom, socialism means partial nationalization of industries). Socialism and capitalism as opposite poles on a gradient of "anti-statism" is a convenient characterization for right libertarians who are happy to use the former USSR as a boogieman and completely brush over the coercive state apparatuses in every capitalist state (what are Angola, San Quentin, Rikers, etc. if not gulags?) that has ever existed and the fact that property rights and commercial exchange are features of a society that requires a state to enforce them. The "freest and most pro-life economic system" which was built on the transatlantic slave trade and genocide and dispossession of indigenous people from their lands (and which has been at continuous war with countries from the global south since after WW2).