Gary,
the point is that "Fascism" as a political and economic philosophy has no
relation whatever to conservatism or classical liberalism, but its emphases are
more consistent with Progressive thought, especially as it developed in the
early 20th century. You mention the provision of health care, education,
etc., but neglect eugenics as a method of social "betterment" -- and the
appeal was far from superficial. Commons, Ely, Ross, to name three,
were unabashed racists. And remember that many Progressives favored
entry into World War I (John Dewey, for instance) precisely for its "cleansing"
effects.
Militarism and nationalism are not defining characteristics of Fascism, any
more than genocide is a characteristic of Communism/Socialism in its various
guises (recall Stalin, Pol Pot, and others), but rather are characters
attributable to person, time, and place.
To clarify my point made earlier, I return to Einzig:
"In the sphere of production both Fascism and Socialism aim at
planning. From that point of view their interests are identical, and their
common foes are the remaining adherents of laissez-faire. They seek to
attain their end by different means. Socialism hopes to achieve planning
by the nationalisation of the most important branches of production.
Fascism aims at planning by a combination of dictatorship and voluntary
co-operation, without changing the private ownership of the means of
production.. Socialism hopes to be able to dispense with the driving force
of individual initiative. Fascism regards that driving force as
indispensable as far as production is concerned, but it endeavours to curtail
and supplement individual initiative in accordance with public interest.
From this point of view, again, Fascism is nearer to Socialism than to
laissez-faire with its principle of unhampered individual initiative."
(pp.107-108)
My concern is with the abuse of language. I am sure we can agree on
that point.
Charles McCann