Hitler also pulled Germany out of the Depression by 1935 due partly to public funding of the autobahn, years before the US was able to accomplish the same. I think the differences in the US heavily outweigh the few similarities between the US and Nazi-Germany. You would have to imagine the US govt consisting of only KKK and white supremacists and everybody else looking for a place to hide to reach the same level of control achieved by the Nazis.

This has always troubled me and I have yet to see a convincing explanation by anyone responsible for these reports. Could it be that the US government had a vested interest in making the Soviet Union and the Communist system seem much more powerful than they actually were?

And is water wet?

Firstly, I would take issue with your article's, and Mr. Brown's use of "Communism" as distinct from "communism". This is a clumsy and unimaginative distinction, and ultimately disingenuous. Brown, a self-professed liberal conservative, has an interest in equating the "half-baked" idea of communism with Soviet Russia and its satellites. This is inaccurate, and as a Sovietologist, he should know better.

The USSR was never communist, nor was it Communist. It would better be termed Stalinist, later reformed. Communism is a catch-all term that's intentionally nebulous, and using it in so cavalier a fashion can only be a political manoeuvre.

We can objectively call the USSR authoritarian, insular, possessed of a command economy, but we can't objectively call much of anything communism. The most shrill right-wing pundits in America and the UK would like nothing more than to have a picture of Soviet Russia next to the Webster's entry for "communism". It's the easiest way to permanently discredit the idea, to smugly declare "communism just doesn't work".

It's a tired analogy, but "does capitalism?"

A final point, your article stated that in much of the world there is stigma attached to the term socialist, and that in the USA it amounts to hate speech. This is patently untrue. There is not a single country I can think of besides the USA which has not seriously flirted with socialism, and where it remains a viable and respected political ideology. All of Latin America, of course, the vast majority of post-colonial Africa, almost all of Asia (Singapore excepted), and of course, Europe is essentially a social-democratic collective of states.

Also, note the extremely influential communist parties in India, Japan, and many Middle Eastern countries (notably Iraq, pre-Saddam). I'm afraid the USA is quite alone in its stigmatisation of socialism.

Two thoughts:

Much of this could inform our approach to Iran, which strongly resembles the Soviet Union in its defective system of political accountability, its patriotic national cohesion, and its apparent openness (today) to engagement, at least from some elements of society.

We have in our midst ample evidence of "democratic centralism". This would be the modern capitalist corporation, which is run very much on Leninist lines. Just replace "the people (i.e. the state) owns the means of production" with "the shareholders own the means of production". Now, corporations do not have the terrible powers of the state (although they have aspired to these on occasion). We can be thankful for this mercy. However, it does lead one to wonder whether there is another model for production that preserves competition and efficiency, but is more firmly rooted in advancing the interests of all stakeholders: owners, workers, and customers.

They don't think, they just respond to jingoistic slogans spouted out by the right and cower and send a few poor kids to die for some dimly perceived notion of the nation. It's all just so far from the Jefferson ideal.Capitolism has bred those legions of obese folks who apparently only live to eat their nutrient deprived fast food and laugh at anyone who can read a book or take a walk or really enjoy food that nurtures the body. It's beyond pitiful

If you look at the two political systems, Communism and Capitalism, they fail best when power is concentrated at the top.

Personal freedom, liberty and welfare is what is at stake in both political systems.

If you force communism, people cannot live as they choose and have no incentive to work hard as everyone is rewarded the same. The combined lack of production from a whole society of unwilling workers means everyone is rewarded less and everyone suffers. And you often see those in charge feathering their own nests while this is going on.

If you force capitalism, the government privatises public assets, and the costs of utilities, health care, education, etc. spiral out of control, employers needn't meet a minimum wage and normal people cannot afford necessities and slip below the poverty line. While those in charge feather their nests.

It's the simplest thing. You can take communism or capitalism to the extremes and people suffer. A balance is needed.

This is a very timely conversation. Although we Americans properly celebrate the democratic ideals of our revolution, we tend to forget the strong current of anti-corporate sentiment that drove it. The tide began to turn in the early 1800s as private corporations were chartered to build canals and railroads. That's the origin of American national socialism.

Also, popular illusions aside, we didn't fight Germany over ideology. And when we won, we got most of their propaganda experts (and split their scientists and intelligence operatives with the USSR). As a result, we've had 60 years of very mellow national socialism, with just enough democratic illusion and New Deal perks to avoid any unpleasantness.

It's been nice.

As a white person I think your observations are true ... but for the sake of arguement I suggest that some parallels are discomforting.

The US doesn't put people in concentration camps. On this we agree.

Your propoganda state rivals that of Hitler. Hitler would marvel at the US mass media and its effectiveness. He would salivate at its prospective use. American propoganda rivals the Soviets or the Germans in its subtlety and its worldwide coverage.

Brownshirts in politics? I suggest you listen to the "Dixie Chicks". I suggest you recall BOTH conventions.

Invading other countries for economic gain. Again check.

Torture. That's A-OK.

I wonder about incarceration rates. That would be an interesting study along with minority population incarceration rates between Hitler Germany and the US.

I suspect there was a transitional Germany before WWII that had many American characteristics. I would also suggest that there are some Americans who learned something from closely studying their opposition in Germany.

A dangerous part of America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to think that the German experience in WWII cannot happen in America. I respectfully disagree. Germans are humans and Americans can be just as stupid.

I would never want to live in Nazi Germany but could see myself again living in the US. I indeed see degrees of evil and see that the US isn't as bad as the Nazi Germany by a long shot.

But I do wonder where all of this leads to. Hitler would be amazed at the US's computer technology and I wonder what use he would put it to. Current US efforts to collect information on worldwide activities dwarf anything possible during Nazi Germany. Efforts to oversee those activities have been miniscule.

I also wonder about nuclear weapons. As China gains more power will the US be willing to share? Or will we just blow the world up? Again, I'm not sure.

Hitler would marvel at what he could accomplish with a slightly modified US state. Current economic conditions would provide a hotbed ready for Hitler's use.