“For liberalism, the individual is the end, and society the means. For fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.”

I have to smile, I like it.

That's not fascism, that's socialism. And its not liberalism, but rather libertarianism. Liberalism is far more about finding the middle ground of meeting individual's needs as well as societal needs. Fascism is all about power to the few to control the many.

He is, of course, using the original meaning of liberalism here-classical liberalism-which phrase was coopted by socialists because socialism was so unpalatable to Americans. The true liberalism of the Founders was closer to libertarianism than anything else. Now that liberal has become a dirty word, Progressive is in vogue. So-called progressives have more in common with fascists than liberals. FDR and Mussolini could have been almost interchangeable if Hitler had not come along.

Too dated. What is now called 'Liberalism' or 'Progressivism' is the epitome of Fascism.

@Reston, fascism IS socialism. The NAZI party was the National Socialist Democrat party -- basically the same as the Democratic Party which now have several outspoken Socialists among their ranks. Hitler was elected by the people -- and they even voted him into office for life.

Leftists do seem to have difficulty coming to terms with their ideological progenitors like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- take your pick. Leftists demonstrate a complete lack of respect for human life that does not fit into their 'plan.' Socialists are well-known for essentially planning everything, for everyone. People thinking for themselves is always considered dangerous -- especially if they come up with a different idea of how to live than the life planned for them.

Wrong:
The people on this blog, with the exception of a few, have no idea of the true meaning of Liberalism or Socialism:
Please let me educate you. This is from Bertrand Russell:
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it.
The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fools paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
and this is from the Free Dictionary:
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
I hope this helps everyone. Your disdain for Liberals, I hope, has been tempered...

Liberal, progressive, fascist, socialist, communist, not a damn bit of difference between them. All believe that the end justifies the means. All disregard individual liberty. What we call a liberalism today is a perversion of the classic liberalism of Jefferson and Monroe. The damage that has been done to our culture and is probably permanent. For over 100 years these "progressives" motivated by their hate for our constitution have destroyed the education system, legal system, and have succeeded in making our government a government run by unelected "experts" that make our laws and regulations while answering to no one. All of it has to stop now or we will have no liberty left at all.

The quote spoken by a Marxist who later joined the " National Fascist Party " Anti-individualism, anti Classical Liberalism.
Nadiyb liberal, churl, a vile person, Grandee, a Tyrant. Disregarding God's will of natural law, Nadiyb liberals embrace Keciyl foolishness, condoning reprobate behavior, insolvent in religion seeing the wicked florish thinking they have the right life style. Reprobate liberality. Robert, somewhere, your blending of Nadiyb and Brakah liberal shows the foolishness of compromise and the misdirection of understanding. Drowr, Pure Liberty never condones socialism or fascist intentions of social equality at the point of a gun ! If you claim to promote Brakah liberality then you would no doubt promote ancient Chophshiy Liberty, Freedom from bondage and tax, at your pleasure. In one accord with Eleutheria, and Apeleutheros Liberty. Manumission from slavery, and access to the presence of God as a Freed Man.

The day we get rid of religion will be the day we can all come to the table and discuss problems intelligently and peacefully. The World overnight will belong to all of us as individuals and our creative power will be allowed to flourish.. It will be an enlightenment of the kind never seen before...

Robert, I would have to agree with you somewhat if accurate definitions of religion were accepted as a premise or start of the discussion; by way of example: Marx's, "religion is the opiate of the masses" is understood to be a great description of socialism, Atheism is a religion when acted upon as a moral platform or ethical reason for accomplishing a specific deed, and anything outside the immediate domain of natural law (or the law of nature and of nature's God) that is an object of conscience, an ethic(s), a moral(s), a value (system) or an orientation of correctness / enlightenment, believed sufficiently conventional and sacrosanct as to enable an attributable action.

Robert, classical liberalism and progressive liberalism differ in a fundamental way -- particularly with regards to your proposed 10 commandments. Are these principles or statutes? The Golden Rule is a 'rule' not a 'law'. Adhering to the rule voluntarily for its own sake is a far cry different from enforcing a 'statute' no matter how well-meaning. One way empowers the individual, the other disempowers him for the good of the 'group'.

As fundamentally important as the Golden Rule is, if it became the Golden Law to be enforced by men, there would be no greater tyranny. It is as it has always been: who is responsible for the condition and quality of my life? If I am not pointing to myself, I am likely socialistic/collectivistic in my thinking.