"So everything you would see left wing socialism do for poor people national socialism does for rich people. If you see affirmative action for poor people you see legacy admissions for rich people. If you see poor people need welfare handouts in left wing socialism, in national socialism (or fascism according to what Mussolini called it) you see welfare handouts, bailouts, grants, loans, etc to corporations."

That's what I said. Right wing socialism favours its right wing constiuents. It doesn't mean that legacy admissions are all Nazis any more than it means minority admissions are all Stalinists. Your question is meaningless so it's impossible to answer.

The point is any society has two socialistic tendencies, to benefit either the right or left wing. Both sides try to get the government to help them but they also help themselves and create societies to do so. Socialism comes from the word society.

So the right wing tends to influence some universities to favour them in legacy admissions, perhaps through donations, and people who think that way getting on the school board. There's nothing wrong with that, it's all voluntary but it still a group in society imposing through power a particular policy to help themselves. Legacy admissions are a bit of a dodge because previous students tend to be wealthier and better connected so it's a back door way of favouring themselves.

In the same way the churches might ask for donations to help the poor and disadvantaged, so this is a kind of voluntary socialism for the poor. Some colleges might in the same way want to help minority admissions, perhaps through pressure from previous minority students.

National socialism didn't arise as a government program at all, so for a long time it didn't have the bad connotation the name had today. The best analogy was a loose group of right wing militia. The country was broke from the terms that ended WW1 and communists (often jews) were trying to take over the country. So the whole movement grew out of anticommunism and restoring order to the country.

So national socialism was always about government control, but in opposition to communism. Eventually Hitler came to power and did a lot of good things for Germany at first. Much of his popularity was from resentment of the terms that ended WW1 including the breaking up of Germany. So the initial annexation of the Sudaten land and the Anschluss with Austria were popular with the people because they were mostly German.

The invasion of Poland was because much of it was also German. The Nazi Party helped Germany a lot with work programs that were as socialistic as anything Roosevelt did in the New Deal. Much important infrastructure was built, but the emphasis was not on helping the poor but a corporate welfare scheme with companies such as IG Farben, Thyssen (who Bush was involved with), etc.

If Hitler had got away with the invasion of Poland and stopped there things may well have been ok. There was a lot of sympathy for Fascism in the US at the time, and one possible coup attempt against Rooselvelt (IIRC) to turn the US the same way.

This is where you and Tom have it all mixed up, you think of Republicanism as the part of free enterprise and the Democrats as the part of state control and this is total nonsense. Libertarianism is you followed it properly is just against the Republicans as the Democrats and particularly hate Bush far more than Move On does.

The whole history of the growth of capitalism is not laissez faire but using government control to favour corporations with monopolies and favourable treatment. Nobody hated competition more than the older capitalists. The trains were set up with government deals to give them the land and so they ended up with monopolies on transportation in that way. They made lots of money because of their influence in the government. The oil barons bought their oil leases from the government and made their wealth that way. Wealthy corporations have always got that way through government influence.

You think Cheney and Halliburton represent some form of free enterprise? All they do is work for governments and get favourable contracts all over the world, apparently with some bribery in places. The airlines are the same, the numbers of routes and companies is highly regulated and that's the way they like it, to keep out competitors. The whole military industrial complex is just right wing socialism, the same way it was done in Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean it's bad or they want to kill Jews, it's the way corporatism works, and it has virtually nothing to do with free enterprise.

That's why Bush is so attacked by the libertarians, because he is basically a socialist. How many government programs have you seen him cut? How many regulations have you seen him remove to increase competition between companies? You seem to think this is all some big accident, that one day he'll start doing everything Ayn Rand said or something.