????So…I guess I'm not quite following the line of thinking from Mussolini and Hitler to Hollywood….I could make up my own connection but I'm guessing you have something specific in mind here.  :-X

Ah….I think that fascism and socialism are ultimately rooted similarly in that they both end up in totalitarianism to achieve their objectives.  I had a professor once who mentioned how it may seem like they are opposite ends of a straight-line spectrum, with one ideology on the left and the other on the right, but it has been suggested that it should be more like a horse shoe or circle, rather than a straight line. 

If one reads Liberal Fascism [look for a red book with a yellow smiley face, sporting a Hitler mustache  ;D] much will become clear about how we've gotten to the current point. While the title seems a an oxymoron it's not; the socialism and social engineering is the key to understanding. Finished it recently and it gives solid testimony on this topic.

….In that same class I took the professor framed the fascist/socialist distinction in easy terms, and I add some of my own comments here.  The fascist views society along racial lines, so the intermingling of the races within a community is the area at which tension within the fascist view occurs.  As such, it considers society in vertical categories along race, ethnicity, etc.

Agreed.

The socialist/communist views society along economic class lines.  Tension does not occur between black and white or whatever, but rather between rich and poor, the haves and the have nots.  As such, this ideology considers society within horizontal categories.

Marx mentions nothing about any of these because it is always a struggle between “the haves and the have nots”… as you state, simple economics.

I'm sure there are much more detailed divisions among these views, but this is what basically puts them on either the right or the left.  Interestingly enough, I would say that today's conservatives are much less “fascist” in their thinking than liberals are “socialist”, since the call now is for a “colorblind society” which doesn't really recognize race (through eliminating affirmative action, etc.).  Some might argue that the whole “colorblind society” drive is really an attempt to divide whites from minority groups, but I would seriously disagree with this.

Today's conservatives are more truthfully classical liberals in the sense of the Enlightenment… Adam Smith, Mill, and the like. Personal responsibility is the key here not the gov't nanny-ism of any totalitarian regime… communist, socialist, progressive, or fascist.

Ski, I think nationalism was secondary but played a part in Hitler's call for unifying the people behind him.  He used words to stir up anger against the situation that befell Germany after WWI.  I say nationalism was secondary because he readily took other nations into the fold, such as Austria, and seemed to hold people in the Aryan culture, rather than strictly those of German nationality, in high regard.  Even aside from the Jews, I think Hitler would not have had much good to say about Communists who also Germans of many generations.  So while he may have called for a “German” rule, I think this may have been ultimately a lesser goal than having an “Aryan” rule.