Canada and Cuba both believe in free universal healthcare, so naturally their governments are related, no?

Nobody believes in free universal health care. Castro believes in state-funded health care. Canada does not. In Canada, the provinces, not the Canadian government, are responsible for health insurance.  And it IS insurance: it is paid for by insurance fees, not by general taxation.

Perhaps I missed your point yesterday. Are you trying to say that most Western governments were corporatist for most of the xx century? fine, as long as it's clear that fascism is center-left by modern standards.

Or are you trying to say that, while most of the West was Keynesian, only Mussolini and Hitler can properly be called corporatist? that's also fine, but it means that M+H were to the left of the West, in fact as far left as you can go without abolishing private property.

Personally, I think that the truth is somewhere in between, but I have no problem with either position.

BTW if you read the original Gordon article, you'll see that FDR did use some quasi-fascist methods. What Gordon does not say is how FDR managed to overrule even the Supreme Court.

"However, to call the New Deal Fascist, because of government intervention at a time when most governments were desperately trying to intervene and stave off Depression and possible socio-political upheaval, is a shortcut to thinking."

A shortcut to thinking is to say "that a government can intervene and stave off Depression," whilst it is that government which created the Depression in the first place. Only Keynesians believe that the American government did not create the Depression. But it does not stop there. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs for example, enacted during the Depression, only made things far worse.

This remains true whatever label one uses for their policies, and it goes to show that Reagan did not just defeat Communism: he also defeated American fascism.

Actually Roosevelt defeated "American Fascism" by supporting Great Britain against the Axis powers first covertly and then overtly. Fascist/National Socialist movements were powerful in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain e.g. Oswald Mosley and the B.U.F.

Nor did Reagan shrink the size of government spending; rather the amount increased and went towards military spending such as the SDI and re-activating WWII battleships (e.g. the USS Iowa). He did succeed in allowing for the rise of multinational corporations and conglomerates, entities that contradict true Capitalism.

Government spending in the West (as a % of GDP) has increased since 1945, and only Thatcher was able to slow it down. F.e. despite slurs like "Soviet Canuckistan," Canada's government spending is barely more per capita than the USA and yet its education and medical systems are immensely superior.

Early in his tenure, Reagan authorized a military-intelligence campaign to test Soviet defences, causing paranoia in the Eastern bloc and heightened war readiness, and bringing the world to the brink in 1983-84 (CIA).

But Reagan did not he defeat Communism: the Pope, nationalism(s), and energy costs had more to do with it.

Anyway, the point of the article is that there are obvious relationships between Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR - to which we can add the Swedish Social Democrats. 

Actually you and the original author have failed to establish any significant link between Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler. There is no examination or comparison of the policies of other important countries such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Japan - all of which more or less came to embrace Keynesian economics.
 
Governments in both the United States and Canada that opted to stay out of the economy were voted out of office. Roosevelt's reforms were necessary to: (a) jump-start the American economy, (b) prevent civil unrest as a result of the Depression, and (c) regulate the economy to combat corruption and make the free market a viable option.
 
Keynesianism remained the dominant school of thought in (free market) economics, allowing for the creation post-war of the welfare state. Indeed, when it runs well, there is no substitute for a regulated free market economy and a social safety net. Of course, national debt and the energy crisis of the 1970s demonstrated that state spending was over-emphasized.
 
Thus, lumping together Fascism, National Socialism, the New Deal, and Sweden's social democracy is a shortcut to thinking. Canada and Cuba both believe in free universal healthcare, so naturally their governments are related, no?
 

Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR were indeed Keynesian, i.e. they jump-started their economies, but it is simplistic to say that they were "just Keynesians". Mussolini re-organized the Italian economy with the objective to abolish all internal economic competition: Italy was to be united against other nations. The program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party shows clear socialist tendencies. I doubt that Keynes would have approved.

• Firstly, you have not provided a relevant example from Roosevelt's New Deal to indicate that he went beyond Keynesianism towards Fascism (i.e. corporatist).
• Secondly, the NSDAP programme was in fact geared to draw in leftist support. The National Socialists later purged their ranks of Socialists and Marxist-Leninists, and the German Communist Party found its members to be among the first guests of the newly built concentration camps.

Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR were indeed Keynesian, i.e. they jump-started their economies, but it is simplistic to say that they were "just Keynesians". Mussolini re-organized the Italian economy with the objective to abolish all internal economic competition: Italy was to be united against other nations. The program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party shows clear socialist tendencies. I doubt that Keynes would have approved.

Anyway, the point of the article is that there are obvious relationships between Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR - to which we can add the Swedish Social Democrats. This remains true whatever label one uses for their policies, and it goes to show that Reagan did not just defeat Communism: he also defeated American fascism.

Hitler and Mussolini were both Keynesians, as was Roosevelt. For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was a British economist who advocated government spending to jump-start the economy, an idea that prevailed until the oil crisis and increasing burden of national debt.

Every European and North American country adopted new strategies to deal with the Depression: isolation for the USSR, Keynesianism for everyone else.

And yes, many world leaders admired Italy and Germany's rise to power, just as they had commented in the 1920s and 1930s that Moscow was the "vision of the future." Indeed, Oswald Mosley's Fascists gained significant support in Great Britain, and Churchill made certain pro-Fascist comments.

However, to call the New Deal Fascist, because of government intervention at a time when most governments were desperately trying to intervene and stave off Depression and possible socio-political upheaval, is a shortcut to thinking.

Bottom line for Mr. Gordon: instead of comparing quotes, take at least one economics class at your local college.