Since they are clearly not the same thing, yet people love to throw the terms around (including myself) with little care and more often than not little knowledge as to what they actually mean or whether they even apply...

...Both suck?

Seriously though, what do you want us to discuss? Similarities and differences, or the fact that people love to misuse both of these?

i don't really care what they mean. obama is both.

And at the same time neither. Yet still he is both.

well, he is also a muslim theocrat. he is many things.

Frankly, the only difference I see is that Fascism doesnt surpress private enterprise as much as Socialism. They blur together in most aspects like censorship, elimination of oposition, imposing what is good and bad art and a very small state elite running every aspect of the country

Facism implies some level of central planning of the economy, but with private ownership, is this correct?

I don't know what to tell someone who can't see the difference between the two. Fascism is an ideology in which the individual is completely subsumed by the State. Socialism merely means the government ownership of the means of production.

didn't facism start as a negative reaction to socialistic and democratic ideals of mass citizen participation and egalitarianism?

Does socialism inherently have to operate such a way? Can you have a socialist government which does none of the things mentioned? On the other hand is it possible to have a fascist government which isn't necessarily oppressive?

Comparing totalitarian fascism and totalitarian socialism or totalitarian Ingsoc or anything else for that matter doesn't have much material difference in the end. But if you take the totalitarian part out of the equation they can be quite different.

By calling themselves National Socialists?

I think calling Nazis fascists is a bit of a misnomer, hence why I refer to fascism and Nazi fascism, because IMO the two are not the same thing.

If you take the totalitarian, aka coercion, you cant implent either fascim or socialism.

And I cant stand the common thought that socialism is a good idea that turns bad and while fascism is something evil from the very beginning. I would say that fascism is just a bit less hypocrite.

From an economic point of view they are pretty much the same. State controlled means of production, either by state ownership or rules.

From a personal freedom point of view they are almost identical. Neither system believes in personal freedom. They just differ in how they take away your freedoms. One does it through intimidation and threat to personal safety, the other does it through intimidation and the court system.

Both systems believe that "we" the government know what's better for "you" the people than you do and you are wrong if you believe you know what's best for you. They both have a complete lack of respect for the individual and treat them like bumbling idiots unable to act or provide for themselves.

Totalitarian does not equal merely coercion. Fascism is inherently authoritarian in nature. Socialism can occur in a democratic nation, which can dispose of it through the electoral process. As far as coercion goes, that's a whole other issue. Granted, the people in a socialist democracy who opposed a socialist party victory would feel coerced if/when socialist policies were implemented. But in the end, the losers in any democratic election often feel coerced as powerless victims.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending socialism, but it doesn't necessarily take a dictator to implement it.

The people of democratic socialist countries are no more free than the people of fascist states?

I was totally joking.

Yeah I know. I should have acknowledged that in my post. I was already thinking about the Nazi brand of fascism and wanted to say that, and your post was the prompt.