Let's play a game: post an example of actual modern-day fascism.

[skepticratic]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

NO, fascism aka American liberalism is most certainly left wing


lets look at the gun issue that liberals push

so the idea of the fascist liberals it to BAN, ""all assault-style rifles, handguns, and any gun with a capacity of over five"" and ""ammunition is not covered under 2A. It could be banned completely in private hands""

why do the fascist liberals want to do like the fascist Nazi's and the Stalinists' of the USSR and take guns away???

why are the fascist liberal so stern on having the totalitarian government like they always push for.



Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.




the anti-gun people (and yes many are liberals) never can figure out that they are hurting the law abiding citizens, because crooks/criminals/scum dont care about the laws or restrictions on getting a gun


Communist Rules for Revolution:

1. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
2. By specious argument cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
3. Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders.
4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
5. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities.
6. Get control of all means of publicity.
7. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace).
8. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.


yep liberals (fascists) and their goal to disarm the people

I should just block you. Seeing a rambling posts that uses different words interchangeably and using out of context quotes to prove an argument are the exact sort of thing that get people a D on a term paper. It shows a lack of knowledge.

Communists and fascists ARE different. You can pretend they aren't all you want; it just completely stupid to do so. Same with liberals. Why I should have to explains to an adult (presumably) that different words might mean different things, I do not know. Low quality education I guess. But they do.

Liberalism is a 17th century idea, that never saw real implementation until the late 18th century at best. Most argue that liberalism came into it's own in the 1800s. Socialism was a 19th century idea, in response to liberalism, with communist parties taking over various states in the 20th century. Fascism was a 20th century idea, opposed to nearly all conventional western political thought, including both liberalism and socialism. This is basic political knowledge. If you cannot wrap your mind around it, you aren't worth talking to. Period.

And no, some vague similarities on gun policy is not evidence of being the same. Which should be obvious, but you seem to think liberalism, socialism, and fascism are all the same so I shouldn't expect you to grasp that. Also, the fact that you think a mainstream Democrat has the same opinion on gun policy as a Nazi is beyond ****ing absurd. It's a phenomenon I call "western decadence." Having never faced real political oppression, you exaggerate the perceived oppression you feel you live under, which is frankly an insult to those who faced legitimate oppression.

[Seagrape Grove]

Changing the actual definition of "fascism" from its original definition of the merging of corporate and government power to its current definition, as defined in the OP, is an example of facism.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by skepticratic

I should just block you. Seeing a rambling posts that uses different words interchangeably and using out of context quotes to prove an argument are the exact sort of thing that get people a D on a term paper. It shows a lack of knowledge.

Communists and fascists ARE different. You can pretend they aren't all you want; it just completely stupid to do so. Same with liberals. Why I should have to explains to an adult (presumably) that different words might mean different things, I do not know. Low quality education I guess. But they do.

Liberalism is a 17th century idea, that never saw real implementation until the late 18th century at best. Most argue that liberalism came into it's own in the 1800s. Socialism was a 19th century idea, in response to liberalism, with communist parties taking over various states in the 20th century. Fascism was a 20th century idea, opposed to nearly all conventional western political thought, including both liberalism and socialism. This is basic political knowledge. If you cannot wrap your mind around it, you aren't worth talking to. Period.

And no, some vague similarities on gun policy is not evidence of being the same. Which should be obvious, but you seem to think liberalism, socialism, and fascism are all the same so I shouldn't expect you to grasp that. Also, the fact that you think a mainstream Democrat has the same opinion on gun policy as a Nazi is beyond ****ing absurd. It's a phenomenon I call "western decadence." Having never faced real political oppression, you exaggerate the perceived oppression you feel you live under, which is frankly an insult to those who faced legitimate oppression.

it's you whom seems to lack the knowledge of the fact that the book definition from 100 years ago has evolved.

the fact is the progressive movement started in the late 1880's from it spawn modern liberalism, Marxism, communism, socialism, nazi-ism, and fascism. everyone of those ism's is left of center

fascism which is what was in 1930's Italy AND Germany is socialism lite. modern AMERICAN liberalism is a spin off of socialism/Nazi-ism/ and fascism.... our American liberals are not the liberals of "classic liberalism" which in today's America would be libertarianism, our modern American liberals spew the same rhetoric as the fascists and Nazi's and socialists of 1930's Europe.

Mussolini was a Marxist, who developed his brand of marxism/socialism... he called it fascism..
As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism". Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.

""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini

hmm high taxes...super control (authoritarian) by regulations...sounds like the American liberals to anyone with common sense

Hitler brought his version of fascism to Germany

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Sorry you are so insulted, that you cant admit, that modern liberals are the same as the socialists and fascists. it sounds like your education was wasted with doctrine to distance the mind set of modern progressives not wanting to acknowledge where their ideology has its roots.

[whogo]

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism...m-totalitarian

From the above link:

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.