Are you trying to say that authoritarianism is a component of fascism, but fascism isn’t the only type of authoritarianism? 'Cause that’s not super clear from your wording.
That’s not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.
Intent is incredibly important. In all systems trade happens. The idea that capitalism=markets is incredibly stupid, equally stupid is the idea that all work is done under a corporation for the sole purpose of making someone else rich, as you have suggested here.
The problem is not that things are done for the sake of the state or not, but what purpose things are done for. In fascism the state is owned by corporate interests, the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top. Work is done solely to make those corporate owners privately rich, nothing more. Each system is built openly for class oppression.
Even in the most brain rotted American views the ussr is nothing like that. You’d have to be a fascist or brain damaged to even try to argue it.
the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top.
This is the part that matters. This is also true for Soviet communism or really any real life communism. The instruments are different, but the song is the same.
Authoritarian is not fascism. It is a component, but communism and fascism are not even close to synonymous.
There was one famine from mismanagement, and Stalin wasn’t a great guy but this shit is really overblown.
Are you trying to say that authoritarianism is a component of fascism, but fascism isn’t the only type of authoritarianism? 'Cause that’s not super clear from your wording.
Yes
The USSR was a fascism because it was a central dictatorship with violent tendencies. The actual definition of the term.
That’s not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.
Didn’t the state own all the corporations in the USSR? How would that not be state and corporate power combined?
There were no corporations in the ussr. There were business, not multi regional conglomerates.
And even then the purpose of a corporation is to profit. That is it’s sole goal.
That doesn’t change that the powers of governance and commerce were in the same hands. Changing what you call it is just semantics.
Intent is incredibly important. In all systems trade happens. The idea that capitalism=markets is incredibly stupid, equally stupid is the idea that all work is done under a corporation for the sole purpose of making someone else rich, as you have suggested here.
The problem is not that things are done for the sake of the state or not, but what purpose things are done for. In fascism the state is owned by corporate interests, the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top. Work is done solely to make those corporate owners privately rich, nothing more. Each system is built openly for class oppression.
Even in the most brain rotted American views the ussr is nothing like that. You’d have to be a fascist or brain damaged to even try to argue it.
This is the part that matters. This is also true for Soviet communism or really any real life communism. The instruments are different, but the song is the same.
yunxiaoli, you’ve been made a complete fool of.
Google is free dude.
Google is evil. Use another search engine instead.
https://european-alternatives.eu/alternative-to/google-search
Google doesn’t cost money, but it’s not free.