the rule of elitesseems to be in direct conflictwith "cultural liberalism"We currently have rule by the elite. What is wrong with a populist being the fist of the people so the elite are supplanted?
I will see if I can find an audio book of that
In his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018), Jason Stanley defined fascism as "a cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed
I am talking about reading this book or actually listening to the audiobook to get your perspective. I couldn't find it free though.
Later,the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was noexception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors.
"that basic definition encompasses a wide range of real-world variations on socialism""In practice, socialist countries can run the gamut from impressively progressive to staunchly conservative"
AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT "IMPRESSIVELY PROGRESSIVE" IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FASCISM
It was already shown that only SOME items were privatize, usually for convenience.
Not all socialist countries morph into fascism, but some do.
YOUR LINK LISTS GREENLAND AND ICELAND AND MEXICO AND BRAZIL AS "SOCIALIST"
AND YOUR PREMISE, BASED ON YOUR QUOTES FROM "RICH-MAN" CLAIM THAT SOCIALISM DEMANDS 100% STATE OWNERSHIP AND THEREFORE LEADS INEVITABLY TO AND OR IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM TOTALITARIANISM AND FASCISM
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GREENLAND AND ICELAND AND MEXICO AND BRAZIL ARE 100% STATE OWNED AND THEREFORE TOTALITARIAN FASCIST GOVERNMENTS ?
OR, DO YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT SOCIALIST STATES ?
OR, WOULD YOU PERHAPS LIKE TO REFRAME YOUR POSITION ?
SOCIALISM IS NOT TOTALITARIANISM
(IFF) SOCIALISM AND TOTALITARIANISM AND FASCISM ALL HAVE THE SAME DEFINITION (THEN) SOCIALISM = FASCISM
THE NUMBER ONE LESSON OF EPISTEMOLOGY IS THAT KNOWLEDGE HAS HARD LIMITSHUME'S GUILLOTINENEVER CONFLATE FACT WITH OPINION
we agree - end of debate
It does not. Here is what my cite says.... they "have constitutions that state that they are based on socialism, even if they do not rigidly follow the economic or political systems associated with socialism," ( https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries)
My position stands. It is that socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism.
Perhaps you would like to re frame YOUR position, or better yet, perhaps you would like to clearly state YOUR position?
I answer that most socialists do not know what socialism is
That is why I use citations, and ask YOU to do the same.
so having an explicit commitment to socialism in your constitution does NOT make you a socialist state ?
wrong againfascism does not require socialism
that socialism is not a form of governmentsocialism is a system of ownership
your citations are SECOND HAND OPINIONS
You even said that socialism is a system of ownership. You did not say it was an article in a constitution.
Perhaps if you understood the word "precursor" you would see.
As I said many times, the topic is "socialist STATES" not socialism as a micro ideal.
On #168Your comment is not worthy of reply.
ok, so NOW you decide to agree to my definition of socialism ?
No. They are SUPPORTED opinions. You have your opinions, yet you fail to support them.
