Is Trump a Fascist?

Contempt? No, just a justifiable opinion that anarcho-capitalism will lead to social Darwinism. I could go on about it but you seem more interested in a social welfare system that you don’t like. Perhaps you would prefer a eugenics comeback? Bringing back abortion and free contraceptives will help, but you seem to want to go deeper, like starving homeless children without medical care will cut back on births and the number of living children….now that’s social Darwinism.

 

All societies give its citizens rights and responsibilities. Libertarians have a problem with responsibilities because they generally have self centered and unempathetic personalities studies have shown. Governments should be responsible for protecting the public’s health and safety and the public has a responsibility to support the government by paying taxes and participating in the democratic process.

 

Erase the elites! No, that’s not fascist.

POS Reich was saying of the two fascism is more dangerous. He was not “white washing” authoritarianism. Of your two examples Mao fits neatly into the fascist criteria and Saddam into authoritarian criteria.

 

“Corporations have a separate identity from their organizers and investors, they can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, and exist in perpetuity.“ The extent of those rights are still debated in the courts but how could a corporation function without them?

 

Business owners can do all that without creating a fake legal entity. Why are fake legal entities recognized by the govt?

 

Maybe because expecting the stockholders to make day to day decisions for the company would be inefficient and unworkable.

 

Not necessarily. What was it what the French people did in 1789? What did the North Americans do in 1776? All fascists?

Well convince him, he shows Mao as an example when he mentions the "lesser evil" authoritarianism. And there is some logic in his white washing as Mao doesnt really neatly fit into every criteria he gives for fascism (e.g. the role of the women).I dont know why you agree with Saddam Hussein as non-fascist authoritarian, he overachieves every single point he gives for fascism. Compared to him in every single point Mussolini looks like a rascal compared to a serial killer.

So, my points are the following:

1. He puts Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer of all time as the lesser of two evils in comparison to Trump, which shows to any decent human being what a rotten piece of **** he is himself and what his moral compass is worth. Acts of genocide against his own (planned starvation) as well as other people (Tibet), acts of cruel repression, terrible torture, executions, public humiliations the destruction of familes, culture, economic fundaments of the people and values, radical purges in political or economic classes is for him the lesser of two evil compared to Trump. In what world does this make him anything but a piece of ****?

2. Even within his wicked logic, in which obviously leftist tyrants are just named "authoritarians", thus lesser of two evils and with his doubtworthy definition of fascism, its simply wrong to put Saddam Hussein in the authoritarian side and not into the fascist side, because he fulfills every single point he gives for fascism by a mile. He refuses to applicate his very own definition on Saddam Hussein (I dont mention that he is putting again a genocidal and in contrast to Mao also absolute hazard war-monger as a lesser evil than Trump thus belittling the millions of deaths, deformed and broken people he is responsible for; we had this already at 1.).

My explanation is the love of the woke for vulgar anti-colonial/anti-imperialist narratives (see also BDS, BLM, FFF and so on).

 

A fake legal entity isn't required for someone to own part of a business. For example, there exists 'silent partners' who co-own a business, share profits, but have little or nothing to do with how it is run. They're different from stockholders in name only. But the business is still not its own legal entity, rather it is property of humans who are still legally responsible for their business and their activities.

So try again.

 

Short answer, no.

Stupid thread.

 

Sometimes pictures speak louder than words.

 

[/QUOTE]
Self delusion. Example: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...us-troops-in-ukraine-can-now-earn-hazard-pay/

 

Self delusion. Example: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...us-troops-in-ukraine-can-now-earn-hazard-pay/[/QUOTE]
The article carefully doesn't say any troops are serving there, just how much they'd be entitled to. Nice try though.

 

I already explained this to you; corporations can have many thousands of owners (stockholders)-- so (in a simplified version), either you get every one of them to cosign on all contractual agreements, or you allow the corporation to operate as an individual. The corporation's assets and income are typically going to far exceed those of the individual owner of a business.

 

The article carefully doesn't say any troops are serving there, just how much they'd be entitled to. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
Um, no. No it doesn't. It specifically mentions examples of those already there, with the rule being made retro-active. For instance they note,
"The Pentagon has said a small number of U.S. troops are stationed at the American embassy in Kyiv, working as its security detail and accounting for billions of dollars of military equipment the U.S. is sending to Ukraine.

A small U.S. special operations team working out of the embassy helps Ukrainian troops with intelligence operations and provides security for high-level visitors, but is not fighting alongside Ukrainian troops on the battlefield, ABC News reported in April."

And that's just what they're admitting to. In the past, the part about its, "accounting for billions of dollars of military equipment the U.S. is sending to Ukraine" is something that causes substantial alarm and it should. Sounds like Vietnam and Afghanistan all over again.

 

I agree, but I suspect only one of us actually does understand its meaning.

Something Republicans have been doing for decades with increasing ferocity.

 

I voted no. Fascism is a very specific phenomenon that is largely confined to a particular part of history. There are still Fascists around, but they are mostly fringe players.

Fascism is a variety of authoritarian right wing/nationalist populism. Trump is an authoritarian right wing populist, but that doesn't make him a Fascist. There have been countless authoritarian right wing populists in the last 100ish years and only a few have been genuine Fascists.

There are plenty of Trump supporters who are functionally little different from Fascist supporters, but that doesn't make Trump a Fascist either. Trump is dangerous & bad in his own terms. Calling him 'Fascist' is easy & lazy & not a million miles from the truth, but ultimately it is false and a distraction. Best to just stick to describing what he is rather than reaching for an easy term that isn't factually correct.

 

I disagree with your definition. A Fascist isn't just authoritarian. It is totalitarian as well.
The Republican base is fighting for a more libertarian government. There are things they are authoritarian about. I, for example, believe the 2nd Amendment not only protects your right to bear arms but to use them to protect your and others life, liberty and property. I am authoritarian in that you will not enter my country illegally. You will not mob a store and rob everything in it. You will not car jack me or others if I am armed and can kill you to stop you from doing it. But I am not totalitarian. I believe in free speech, free association, the right to bear arms and more.
It is the Democrats and Joe Biden that want you to own nothing and be happy. Ban gas powered cars forcing you to take either public transport or have an electric vehicle that can only take you 100 miles or so round trip. Collude with social media to censure wrong think. Collude with private industries to shut down people that are not silent and obedient. Fire people that don't want the clot shot. Have a MSM media that does your bidding. And more. Scary times.

 

Why would a business need its own fake legal identity to avoid having all investors cosign all contracts? Silent partners, for example, dont do that.

 

"In 1979, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Ye Jianying, described Mao Zedong's reign as a 'feudal-fascist dictatorship' due to his revolutionary terror-based cult of personality, nationalism and authoritarianism despite superficially socialist policies."

Saddam was a typical authoritarian strong man. There was no cult of personality, attempts to join the country in nationalism or vision for society. He actively suppressed factions that hated each other, Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites, while enriching himself. When removed they were again at each others throats.

 

A CEO may run the company for the owners who expect her to make decisions for the corporation. A criminal decision made by the corporation would not make a, say, a GM stockholder criminally responsible for that decision. The corporation and decision makers would be the ones responsible. Can you get your head around that?

 

Oopsy....see above

 

You can make that argument, however Reich defines fascism differently in his video (wrongfully imo), which leaves him some space to argue for his position that Mao was "just" an "authoritarian thus the lesser evil" compared to Trump. He gives a picture of Mao when he describes "the lesser evil". So, when it comes to Mao you can make a claim, that he is just moralically rotten and implicitly racist, not in the sense of nowadays snowflakes, but in the sense that describes Trumps verbally harsh statements as worse than killing about 70 million Asians like Mao, which lets you doubt if he gives them the value of insects at all.

In his wicked logic however he has an excuse to put Mao into the authoritarian" corner, which he describes as lesser evil. Its at least consistent though it shows he is a piece of ****.

Are you kidding me? Saddam statues in every village, celebrations of Saddam on a rugular base with secret police and the Fedayeen Saddam taking notes who doesnt show up, which can have the consequence these people get killed or their tongue cut out in public ... I wonder if there ever was a dictator with a more intense personality cult.

No, he was Sunni, his doctrine was there were 3 species on the planet God should have never created, flies, Persians and Jews. He started a war against Iran as a result of that hate and his fanatic militarism, which led to about 1 million deaths. He started the Anfal campaign during which he used poison gas to decimate the Kurdish population which he considered not loyal enough, he started a war against Kuwait as they refused to pay all his war costs against Iran, afterwards his response to the Shiite uprising in South Iraw was once again genocide, 300 000 people killed.

I mean in his results in pure numbers its nonsense to mention smaller genocides like that against the Marsh Arabs, etc.

Oh by the way in Iraq husbands who felt their honour was violated by their wifes had always a little wiggling room to kill their wifes, but just completely legalizing it was just possible under his rulership (so also the last point Reich mentioned, the attitude towards women is overfulfilled). This is a point he could try to argue for Mao being the lesser evil according to his wicked opinion, Saddam - now way.

Saddam is on spot on every trait he mentioned which makes up fascism, though he is putting him into the "lesser evil" "authoritarian" corner. Its the weakness of wokies for genocidal maniacs who use anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-White or anti-Christian rhethorics.

 

Except that is rarely what actually happens. Usually the govt just charges the company with a crime, and since a company cant go to jail, it just pays a fine. Govt seems happy to get the money and let the actual criminals walk. That only works when the company is a 'legal person' in a court of law.

The result is rich people (those rich enough to shuffle enough money around for a corporation to at least apear legit) are able to loophole out of being held resonsible for a lot of crime. And oh boy does crime ever pay ...when you dont go to jail for it.

 

Um, no. No it doesn't. It specifically mentions examples of those already there, with the rule being made retro-active. For instance they note,
"The Pentagon has said a small number of U.S. troops are stationed at the American embassy in Kyiv, working as its security detail and accounting for billions of dollars of military equipment the U.S. is sending to Ukraine.[/quote]

Every embassy is guarded by marines. Why should Kiev be different?

 

Funny rant, next to nothing to do with my post....or reality. You clearly don't understand what Fascism is (or was) and your view of current American politics is laughably wide of the mark. This is what happens when people spend all their time reading and posting propaganda.