Are we working from your private dictionary, or from the history books? My recollection is that Italian industrialists got along just fine with with Mussolini, and that he did not much tamper with private property.
Mussolini forced businesses to join fascist-controlled employer groups, and workers to join fascist-controlled labour unions - Trump appears completely disinterested in doing such a thing.
Hitler banned all youth groups except for the Nazi Party’s Hitler Youth. Mussolini tried to do the same; but the entrenched power of the Catholic Church meant he was forced to tolerate its youth groups competing with the fascist ones. I haven’t heard of any “Trump Youth” and Trumpism appears to lack the fascist focus on banning all civil society groups except those formally affiliated with the ruling party.
Both leaders enacted explicitly antisemitic legislation - Hitler with enthusiasm; Mussolini possibly more due to pressure from Hitler and a desire to please his Nazi allies than genuine antisemitic conviction. I’m not sure what Trump’s answer to Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws and Mussolini’s Leggi Razziali (Racial Laws) is meant to be
Calling Trump a fascist requires ignoring many things which Hitler and Mussolini had in common but which Trump lacks
In Italy under Mussolini's fascist regime, private property was generally respected, but with significant state intervention and control. While private ownership wasn't abolished, the state exerted considerable influence over the economy through the corporate system, regulating industries and labor.
Private Property: The fascist regime in Italy did not abolish private property. Mussolini's economic policy, known as corporatism, aimed to organize the economy through corporations representing various sectors (e.g., agriculture, industry).
State Intervention: While private ownership remained, the state played a central role in economic decision-making. The regime established a Ministry of Corporations to oversee the economy and regulated labor relations through the Charter of Labour.
Corporatism: The fascist regime organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations. These corporations were intended to represent the interests of both employers and employees within each sector, but in practice, they were largely controlled by the fascist state and party members.
Limited Independence: The corporations and labor organizations had limited independence, and the state played a significant role in regulating their activities and resolving disputes.
Influence on Production: The fascist state influenced production and economic activity through various agencies and institutions, such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale (IRI), which held shares in key industries, and the Instituto Mobiliare Italiano (IMI), which controlled credit.
As in more regulation (leftist), not less (current admin)
Fascism is the expansion of the state, anti-small-government.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Propaganda isn't something that only happens to poor brown people in 3rd world countries. Its foolish to think that the people who do this overseas would never do it to you.
Doubling down on this when you're wrong is like someone in an abusive relationship that keeps running back and defending their abuser.
Centralizing power and removing obstructions yet being against censorship and wanting to arm the public?
Again, its incompatible with your warped view and understanding b/c you've heard the word again and again that has no meaning.
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"
Straight from the dictionary, I'm going to stand by my words here.
Which doesn't apply to the current administration, just fantasyland.
A small government regime, that wants to arm the public, is against censorship, wants to de-regulate industries, pro-capitalist, etc.. is not compatible with fascism.
How the hell is your fantasy a reality when you're literally wanting to arm the public and expand free speech?
The last guy wanted to get people fired from their jobs over an experimental jab (Nuremberg trials, anybody?), while his supporters were in favor of taking their kids and imprisoning parents into camps - expanding the government, increasing regulations, and literally forming a Ministry of Truth (DHS Disinformation Governance Board).
We've normalized bad behavior (ie: immigration law, Disinformation Governance Board, etc..) in this country for years and ignore laws governing that, so when we have to correct that behavior people tend to forget how we got here. I saw more systemic racism and discrimination under Obama & Biden than I have under Trump or Bush. I saw race and antisemitism heavily weaponized to divide and conquer under liberal administrations more than I ever have under centrist or right leaning administrations.
Its not fascism. Its just fools cherry picking things to live out some weird good guy/bad guy fantasy of theirs.
If this were a tech document, I'm sure the understanding would be far greater - but somehow that type of thinking and understanding goes out the window when it comes to this.
At various points, several western European nations have been "democratic socialist", with varying degrees of success. Not so much of those since the end of the Cold War, but they were generally on the liberal side when it came to personal freedom. For example, the UK — and sure, the UK had The Troubles and all the associated awfulness, and the Empire for some of that period, ditto — the police forces in England, Scotland, and Wales were not (and still are not) routinely armed.
Well, yes, but the next problem to talk about is definitions. Democratic socialism is a name that's not really socialist. Socialism is state control of the economy. That's fundamentally different to creaming the top off a capitalist economy.
Now if the UK enlarges the state to the point where the NHS owns everything and all resource allocation is directed by some bureaucrats, then, sure it's actual socialism. Until then it's capitalism with a giant all-powerful anchor attached called the state.
