This guy nailed exactly what is wrong with the Democrats. He’s also absolutely correct that “fascism” is actually a response too far left communism.
I put fascism in quotes because I don’t believe what we’re seeing. Today is truly fascism, but I understand the logic here. The further and further left a society goes the stronger. The right wing response will be to restore order.
This
And of course gotta note that when you are far left…The center looks the right to these maniacs. So hence calling normal/minor/common sense shit…“Fascism”
Pure comedy
For all the BS and it is BS about the left being communist and socialist the reality is the right had taken away rights. Let’s not ignore facts. Name one thing the left has taken away when in office.
Can you imagine the left using the national guard or military in actual US cities? The right always accuses the left and points fingers but it is the right who actually does what they are accusing the left of. Was it or was it not George W Bush that decided because he and his administration fucked up on 9/11 that he created the patriot act and started spying on citizens. Hello 
.
Was it the left or right who decided women should have a right taken away? Hello. You can blame the left all you want during Covid….but it was trump who was president. No one forced his hand this asshole makes decisions all the time without an experts opinion.
What is amazing is that wanting to lock up your political opponents because they dont agree with you is coming from trump. Trump is a felon and actually broke laws. It was the right who did not allow obama to pick a judge because it was supposedly to close to the election. Wait but when a left judge died even closer to an election basically forced another judge through to tilt the court. Should we go on?
The right is trying to rewrite laws. For all the so called election rigging bs it is the right who is trying to steal seats in texas. Hello. Your full of shit……
Oh Ok
80 cleared it right up for us.
Bro is having his own conversation skeeter.
80- the guy is making a simple point. None of what you said addresses any of it.
Bro is having his own conversation skeeter.
Dude needs serious help. These rants are scary.
per usual
Not really at all.
Let’s see what he actually says:
Communism predated fascism
It’s goal was to dismantle class hierarchies and traditional authority in pursuit of radical equality
To enforce this regimes relied upon propaganda, censorship, political imprisonment and the destruction of cultural identity
In the soviet union, churches were destroyed, in Mao’s China young people were told to destroy old customs and in Cambodia even personal names were banned to force total conformity
Now that instinct to erase the past, revise reality, and suppress dissent is alive in the radical left today and increasingly in the Democratic Party
Their ethos is deconstruction masked as progress, uprooting norms, history and identity while undermining the rule of law just as much they claim Trump does.
The left throws around the word fascist to describe Trump or anyone on the right but real fascism didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was a reaction to communist upheaval. Mussolini began as a Marxist. Hitler’s rise came a worker’s party that fused socialist language with extreme nationalism to restore order amid chaos.
Now, here’s the key – Conservatives do value order and tradition more often than liberals
That’s not fascism, though. It’s moral intuition and as Jonathan Haidt notes in book, “The Righteous Mind” , conservatives emphasize authority, loyalty and sanctity while liberals focus on care and fairness. But, defending America’s founding principles now gets labeled extremist, when in reality
It’s a response to disorder when the state fails to maintain order, look at 4 years of open borders, for instance, it’s not radicalization that responds to this its re calibration, a restoration of order
Communism does predate fascism. It was created in the mid 19th century but wasn’t ever attempted until Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution that begin in 1917. 2 years later Mussolini founded the Fascist Party. It hardly took hold and played a very minimal role in Italy or anywhere in Western Europe at the time, though was present. It was, however, not practiced in any way in Italy at the time. So, the concept that fascism was a direct response to Socialism is without any historical merit. Moreso, Mussolini borrowed from socialism in creating fascism. He broke with the socialists over WWI as they opposed entering the war, but he argued war could strengthen the nation and accelerate social change. During which, he developed the idea of a revolutionary elite, a vanguard that could seize power to reshape society, combining nationalist and authoritarian principles.
After WWI, Italy faced serious economic hardship, rising inflation, extensive unemployment, strikes, and yes, fear of a socialist revolution- the Two Red Years, Biennio Rosso. It was "aggravated by mass demobilization of the Royal Italian Army at the end of the war. Association with trade unions, the Italian Socialist Party, and anarchists increased substantially. Agitations began between right wing and left wing militias in Turin and Milan and the Padan Plain, along with peasant strikes, workers strikes, etc. Workers demanded “factory councils” at FIAT plants, a demand that did not go over well.
He took the opportunity the turmoil presented and formed groups of ex-soldiers and nationalistic veterans known as Fasci di Combattimento in 1919. Mussolini’s fascism didn’t rise as a result of socialism or a socialistic threat, but exploited the opportunity, for sure. Economic instability caused by WWI, worker strikes and fear of a revolution made the population receptive to fascist promises of order, nationalism, and protection of property. He definitely used the rhetoric of the socialistic threat but post-war inflation, unemployment among returning soldiers, land shortages were all the causes of the turmoil from which then several movements, including socialists, sprung about causing the social unrest favorable to allow for a fascist rise. A match itself won’t burn down a forest, but if the forest is dry for an extended period of time, hasn’t had a burn of any kind in decades, etc…the environment would then allow for the entire forest to be burned due to the single match.
The fundamental argument is that fascism is a response to socialism, which is historically illiterate.
“Hitler’s rise came as a worker’s party that fused socialist language with extreme nationalism to restore order amid chaos.”
First, he’s attempting to soften and justify Hitler’s Nazi regime and placating fascism, even if unintentionally. He tries to frame Hitler’s actions as reaction rather than aggressive and casts his actions as defensive and rational, rather than a deliberate authoritarian and genocidal project. The German Worker’s Party was built on being anti-Marxist, anti_Semitic and largley a local party. The only “workers” element to the DAP was that it favored and focused on ex-soldiers from WWI who were unemployed. Hitler took a fringe nationalistic party and turned it into a revolutionary movement with fully developed political program which led to the ideological groundwork for the Nazi state.
Emphasizing “worker’s party” and “socialist langugage” implies that the Nazis were somehow ideologically aligned with popular, egalitarian movements which is just an attempt to normalize their right wing, racially violent agenda. Funny, he doesn’t mention the Holocaust, mass murder, suppression of dissent, theft of property, and anything else that happened under the Nazis in his attempt to categorize it as “restoring order amid chaos.” It also implies again that the chaos was caused by socialism, which again is historically illiterate. There have been extensive writings on why the Nazis prevailed in Germany and not a one was about “restoring order amid chaos” caused by socialists. Post WWI economic upheaval due to Germany’s role and the Treaty of Versailles were clearly the causes as per every single fucking book on the subject in history.
This guy is trying to minimize the responsibility of Hitler and the Nazis, misrepresent their ideology and rationalize their rise, which is EXACTLY how fascism gets normalized in conversation. Because he’s calm and seemingly reasonable doesn’t take away from what he’s actually attempting to say, which is horrid.
"Communism predated fascism
It’s goal was to dismantle class hierarchies and traditional authority in pursuit of radical equality:
This is false and an attempt again to relate this to a modern situation when it’s not applicable. The goal of communism and socialism didn’t have anything to do with race- the goal was class equality not racial equality. “Communism’s central goal, as laid out by Marx and Engels, was the abolition of class hierarchies: no aristocracy, no bourgeoisie (owners of capital), no proletariat (workers), just a classless society where the means of production are collectively controlled.”
Communism and socialism are about class.
Fascism and Naziism are about race.
That’s dishonest framing. It’s sloppy history. It’s deliberate narrative shaping in trying to equate modern liberal social justice with 20th century authoritarianism. That’s historical revision, not analysis.
“To enforce this regimes relied upon propaganda, censorship, political imprisonment and the destruction of cultural identity
In the soviet union, churches were destroyed, in Mao’s China young people were told to destroy old customs and in Cambodia even personal names were banned to force total conformity
Now that instinct to erase the past, revise reality, and suppress dissent is alive in the radical left today and increasingly in the Democratic Party”
The USSR, China and the Khmer Rouge did those things for sure. But, to pivot to the Democrats of the US today is a dishonest leap and false equivalence. Mao told kids to smash temples, but today’s Democrats are simply talking about not celebrating Confederate Statues that were erected in the 20s at the height of the KKK movement. Stalin banned religion and sent clergy to the gulags. Democrats didn’t do anything like that. Instead, you’re bitching about red cups at Starbucks and pronoun usage. Pol Pot abolished personal names, whereas someone on the left might prefer you respect their chose pronoun. If you can’t tell the difference between mass imprisonment and genocide vs cultural debates on saying Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas, you’re simply dishonest or mentally unstable.
Now, he purposefully leaves out that authoritarianism isn’t unique to the left. The very fascist regimes he tries to whitewash are the ones who burned books, banned the free press, destroyed Jewish culture and millions of lives, censored opposition, crushed unions, jailed dissidents and erased identities. Those aren’t responses to socialism. Authoritarian regimes, both communistic and fascist, used propaganda, censorship and cultural destruction but that’s authoritarianism not a partisan brand. He’s being dishonest in pretending Democrats of today debating history lass or monuments is the same thing as Stalin’s gulags or Mao’s Red Guards. Again, that’s not analysis. That’s a dishonest smear.
“Their ethos is deconstruction masked as progress, uprooting norms, history and identity while undermining the rule of law just as much they claim Trump does.”
Again, an emotional punch that collapses when you slow it down. “Deconstruction” is a method of critique, questioning which voices or traditions got prioritized in history, law and culture. The dishonest framing (again) is trying to claim deconstruction is the same as destruction, deliberately swapping “critical analysis of norms” for “smashing society.” In reality, debating which statues belong in the public space or revising textbooks to include omitted perspectives isn’t erasing history, it is expanding history.
Erasure is when you ban discussion of uncomfortable history, which ironically is what is happening on conservative controlled states today with the teaching of race and gender. Sicking AI onto all of our archived history to delete anything mentioning women, race, etc is what the White House is doing.
“Uprooting norms, history and identity” is a ridiculous. By that logic, abolition, suffrage, civil rights were uprooting norms and not progress. Nor does the claim they are “undermining the rule of law just as much as they claim Trump does.” Trump pressured officials to overturn election results, tried to subvert a peaceful transfer of power, and inspired an attack on Congress. That’s textbook undermining the rule of law. We can go piece by piece, but the blowhards and lapdog won’t acknowledge it regardless of how its framed. But, we’ve never once had an administration so mired in dishonesty and law breaking in the history of this country.
What this cat is trying to do throughout the entire post is dishonest. He tries to cast all progressive change (worker’s rights, suffrage, civil rights) as destruction, equate cultural change with authoritarian repression and blur the lines between policy disagreements and outright lawbreaking.
The entire post is a dishonest rhetorical attempt to placate and justify authoritarianism, paint progress of any kind as socialism and destruction, and soften some of the worst authorities in human history committed by fascists of the 20th century as a natural response to a problem that he again frames dishonestly. At the end of the day, this isn’t just sloppy history, it’s an attempt at dangerously rewriting history. Fascism wasn’t a response to socialism. It was its own violent, authoritarian project. Equating red Starbucks cups with gulags is propaganda, not honest analysis. He’s just trying to normalize fascism by painting it as “order amid chaos” while smearing democratic progress of any kind as authoritarianism. Again, it’s not analysis. It’s dishonest.
False. He discussed how hypocritical his post was, how it was an attempt at false equivalency and that the right wing party of the US is systematically attempting the very authoritarianism mentioned in the post while it attempted to categorize it as left wing socialism or communism.
Lol…No he didn’t you little captain save-a-hoe
Next
So, I’m curious - to you, since we’re casting off textbook definitions in favor of your feelings, what is fascism?
LOL… ^^^. Like anyone has time to explain it to this far left maniac for the upteenth time.
Get a grip, you little crybaby extremist cunt
Still no answer on what you consider fascism, el gato? Simple question
Lol ^^^. This dude just loves to talk…Must be lonely. Asks questions that’s been answered 500 times on this board.
No- I just don’t have time every day to keep up with you.
Anyway- here’s what Google says. Let’s analyze point by point:
Authoritarianism:. Fascism is inherently authoritarian, meaning it involves a concentration of power in a dictator or single party, with little to no tolerance for dissent or opposition
Trump is currently in multiple federal, state and Supreme Court cases. He’s respected all decisions. He’s also worked with Congress to creat a new bill. This all demonstrates he’s not an authoritarian.
Nationalism:. Fascism is strongly nationalistic, often emphasizing a belief in the superiority of one’s own nation and prioritizing national interests above all else.
While Trump is certainly a nationalist, I’ve never heard him demean other nations or ethnicities as inferior. Nationalism in and of itself isn’t fascistic…. It’s fascistic to use nationalism as a means to fascisitc ends.
(<——— that’s a middle emoji)
Militarism: Fascism typically promotes a strong military and glorifies military virtues, often using violence and aggression to achieve its goals.
Trump loves a strong military…. Don’t we all? But has he really been violent or aggressive? Not in my opinion.
Suppression of Opposition:. Fascism actively suppresses opposition and criticism through censorship, propaganda, and violence
Has Trump silenced anyone? I know former regimes have.
MAGA loves Trump but doesn’t Obama’s and Clinton’s people love them as much? I think cult is way overboard to describe MAGA.
Economic Control: Fascism involves extensive government control over the economy, often through corporatism (a system where businesses and the government work together)
The US government is already fascistic by this measure. Medicaid and Medicare…. Fannie and Freddie…. The bailouts. What’s Trump added? Nippon Steele?
I don’t see any rights of citizens Trump has eliminated or opposed. Illegals we can debate.
Social Hierarchy: Fascism often promotes the idea of a natural social hierarchy, where some groups are considered superior to others
Liberals definitely do this. Haven’t seen Trump or MAGA do it.
Trump quite the contrary is battling a trillion dollar propaganda machine.
Scapegoating and Persecution: Fascism often identifies scapegoats (e.g., minority groups, political opponents) as enemies of the nation and uses them as a unifying cause for the population, often resulting in persecution and violence
What is there to scapegoat?
Trump is going after former politicians and that can be perceived as political persecution BUT they’ve all committed alleged crimes that have been articulated and each of them are getting due process. It’s not like he’s throwing them in a cell to rot.
We’ve kind of gone down the trail already with you and definitions don’t really matter in your mind. So, again, what do YOU think Fascism is?
As for your points, they’re kind of laughable. Did you type into ChatGPT or MechaHitler “dispute these points”? What a joke
Never heard him demean other nations or ethnicites as inferior? 
None of these responses are honest. What a laugh. Never and honest day in your life. Why did I ever think you’d answer a simple question honestly?
You know what’s weird? When asking Google, somehow your Google seems to be more Pro-Trump.
Let’s see what it says when it’s asked objectively
Fascist movements and regimes of the 20th century, notably the Nazi regime in Germany, engaged in widespread persecution, violence, and even genocide against marginalized groups seen as threats to the national community.
Since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, few parties openly identify as fascist. However, the term “neo-fascism” is sometimes applied to contemporary parties and ideologies exhibiting characteristics similar to or rooted in 20th-century fascist movements. Such movements may emphasize ultranationalism, xenophobia, anti-immigration stances, and a rejection of liberal democratic values.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
does the Trump administration fit these categories and fulfill the definition of fascism?
Thinking
Working on this
Kicking off 5 searches
Looking at 50 sites
Putting it all together
Determining whether the Trump administration or Donald Trump himself fits the label of “fascist” is a complex and highly debated topic among scholars, political commentators, and the public
. There’s no consensus, and different perspectives highlight various aspects of Trump’s rhetoric, policies, and actions.
Arguments for calling Trump/Trumpism fascist or exhibiting fascistic tendencies
Rhetoric and demonization: Trump has been criticized for using rhetoric that demonizes specific groups (e.g., immigrants, political opponents), and creating a climate of fear and suspicion, reminiscent of historical fascist tactics.
Challenges to democratic norms and institutions: Actions like his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, his criticisms of the media as an “enemy of the people,” and his disregard for established legal and governmental norms have led some to argue that he poses a threat to democratic institutions similar to that posed by fascists in the past.
Cult of personality: Some argue that Trump cultivated a cult of personality around himself, demanding unwavering loyalty and exhibiting a strongman image, which is a characteristic of fascist leaders.
Militarism and authoritarianism: His calls for using the military against protesters, his emphasis on law and order, and his stated intentions to staff government with loyalists are seen by some as indicators of authoritarian tendencies, a core component of fascism. According to The Guardian, his former chief of staff, John Kelly, agreed that
Trump could be placed under the “general definition of a fascist”.
The Jan 6 Capitol attack: For some scholars, the events of January 6, 2021, when Trump’s followers stormed the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, represent a turning point in assessing the fascistic nature of Trump’s movement.
Arguments against calling Trump/Trumpism fascist
In conclusion, the debate over whether the Trump administration fits the definition of fascism is ongoing and multifaceted. While some observers, including scholars and former officials, have used the term or suggested strong parallels to historical fascism, others remain skeptical, citing key differences and arguing against the application of the term. Ultimately, there is no single answer, and whether one considers Trump or the Trump administration “fascist” often depends on how one defines the term and which aspects of his presidency and political movement one prioritizes in analysis.
How strange your responses seemed so curbed as to sound like Stephen Miller. Surely, you wouldn’t be so dishonest as to tell the AI to dispute each of these from the perspective of a MAGat, right?
Anyone ever tell you that you resemble Abraham Benrubi but bald?
Only the definitions were Google you nut bag. The commentary and emoji’s were me.
So, you trust ChatGPT to tell you what it is but not to answer as to whether Trump fits the bill?
Sounds like you knew he fit the bill so you decided you had to answer those yourself, dishonestly as always.
I didn’t use ChatGPT. I simply googled “list the main points of fascism” or something like that.
Then I commented on each one.
Not sure why you’re dissecting this? Is it because Trump is clearly not a fascist?
Ya we get it.
Chat GPT and other AI searches are really really good and always right when warden uses them…Not when others do though.
