[Saline9515]

I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat. I however live in a country where the soviet propaganda was crying "fascism" every single day of the year, for 60 years, so when I see people do the same I tend to be skeptical about it.

I still don't understand why "aggressively anti-socialist" policies are fascist. Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one, in France the fascist leader Jacques Doriot was one as well, for instance). Being a totalitarism, it aims at engulfing every aspect of the daily life, which means supporting socialist policies (similar to communism, another totalitarism).

Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist. Franco or Salazar are relevant examples, even thought today they would be categorized as such, since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.

Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism; it would likely be better defined as plutocratic cesarism, even though he did not make a coup (yet).

[dns_snek]

> I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat.

You don't have to be American to be a fascist-sympathizer, which you clearly are, since you label opposition to totalitarian methods as "the far left", lie about matters of fact, and grossly misrepresent the events that happened in fascist Italy while trying to represent yourself as someone intimately familiar with the matter.

For example:

> Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one)

> Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist.

> Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism

Fascism is not a branch of socialism, fascism frames socialists as enemies of the state and pledges to destroy socialism. Mussolini was clearly not a socialist ideologically, as he had them killed. That was the entire MO of the blackshirts.

> since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.

No, we're just using the word appropriately and you hate it. You'd rather lie and make up a story about fascism being a branch of socialism than admit that Trump is a fascist.

[Saline9515]

> Fascism is not a branch of socialism

You should read more about this, the creator of the fascist doctrine stated plainly that fascism was socialism with nationalist characteristics.[0]

Socialism and fascism share many similarities, given that they developed in the same context with the same roots : youth movements, focus on controlling education, citizen's health seen as a responsibility of the State, strong management of the economy, and so on. Both tend to classify political ennemies as a single group ("communists" in the case of fascists, "fascists" in the case of socialists), without distinction, just like what you are doing.

The fact that Black Shirts (which don't have a Trumpian equivalent) didn't like the other socialists doesn't make fascism less socialist, just like the soviet campaign against Trotskists doesn't mean that the USSR was less communist.

> we're just using the word appropriately

Rubio just admitted that the US participated in the strikes against Iran to please Israel. There is nothing fascist about this, and again plutocracy is a much more efficient explanation for the current regime actions. Saying that something isn't fascist doesn't make me a fascist.

"If you are not with me, you're against me" type of thinking... where did I see this historically?

[0] https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roo...