Re: Regular MSNBC Guest: All Laws Passed Before 1965 Should Be "Presumptively Unconstitutional"

On 2025-04-07 3:41 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:05:38 -0700, moviePig wrote:
 

On 4/7/2025 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:

On 2025-04-07 12:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:30:50 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
>

That's a desperate definition of Fascism from wikipedia that tries to
make it seem otherwise to every Communist movement and state.
 
Here is fascism defined in American English:
 
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism
 
"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party
dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private
economic enterprise under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."
 
in other words, every communist state and movement, though
the definition of communism in American English:
 
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communism
 
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state"
 
Anti-fascists have often said that anti-communists are
only about opposition to this very abstract definition
of communism and never on any valid reasons.
 

>
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?

 
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
 
 

In other words, the language is just reverting to what it was in the
1930s where everything is fascist so the word means nothing.