The twisted part is these guys throw around the word fascism at anybody they don't like, yet they don't even realize how much of their own ideology is in fact deeply rooted in fascism.
It's a buzzword at this point.
Much of it comes from the 1930s where most of the world leaders were in this sort of agreement that capitalism had already failed and was dying out. Their ideological descendents still cling to the phrase "late stage capitalism" nearly a century later. (While never acknowledging that socialism completely and irrevocably collapsed along with the USSR 34 years ago.)
The question at least for me, is Why do the communist nee socialist systems have a tendency to evolve in a way that beings people like Stalin, Mao, Kin jun Un, Pol Pot to become their leaders, who end up being mass murders?
The "no true communism" reply is kinda old by now. It appears to be an integral part of the 'ism.
FDR and Winston Churchill were in love with Mussolini, who in turn was in love with Hitler. Progressives love the New Deal, and they have no idea that it was heavily inspired by, if not directly modeled after, fascist Italy, but in a way that was more palatable to Americans. Nearly every FDR policy was.
If rsilvergun, for example, actually researched Mussolini's economic policy, he'd start being openly fascist instead of just expressing fascist viewpoints while mistaking them as socialism (instead of what they were called at the time: state socialism, where the stylized double-S of the swastika comes from.) And yeah, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: rsilvergun is both authoritarian AND wants state socialism. He is in fact fascist, with people like drinkypoo and narcc not far behind.
They often repeat the line "national socialism isn't socialism!" Which is technically correct, it's not textbook socialism, which is why they drew a distinction. However, what they often incorrectly refer to as socialism today is in fact far more in-line with what was then called national socialism.
If we see the recent happenings in the USA, our left wing has - while claiming otherwise - become remarkably intolerant. Ask Democrat Seth Moulton, who does not have the party line that men are women if they say they are. They worked pretty hard to cancel him, and while it didn't work, the message is clear - "You must obey, and you must have the opinion we tell you you have"
Side note - the usual shaming tactics come out as well. I've been told that I have some weird obsession with trans people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply don't accept the science of it. If a genetic male wishes to dress and act like a woman, that's fine by me. Or a female dressing and acting like a male. No problem.
But claiming that they are in fact, not the sex they were born with, then making up new names like "birthing person" or "menstruating person" is just bullshit, a tapdance of backpedaling, which in itself lowkey admits they are antiscientific, as well as excluding women who cannot give birth, or are too young or too old to menstruate. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining, Dems!
It's an example of the rigid "our way or the highway" that the Democrats have evolved into. Their now overt racism against certain so Called "races" is out in the open, yet they wonder why young white males migrated away from a reliable demographic to vote Republican. And why older white males are their sexist, racist, and ageist presumed cause of every problem on earth. Herd to get people you openly to vote for you.
And their shaming tool regarding race demands racism.
I've told people that I believe race is the ultimate social construct and that Homo sapiens sapiens is all one group, with minuscule genetic differences based on locality.
Then been called racist. Can't make this shit up. not believing in race makes a person racist. Perhaps a level of indoctrination that causes loss of ability to think and listen?
My hot take is that artificial or "invented" economic systems just don't work. If you try to build a utopia, especially if it involves bending others to your will, including by forcibly taking from them, you inevitably end up with a dystopia. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Hitler, all came in promising to help the "working man".
Just imagine the number of people these communist leaders killed. And seems they really enjoyed starving people to death (aside from the pedestrian just killing those you don't agree with. Ask the people of Ukraine about Holodomor . Stalin's body count was perhaps 20 million (depends on what metrics you reconstruct it from) Mao may have been responsible for 80 million peacetime deaths, a staggering number. Pol Pot was only around 2 million, then again, that was 25 percent of his country's population.
Seems like the core competency of Communism is killing people. They need to miss me with that.
