I still disagree with your interpretation, but clearly you know about fascism; I think I am working from a different definition from yours. I have understood fascism to be a hybrid form of socialism/communism wherein there are companies run by individuals but yet they are fused with the state even if not micromanaged by the state as is done in full communist countries with complete central planning. Like all forms of socialism, the government must be authoritarian to make it all happen. And because it is authoritarian, it can make sure companies that follow the agenda of the government will survive and those who do not follow the agenda will not survive. I see actions of Disney and Coca Cola (insert big company name here) as signaling to the current US government (ie, Deep State + some of the Dim party) that they are on board. Thus, even though these actions are carried out by individuals, it happens because these individuals know what the consequences might be (perhaps sometimes subconsciously) for their companies and themselves if they don't fall in line.
The issue today isn't the state controlling capital, but capital controlling the state. Capitalists love things like manufactured identities ("buy my pride™ shirt!"), the mass importation of cheap labor to drive wages down, and the dumbing-down of the population so they consume product without asking questions (If they think, they might realize there's more to happiness than material wealth!). Anyone putting up serious resistance to that isn't going to get capital to give them big donations, "lobbying", maybe even a cushy well-paid do-nothing job after the politician's time in government is up. It isn't going to be run on the media, because that's contrary to capital's common interests. Tradition isn't profitable, so that has to go. Nations impede profit, so everyone needs to be beige and have no natural identity. You will be a slave, working longer and longer hours for lower and lower wages, taking more and more debt as you rent more and more due to not having the savings to own anything yourself. Any potential competition, if they can even scrape together enough capital to get started, will either be bought out, lobbied and then legislated out of existence, or marginalized until one of the two is doable.
It's not fascism, it's capitalists exercising their right to associate, or not, with whoever they please.
damn you are the epitome of a cuck. you are that faggot who praised facebook and twitter and told us we need to stop attacking them, aren't you?
Nope. As an individual exercising my right to associate, or not, with whoever I please, fuck them. I praise the fediverse.
You don't understand what fascism is clearly.
Yes I do.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Thank you. Very interesting link.
I still disagree with your interpretation, but clearly you know about fascism; I think I am working from a different definition from yours. I have understood fascism to be a hybrid form of socialism/communism wherein there are companies run by individuals but yet they are fused with the state even if not micromanaged by the state as is done in full communist countries with complete central planning. Like all forms of socialism, the government must be authoritarian to make it all happen. And because it is authoritarian, it can make sure companies that follow the agenda of the government will survive and those who do not follow the agenda will not survive. I see actions of Disney and Coca Cola (insert big company name here) as signaling to the current US government (ie, Deep State + some of the Dim party) that they are on board. Thus, even though these actions are carried out by individuals, it happens because these individuals know what the consequences might be (perhaps sometimes subconsciously) for their companies and themselves if they don't fall in line.
The issue today isn't the state controlling capital, but capital controlling the state. Capitalists love things like manufactured identities ("buy my pride™ shirt!"), the mass importation of cheap labor to drive wages down, and the dumbing-down of the population so they consume product without asking questions (If they think, they might realize there's more to happiness than material wealth!). Anyone putting up serious resistance to that isn't going to get capital to give them big donations, "lobbying", maybe even a cushy well-paid do-nothing job after the politician's time in government is up. It isn't going to be run on the media, because that's contrary to capital's common interests. Tradition isn't profitable, so that has to go. Nations impede profit, so everyone needs to be beige and have no natural identity. You will be a slave, working longer and longer hours for lower and lower wages, taking more and more debt as you rent more and more due to not having the savings to own anything yourself. Any potential competition, if they can even scrape together enough capital to get started, will either be bought out, lobbied and then legislated out of existence, or marginalized until one of the two is doable.
Welcome to capitalism.