>>47466812>I live in italy, where we had a socialist create a new party for the purpose of socialism with the addition of war intervention. my family lived under the creator of fascism. mussolini is an interesting case because he began his political life as a socialist but later abandoned these beliefs (along with his beliefs in egalitarianism, class conflict, labour rights, etc.) in favour of italian ultranationalism. i'm sure he continued with some rhetoric of socialism, since many fascists co-opt popular rhetoric that's never actually expressed in their policies.
we have to understand that rhetoric doesn't always (or even often) correspond to policy. it's a hack line, but the DPRK obviously isn't democratic, right? same situation here with people like Hitler and Musollini who co-opt socialist talking points while subjugating labour to elite interests.
>also these corporations are owned and run by (ceo,cfo, founders, board of directore, etc) registered democrats, something you can google in seconds, as it is public knowledge. why, then, would you not consider them as such?statistically, CEOs donate more to republicans than to democrats. many (like the waltons, for instance) hedge their bets by backing both parties, so they'll have the ear of whoever actually takes power.
adding to this:
>>47466779just ask any fascist what they think about liberals and leftists. or ask them which party they think aligns more with their goals. the only fascist i've seen arguing in favour of, say, voting democrat did so from a position of "accelerationism," because they thought it would stoke white resentment and speed up the race war.
