Wow. Revel in that ignorance. Semantic arguments are a winner, right? Because if you can argue about definitions then you can't possibly lose!
Fascism is literally the merger of state and corporations. A partnership between corporations and the interests of the Government. It is literally the political model that is in use in China today. There is a member of the CCP on every single company board AND the state can, and does nationalize any company at will. The difference between a corporation and the CCP government (in china) is literally one of semantics.
As another example: In the 2000s the Chinese Department of Defense also raised revenue through owning a CD pressing factory to press and distribute pirate CDs and DVDs to the west. At the point where the Defense Department is self funding the difference between a Government Agency or Service and a corporation is ... what exactly?
Governments are governments because they have the monopoly on force and taxation. The government uses that force to ensure that revenue is raised to fund the state. That line can (and does) get very, very blurry. For example it is common for Oil Companies employ mercenaries to enforce their interests. That is just a single example of corporate governance.
So if you are looking to an alternative to government, then you might a private corporation that acts in the role of a government to do the things that governments do. You know, like "muh roads". As I have stated in my initial post; It isn't a good alternative.
Which puts us right back to: "Government reform please."
The thing that is so irritating about this conversation is that you actually agree with my position. You are just too fucking stubborn to make any concessions to facts or logic, in spite of your ignorance of the history of governance. Fascism was kind of a big deal, and remains the only (moderately) successful form of socialism.
So you win! Congratulations. You are the last man standing and get all the internet points! Have a great day.
Wow. Revel in that ignorance. Semantic arguments are a winner, right? Because if you can argue about definitions then you can't possibly lose!
Fascism is literally the merger of state and corporations. A partnership between corporations and the interests of the Government. It is literally the political model that is in use in China today. There is a member of the CCP on every single government board AND the state can, and does nationalize any company at will. The difference between a corporation and the CCP government (in china) is literally one of semantics.
As another example: In the 2000s the Chinese Department of Defense also raised revenue through owning a CD pressing factory to press and distribute pirate CDs and DVDs to the west. At the point where the Defense Department is self funding the difference between a Government Agency or Service and a corporation is ... what exactly?
Governments are governments because they have the monopoly on force and taxation. The government uses that force to ensure that revenue is raised to fund the state. That line can (and does) get very, very blurry. For example it is common for Oil Companies employ mercenaries to enforce their interests. That is just a single example of corporate governance.
So if you are looking to an alternative to government, then you might a private corporation that acts in the role of a government to do the things that governments do. You know, like "muh roads". As I have stated in my initial post; It isn't a good alternative.
Which puts us right back to: "Government reform please."
The thing that is so irritating about this conversation is that you actually agree with my position. You are just too fucking stubborn to make any concessions to facts or logic, in spite of your ignorance of the history of governance. Fascism was kind of a big deal, and remains the only (moderately) successful form of socialism.
So you win! Congratulations. You are the last man standing and get all the internet points! Have a great day.