HOLY Mother of boot licking. These people are there to simp for the paymasters say anything they are told.

Speaking of Mandela Barnes: back in 2015, the guy simped for the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei because Khamenei had tweeted in support of Black Lives Matter:


https://twitter.com/TheOtherMandela/status/550588804935864321

And back in 2013, he tweeted that he had this to say about Assad, a few weeks after Assad had deployed sarin gas against the Syrian opposition:

(This is a reference to the weird bromance between Dennis Rodman and NK dictator Kim Jong Un.)

https://twitter.com/TheOtherMandela/status/321814310156398592

What are you saying here that contradicts what I said?
.
As for your definition, I'd say that it should be theoretically possible to develop a fascistic state in a constitutional fashion. The world government in Starship Troopers is a good example.

We don't even have to look to fiction, there is a historical example: in a very very technical sense, the nazi dictatorship emerged in constitutional fashion. The key bill on the path from democracy to dictatorship was the Enabling Act of 1933, which was formally passed by parliament on March 24. It eliminated the separation of powers and all checks and balances by giving Hitler the right to pass laws via decree, without needing parliamental approval and without being bound by the constraints of the constitution. (Bringing the courts into line was easy from there.) All subsequent major nazi laws were passed in technically legal fashion based on the powers granted by the Enabling Act.

The big caveat is of course that the vote on the Enabling Act (which required a two-thirds majority to pass) took place while the whole hall was filled with storm troopers who intimidated the MPs. It must also be noted that the nazi party and their ultranationalist coalition partners had won a (simple) majority of seats in the previous election (on March 5) at a time when political violence and intimidation already ramped up and many communists and union leaders had already been arrested or in exile, so that their seat count was inflated by the irregular circumstances of the election. Given the narrow passage of the Enabling Act (68.6%, less than 2% above the 66.67% threshold), even the threatening posture of the storm troopers wouldn't have sufficed if the parliament hadn't started out at an already skewed seat distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 26 2022 06:16pm

There are no classes under communism.

You actually have it backwards. Communism and fascism aren't different sides of the same organizational scheme. They are totally opposite organizational schemes. Fascism seeks top down control while elevating along lines of racial and national purity. Communism seeks to remove control and segmentation all together, to create a classless stateless society that is organized around the public good instsead of profit maximization.

Only on paper and words.
Never in deeds.

exactly and its completely ignoring the fact that all of this utopia nonsense is against human nature

communism is top down control every single time, because people dont want this shit and wont part with their property without force, which the communist overlords gladly provided in the past

It's telling that the only successful communist state we can point to was a top down hierarchy from start to finish. The lifespan of that success story was less than 80 years. Hierarchy is natural, necessary, and (more) efficient. We see this play out all the time in both the private and public sector. It makes no difference whether ownership belongs to the founder, a family, group, or the broader public, a hierarchy is formed, the owners delegate authority to representatives, and the representatives enforce some version of top-down rule. Worker collectives are so rare because the conditions necessary to support them are both rare and temporary.

you are insane and of course you make an insane comment.

The point is that it's not state enforced.

Worker owned coops are rare because our laws go out of their way to make them difficult.

There are plenty of places even in our current system wher coops thrive. Utilities that are coops consistently deliver better service than private companies.