I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution.
Source: Section 1 of “Concerning the International Situation,” Works, Vol. 6, January-November, 1924, pp. 293-314.
This is what this person means, this is what you need to understand. It means not that they are not different, but that they are too the same thing under different light.
Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution.
Source: Section 1 of “Concerning the International Situation,” Works, Vol. 6, January-November, 1924, pp. 293-314.
This is what this person means, this is what you need to understand. It means not that they are not different, but that they are too the same thing under different light.
Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.