The most likely scenario is an action that causes the majority of the military to rebel such as what happened in Syria. That’s partially why the military swears an oath to the Constitution and not the standing government.

For that to happen you need an inciting incident that is at least perceived to be against the Constitution by the majority of the military including a significant portion of the top brass.

We almost got there with all the January 6th shenanigans but the inciting incident involved the military sitting down and not listening to the Executive branch’s unethical orders.

But what waste do they have that they wouldn’t want to eliminate for production reasons? They assemble cars from parts they buy. A lot of times these parts come from smaller machine shops. A pallet of parts comes in, it gets out on the car, pallet returns to the supplier for the next load. I’m not sure why people are confused here. It’s not like they want the parts to be individually packaged.

Caveat: I’m not a manufacturing expert but I have met some of these machine shop people.

Unfortunately, Russia targets those.

In the conversation on which successful country to emulate. I think the point is that one doesn’t exist that’s been successful. It’s a societal filter.

I said no objectively incorrect things. You made the claim. Nope prove it.

So, you are saying we should emulate the United States? Are you following this conversation?

Citation missing

Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.

At no point did I defend them. That’s a strawman.

Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.

Yep, that’s how they got elected. You’re doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I’m not an apologist, you are an enabler.

Well, I’m sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.

It’s not idealism. If you have a better solution that is not radical by design, go ahead. I was literally not specific intentionally. Go ahead, what instrument within the current system would work that are not regulations?

Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.

Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.

The more you attempt to shift to revolution, the more you counteract real meaningful change. There are market solutions to this problem and it’s called government regulation.

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/40/bf/b6/40bfb6a76627032773450ddee967be36.jpg

Successful revolution and war will not help global warming. Failure will result in a massive social shift against these ends.

This is exacerbated the longer your vehicle is. It is impossible to turn wide enough with my pickup truck to park forward because the front end swings too much. The more efficient car I take on normal commuting doesn’t have this issue.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t have human orca war on my 2020s bingo card.

What are you trying to say here? It is or is not a fix?

Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

-Dylan Thomas

The engagement is fleeting but the spoiling of the narrative is forever.

Just change all the /r/ to /c/

Fascism as a system is defined as purity of effort. It comes from the literal Italian word for a bundle of sticks. Alone they are weak. Together and united they are strong.

The cultural element is that it favors uniformity as an element of unity. This is where the militarism comes in but it is not entirely defined by it. It also manifests itself in civic works and progress. It seeks to unify those that are similar. Here one of the key points though. Fascism is okay with the existence of other groups, just that they are not a participant in their system and seeks to bring those that are into the system.

It aligns efforts and systems regardless of their origin towards the goals of the state. This includes corporations and state organizations. It will nationalize organizations that work against the state and ostracize groups that are not aligned with the majority. It roots out internal dissent within government as an inefficiency.

A socialist form of system absolutely can be fascist. A fascist government does not inherently need a dictator but it is inherently authoritarian. It does not matter if the means of production are corporate, individual, or government as it is about unity of effort and uniformity as a force for progress.

These are clearly defined parameters.

You only see fascism come in when citizens see a lack of progress as a result of social issues. It’s not left politics that it is reacting to, it is the violence and chaos on the streets that inspires a strong reaction. People perceive the distribution as the cause of the problems that actually impact them. They literally see the destruction of their property and their neighborhoods being caused by these radicals. They see the inability of the liberal state to stop it because it allows for that dissent and disunity. Voters remember a time when people were united. Then they see these groups coming in and fighting back. They are literally cleaning up the streets and defending their neighborhoods at a ground level. They look and act like them so they trust them. They see that snowball into progress at a larger level and start to increasingly trust the approach and who they are told is causing the issues in society. They saw it for themselves and so they trust that it’s the truth that they cannot see now.

When an outside group refuses to confirm or leave, that’s when you start getting increasingly strong forms of solutions to the perceived problem. This is where you see language around a final solution come from. You can disband organizations but people must be removed.

It does not need to be the left. It actually could be the right. National Socialism was called what it was for a reason. It was reacting to the right in society. It started out as being for the nationalization of resources within Germany. As it gained power, it was okay with corporations as long as it worked on behalf of the state. Fascism is agnostic to socialism vs capitalism until it is working against them. Nazis are not socialists, except they are when the corporations are perceived to be working against the efforts of the majority.

Unity of effort is a powerful and efficient thing. It does not take into account the benefits of diversity or the social benefits of dissent as a force for moderation. When you put fascism against a liberal society, the united liberal society is typically able to innovate around a united but uniform approach against them given enough time. It also wins more allies on average. Unity is typically the challenge as diverse societies have a lot of differences.

So, why is Russia fascist now? The Russian citizens went through an extended period of change that worsened the average Russian’s life. Most remember a time when they were more united or at least felt that way. There’s outside corporations and organizations perceived to be degrading Russian life. There’s chaos on the streets and separatists everywhere and the new modern liberal society is unable to stop it. You have someone come into power that has cleaned up the streets and focused on progress. They’ve focused on defending the average Russian from these inside threats that are rotting Russia from the inside. They are saying that life was better when Russians were united. They want to get back to the way it was and bring Russians back in to the fold. There’s a focus on unity of government, corporation, and culture. There’s a systemic stamping out of dissent regardless of the source.

Russia probably would be faring a lot better if they hadn’t been a huge gainer from the smaller states in the USSR. Only Russians were better under the USSR, not the smaller states. This is why the Holodomor is so significant. Ukrainians were less important for food than the Russians because they dissented. I would argue that the USSR was also a fascist state but it gets a lot muddier in that discussion to the point where it almost doesn’t matter.