For what it's worth, the way you've phrased this question doesn't sound like you want to discuss any of these issues. It sounds like you have bones to pick with what people have said and want to argue about it.
He's just a troll.
Anyway I've despised that guy since the Thai cave episode. Don't know if I'm "the left" tho.
Yes, I realize there are degrees.
No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most useful because it captures the essence of why fascism is bad: it's an instability of the system.
According to this definition all the usual suspects are fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao), but also characters like Trump and his enablers, and Musk and his fanboys.
The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist.
Most liberal democracies have elites and lobbyists who have more influence than the common man. they aren't fascist.
I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
Who is "the Bolsheviks"? Most supporters of the party did not have as explicit goal to accumulate power for themselves. If you're referring to Lenin and Stalin, they certainly where fascists by the useful definition.
> Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
No, I disagree. Most of those people have only enough power to effect miniscule tweaks to the system. Those don't qualify. Like I said, it is in part a matter of degree.
> I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Aaaaand I'm done talking to you.