Your definition of "fascism."

I think that many countries who are predominantly socialist, tend to think that all countries should adopt their same ideals. But, the US is nothing like any other country, really. It's deeply diverse, unlike other countries who have a demographic that isn't diverse at all, or as diverse. Which is why (imo) socialism works pretty easily in other countries as opposed to how it would work in the US.

 

What does diversity have to do with it?

 

I don't know exactly, but it's an observation. Cultures like those similar to Norway's where socialism works well, aren't as diverse as the US.

 

The first group to call themselves "fascists" was created by Mussolini in 1915. The group grew after being funded by Aslado, one of the main weapons makers in Italy. They were funded because of their pro war stance during WW1. To me fascism is when the country is led by the military industrial complex and wars become endless.

 

The U.S. has shown since WWII that it wants to force its "ideals" on other countries. We've overthrown democratically elected leaders all over the world that didn't conform to our "ideals."

 

Militarism seems to be part of the picture, along with extreme nationalism.

 

Democracy, in its correct form, isn't a bad thing. Any country's citizens should have a voice in who gets elected, unlike for example, in the middle east, where the dictator is thrust upon its people.

 

Consensus politics is one fascist positive . Few social contracts , and only the most essential , will exist .

 

There's a soupcon of jocularity in my suggestion. However, people who bandy the word 'rich' around in pejorative terms tend to have no credibility or moral authority. They use the term rich to characterise average middle and upper middle families with six figure incomes. Six figure incomes don't make people rich unless they deploy them intelligently and energetically.

Being able to afford chopper support is one simple, crude measure which makes the point that rich means a huge amount of money - not just some money.

Ironically, those who rail against the rich (the consumers who pay sales tax and provide employment in the service and retail sectors [inter alia], have rarely been known to turn down any dollars offered to them - whether in the form of transfer payments, donations, gifts, or whatever. If employed, they will not complain if their boss raises their wages (or, more rarely, salaries) and if their boss were insane and raised their wages so much that they became rich, they wouldn't complain at all. They would take the money gladly (although not having experience in handling money they would likely piss it all away)

 

"Rich" is a legitimate, albeit imprecise, English word I used in a legitimate statement about social policy. Your over-reaction to it reminds me of the old Sid Caesar comedy skit my parents used to tell me about, where Sid was having a normal conversation with a guy until Sid mentions the word "Naigara Falls". The other guy suddenly gets a wild glint in his eye and goes into a rant about his honeymoon, culminating with the words "Slowly I turned" and an attempt to strangle Sid. Did I touch a nerve?