decentralized governance by aggregated consensus for common benefit

wew lad

you just typed out some random commie yabber, youre so smart

he asked for brief

thank you

your fault if you don't understand words

now tell me how fascism is defined any differently

that's the original point here

Fascism is not decentralized governance

For one

im no expert on political theory, but fascism is usually very centralized, no?

Nor is it inherenetly defined by central authority.

So, what?

I already made that point.

Fascism is also not dependent on communal ownership

That possibility for central authority is the only possible differentiation

and it isn't necessary.

Nothing of that definition is necessary in Fascism

Nor is communism.

Once resources are allocated, they change ownership to the individual.

Much like Fascism.

Lol. No. The aggregated Consensus means that everyone owns the resources.

No, it means allocation is decided by the whole of society

Yes. If the whole society gets to vote on my stuff, how is that my stuff?

Post-allocation

Even after allocation, society can vote to take that out of my hands

That's autistic.

And not the point or intention

You are one making the defintional case and then complaining about autistic comparison. Neat

You also presented your own definition.

You debate like a Jew.

is your version of communism egalitarian?

So, I have high IQ

not all jews have high iq

In what sense?

> Says that Fascism and Communism are same
> Cries autism when shown differences

You didn't show a difference other than the one *possible* differentiator I had already mentioned.

I showed another one and you said I was being autistic for showing you are wrong

few jews have high iqs

possible, but not necessary.

@OMEGA wtf are you doing here?