Maggie's Farm

I don't think limiting immigration is fascistic at all, though I don't support it.

Plenty of non-fascist countries limit immigration. That single policy isn't indicative of anything other than tribal affiliations and preferences.

Today, anything that doesn't adhere to the left-wing dogma is considered 'fascist', though I consider most on the left to be fascists themselves. Bernie and Hillary are very much fascists in their desire to force their will on others.

Of course, it all depends on how you're defining fascist. To be sure, fascism WAS an oddball economic theory. Basically private ownership of the means of production with public direction. Crony capitalism at its worst.

Fascism got its ugly face with the Holocaust. Because to make public direction work properly (as all good Socialists know) you have to control the mind and direction of society as a whole. That is why immigration controls are useful for socialist and fascist nations. The more people "like me" around, the more likely you can derive the outcome you desire - at least temporarily. Markets eventually make all your policy directives outdated and useless - even if you think you're controlling the economy (black markets in most Socialist nations are quite large and/or dynamic).

To me, fascism is still partially about economics (the US has some fascist tendencies today with Obama - China is decidedly fascist economically). It is more about force. Can a politician force people to do what they want, regardless of what those people may want or may believe? Hillary and Bernie (and Trump) say yes. Actually, to some degree, most politicians believe this - that's why they run.

Power, in itself, tends to draw out fascist tendencies. Remember, even fascists 'mean to do well' by the citizenry.

Depends on which history you're reading. While I personally agree it was ugly before the Holocaust, if I take your side then I'd have to explain why it was so widely accepted and lauded. Even with some of its more nefarious episodes prior to the full implementation of the Holocaust, most people were willing to be 'OK' with what was going on in the nations which had implemented it.

It most certainly does have roots in nationalism, but it also is an economic system, and its earliest adherents were primarily interested in re-ordering the economic systems, which of course required a re-ordering of society and political structure - just as communism and socialism require.

Simply saying "no, it's not an economic model" is rather blithe hand-waving. The economic structure of fascism is well documented. After all, I did study it in grad school, but that must not matter. I suggest you go to the New School and tell them they have to alter their curriculum.

As for its ugly face, most people were either in love with, or at least tolerant of, the fascists. There is a tremendous body of work in which German Jews admitted Hitler's arrival was, in some ways, admired. Many didn't believe he'd follow through on his threats. Many outside Germany didn't believe it even as he did follow through.

Did it have an ugly face? Certainly as ugly as any government-centric model (Venezuela, Peronist Argentina, fascist Chile, Communist China & the USSR) have been. But it was not widely recognized as truly ugly until people began being rounded up.

Since it's you again, feel free to respond in your usual insipid manner. I'm not going to answer you since you spend more time picking nits and trolling than ever adding anything of value to a discussion.