At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.

This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I'll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:

1. A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).

2. Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn't mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.

3. China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.

Well, I'm against slavery. So I guess our preferences just fundamentally differ.

So not allowing the majority to enslave the minority is bad? It's clearly un-democratic.

Jack Ma was punished for speaking out against the government's bank lending policy which prevented people without capital from getting it. Almost the exact opposite of "acting against socialism". And again, he's still worth almost $30 billion. Yet you maintain this is somehow socialism, which would require rejecting the private property and capitalism which cornerstones China today.

His punishment further highlights the other tenet of fascism which permits such authoritarian control. If Trump admnistration seized all corporate control (citing their usage for "national interests" or for "the people"), then punished corporate leaders for disagreeing with public policy, would you also say this is somehow not fascism? I imagine you would say he's very much more fascistic than he is today.

No. I implied that it's not fascistic to have term limits (or less fascistic). I don't think I said anything was good or bad.

You're implying that being un-democratic is a bad thing. The US Constitution is also un-democratic, as it doesn't permit the voting majority to violate the rights of the minority. And I doubt you would consider such mob rule of the majority to be a good thing. Or do you?

state directed + corporatism + extreme nationalism + state control of press and labor + lifetime leader

Name a single thing about the US that is more fascistic than China. I'm willing to concede that such a thing might exist.

Everything I said is true and you didn't refute any of it. You do realize that, if you have nothing to say, you don't have to post, right?

Trump has been leader for 5 years, and will cease leadership in 3 years. Xi has been in power since 2012 and can be leader for the rest of his life.

Now please explain how US is NOT less isolationist than China. This should be good. 🤣

I'm saying "if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." You're saying "if it says it's not a duck, it's not."

How is the Chinese economy not fascist corporatism? Because they call it "public ownership"? The CCP mandates all corporations have CCP cells that align with their national interests. They still defer to private property owners who often become very wealthy. (see: Jack Ma). How does a socialist country have people worth almost $30 billion? This is no more socialism than Nazi's Nat Socs (or rather, it's equally socialism).

Fascist economies seize control of property for nationalistic purposes. Only difference between communism is that they still defer to private property owners while the regime ultimately controls it, as opposed to "the people" owning it.

This is China. They control all their industry for nationalistic purposes. They have a cult of personality leader. Literally every textbook indicator of fascism.