So the recent NDAA just passed and immediately following there's media symbolism being published indicating war. DoD lowered recruiting standards to enable their forces to grow in size. We have troops at the border and weapons systems deployed within. They're doing their best to escalate without direct action.
How to debate with you when any source material, as you reference, is not accurate due to circumstantial context. Then later, using source documents to support your points of view against circumstantial context? You have to chose an epistemology or else the argument is not internally coherent.
Fascism is state control of estates beyond the economic (since that is a special case of fascism called socialism). Communism is a special case of socialism that believes in collective ownership. Using this definition and historic evidence of past control of the means of production we then can clearly categorize Nazi as socialist. They are also nationalists (not debating that).
Modern parties likely do not believe the same ideologies. This is true of GOP and Dem. Modern GOP is ~ classic liberalism. Modern Dem ~ classic socialism / borderline fascism.
Agree that corporatism is a special case of anarchism, was using it as an example implementation of how hierarchies do emerge within that form of "governance". Agree that social communities could also emerge independent of corporations but question the practical distinction.
Justin in time for a state AG to sue them and try it with SCOTUS