> You are making a distinction without a difference.
I think it is obvious that your objectives are very different from mine. What's "without a difference" given one set of objectives is a key difference given another.
> That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc.
No. I'm interested in having a historical argument about how to define "fascism" as part of "history for history's sake". You seem by contrast primarily interested in defining words to rhetorically assist you towards some political end.
> Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care.
I've lived my whole life in Australia. I think it is very unlikely that the current or any foreseeable future Australian government is going to start putting people in anything resembling gulags. To suggest otherwise is rather alarmist.
I think it is obvious that your objectives are very different from mine. What's "without a difference" given one set of objectives is a key difference given another.
> That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc.
No. I'm interested in having a historical argument about how to define "fascism" as part of "history for history's sake". You seem by contrast primarily interested in defining words to rhetorically assist you towards some political end.
> Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care.
I've lived my whole life in Australia. I think it is very unlikely that the current or any foreseeable future Australian government is going to start putting people in anything resembling gulags. To suggest otherwise is rather alarmist.