When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon. To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term. Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.
Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist. As long as we're defining the other side.
No since fascism is simply a nationalist socialism. That is why most historical fascists were socialists before having differences about the role of one's national origin in their political identity.
Utter, Utter, Utter Horse manure. Most fascists were aristocrats or neo-feudalists. Very few were ever socialists, who they identified with as 'the enemy'.
Or to quote https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=75370.msg1555523#msg1555523 again:
I should have also pointed out in most countries, the fascists greatest supporters came from the traditional elite. Hell, in Germany they were the reason they took power in the first place - preferring to deal with them rather than the even the palest pink Social Democrat.
Marxist Traditionalism states that that is Communism. Socialism is when the means of production is left in the hands of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" - an over dramatic phrase invented by Auguste Blanqui to describe, I suppose, a military workers democracy. Not too dissimiliar to the Sancullottes of the French Revolution. The USSR was called the Union of Soviet Socialist republics - believing that it was in the transitional path between Capitalism and pure communism where the state would eventually 'wither away' (this being 'official' ideology o/c) after a certain period of time.
However Theory and reality are two very different things. It is worth pointing out however that pre-1917 the Leninist view was very much a minority among socialists (ie. that an intellectual elite is needed to lead the workers to revolution).
That is demonstrably wrong.
Mussolini, the man who inspired every other fascist since, was most assuredly a Socialist before WWI. Don't try to whitewash that fact by using his later 1920s concoction of imperial motifs and insignia (the fasces, the heraldic eagle) to disguise the fact that his movement was just as anti-liberal (in the 19th century since) in its conception as the Bolsheviks.
