>>51
>Neoliberalism is basically just fascism with political theatre instead of an outright one party state though.
Fascism is a distinct movement. In fact, if we want a model of politics that is useful for prediction and not just slogans for libs, I would even go as far as defining fascism as fundamentally distinct from Nazism and neo-Nazism, which (as you know) is basically just edginess and retardation whose entire economic policy might as well be 'get rid of da joos and da commies', it's super easy to spot for the drivel it is and couldn't possibly subvert socialists, unlike how classical fascism did. But I'll just use 'fascism' to mean Nazism, because that's what you're talking about and it is a good point, neo-liberalism is related to Nazism.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily against making slogans saying that neoliberalism and soccdem is basically fascism. It's effective rhetoric that makes a real point. But let's not fool ourselves. They're not fascism. They're a conservative liberal capitalism, which is terrifying, militant and murderous. And yes, it's kind of all the same result so again I'm not against conflating them in slogans, but for political study, they are different in how they form and how they act, and therefore the most effective ways to combat them.
Looking at effects rather than the causes isn't the best practice (leads straight to the 'M-L is redfash' fallacy), but I think it's enough to show the differences in this case:
Like you said, there are the obvious similarities: privatization, anti-socialism, anti-unionism, social conservativism/trad. I think it's also fair to say neo-liberalism also has elements of anti-liberalism and anti-democracy.
But, there are also many stark differences. Fascism is fundamentally nationalist, as opposed to the free-market's urge for globalism. It derives from the military and (generally) middle classes, not from the upper-bourgeoisie. It's more of a state that tries to control capital, than capital subverting the state (yes, I realize they both ended up being capital directing the state, but it's much more powerful under neo-liberalism). Fascism has far more of an emphasis on social and national ('spiritual') reform, as opposed to neo-liberalism's focus on economic reform which guides many of its social positions.
If anything, fascism at least thinks it cares about you, so long as you're the in-group. They're forced to submit to capital to keep power. Neo-liberalism is pure porky infiltration of liberalism, late stage capitalism.
>social democracy, is the left wing of fascism
That's another catchy slogan that just kind of doesn't makes sense. Social democracy is the left wing of liberalism. I guess it just doesn't have the same sloganistic ring to it because most people don't understand capitalist liberalism is as horrible as fascism, except instead of systematically genociding minority groups within its borders it systematically decimates everyone locally and globally.