This can’t be true if Stalinism and Khmer Rouge are kinds of fascism, which they are generally agreed to be.
I’m not sure i see the link youre making here. Could you expand on that please?
Capitalism is (financial) might makes right, with the appearance of chacks and balances. All of which have been utterly compromised and perverted by capitalism.
History shows us that fascism is simply capitalism when you try to say no. There was 1900s capitalism. Then, there was a movement trying to say no to the workhouses, debtors prisons and wealth theft. In direct response to this, fascism arose to protect the assets of the wealthy from the people trying to say no to capitalism. You can see it in America where striking workers were gunned down by police, as one example there. In the UK too, where the Royal Hussars cavalry were set on protesting workers. So, where I say that, I mean it in a very literal way.
Most people just don’t see it, as very few of us are even able to say no much less actual say it too. That doesn’t make it any less true though.
I meant that in case of Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and such it was what you say (in Spain not so clear though). But Stalinist regime with very similar traits was driven by then new Soviet bureaucracy willing to increase its control over society, grow heavy industries necessary for revolutionary offensive wars their ideology then demanded, and crush political opponents.