Why do some leftists argue that Bad Empanada is a fascist or Strasserite?
When discussing the idea that Mussolini was an opportunist and not a sincere socialist, Anark mentioned Bad Empanada as an example of a fascist or Strasserite.
Unfortunately, he didn't provide any evidence that Bad Empanada is a Strasserite. What are fascists and Strasserites according to socialist literature, and do anarchists like Anark define fascism and/or Strasserism differently from socialists? Does Bad Empanada fit the socialist definition of a fascist or socialist?
If one were to define Anark as a socialist because he wants the same political outcome as socialists, i.e., he wants to live in a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, then would that affect or challenge the socialist definitions of fascism and Strasserism?
Anark describes himself as an anarchist and says that he's not a Marxist-Leninist because he doesn't believe that taking over the government will lead to the creation of his ideal stateless, classless, and moneyless society. He also seems to make a lot of arguments against Marxism more generally. Would most socialist literature describe Anark as a socialist even though he does not consider himself a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist?
I've seen some other posts on this subreddit and other self-described leftist subreddits in which some redditors argued that Bad Empanada is a tankie. They argue that Bad Empanada is a tankie because he doesn't consider the Holodomor famine in Ukraine to have been a genocide, but instead believes that it was an accidental famine.
The pre-Internet definition of a tankie, according to Wikipedia, is a person who supports the one-party rule of the former Soviet Union. But I have not come across any evidence that suggests that Bad Empanada supports a one-party Marxist-Leninist dictatorship or one-party rule in any country.
My intuition tells me that the internet has expanded the definition of tankie to include anyone who is not 100% critical of former Soviet governments and former Soviet-era socialist governments that were allies of the Soviet Union. Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?
I have a suspicion that Anark could have mistakenly believed that Bad Empanada is a fascist because there are Israelis who call Bad Empanada an antisemite for criticizing Jewish Americans and Jews for being Zionist or for promoting what he believes are Zionist causes, such as Israel's annexation of Palestinian land and the genocide of the Palestinian people for the sake of expanding Israel's borders. This article by Tamar Ben-Ami is an example of an Israeli or Jewish person accusing Bad Empanada of being an anti-semite.
I feel that there are a lot of online discussions about who is and who isn't a socialist or a real socialist among leftists and self-described socialists. I find this type of politics exclusionary.
Why do self-described leftists spend so much time discussing and debating the meaning of socialism, anarchism, and leftism? I feel that self-described right-wingers don't invest as much time and energy trying to define and articulate the meaning and purpose of their politics as leftists do.
In conclusion, I would like to know how Anark's understanding of leftist literature and online leftist discourse led him to the conclusion that Bad Empanada is a Strasserite.