Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism
There are other good definitions here.
The United States has had fascist movements in the past. The KKK is an example. Father McLaughlin had a popular radio show during the 1930s, reaching up to 30,000,000 a week. "The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". Coughlin died in 1979.
American Fascists might not sound like Hitler or Mussolini. They could be antisemitic, or focus on some other group, like liberals, intellectuals, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Gays, or... lots of possibilities.
Donald Trump might be a fascist, and someone else might be an even worse prospect--perhaps a lesser known far-right Republican.
How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years?
- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
- the subordination of the individual to the primacy of the group;
- the belief in a collective victimhood, justifying any action against its enemies without legal or moral limits;
- the fear that individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences will lead to a decline in the group
- the need for a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
- the need for male authority culminating in a national chief who incarnates the groups historical destiny;
- the leaders instincts are superior to abstract and universal reason;
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the groups success;
- the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the groups prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
There are other good definitions here.
The United States has had fascist movements in the past. The KKK is an example. Father McLaughlin had a popular radio show during the 1930s, reaching up to 30,000,000 a week. "The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". Coughlin died in 1979.
American Fascists might not sound like Hitler or Mussolini. They could be antisemitic, or focus on some other group, like liberals, intellectuals, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Gays, or... lots of possibilities.
Donald Trump might be a fascist, and someone else might be an even worse prospect--perhaps a lesser known far-right Republican.
How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years?
Comments (400)
The Plot Against America is a novel by Philip Roth published in 2004. It is an alternative history in which Franklin D. Roosevelt is defeated in the presidential election of 1940 by Charles Lindbergh. It's believable, given its setting in time, but perhaps isn't indicative of how a fascist movement would operate now.
Prophet Song by Paul Lynch is a novel about Ireland under fascism. It won the Booker Prize in 2023. So people are thinking about fascism, one way and the other.
Sure are. Us included...
Trump/MAGA is unashamedly fascist. Hes openly boasted that he thinks the constitution should be suspended, the public service purged, and his enemies subjected to prosecution. He has a strong movement if polling data is to be believed. Many are saying that he will win the election, and although I dont believe that he will, the acceptance of his threats of fascism and the escalation of violent threats against the judiciary and other institutions is alarming in the extreme.
1) Things were way worse still in Weimar Germany. A serious crisis for the US doesn't seem that imminent at this moment, but that could change fast in a fragile global economy that has some serious issues going forward.
2) Trump maybe wants to go that direction, and maybe can get some popular support, but I think ultimately he doesn't have the skills/talent to pull it off. But you know maybe he inspired some people.
Hmm... Joe Steele by Harry Turtledove, published in 2015, is a horrifyingly plausible alternative history along the same lines. Now I wonder if there was some plagiarism going on.
Still, it was a good book. While reading it, it was somewhat of a relief to know that Trump doesn't read.
The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. Its sort of a gaslighting version. He says dog whistle stuff and then it can be interpreted more ambiguously later on and people just move forward. You say it enough its just part of the landscape and normalized. HE gets to say it, if no one else. He praises and encouraged riots to stop counting of votes. He said hed use the government to attack political enemies. His legal team thinks the president is fully immune from criminal wrongdoing. Then he redirects his actually alarming fascist tendencies to run of the mill corruption like Hunter Biden. Its the psychology of a cult of personality. He can do no wrong, so he is immune.
In a sporting game, both sides follow the referee. If one side encourages the crowd to believe the referee is corrupt, then all the calls will be questioned and they will rig the game.
Its also scary that other Republicans would think that if he is elected he wont turn it into a semi-fascist style government to exact revenge.
I would quibble about Trump as actually fascist though. Fascists generally have an ideology. His is just narcissistic self-serving agenda for himself, co-opting the right for this agenda. He runs it more like a mob style organization so that loyalty gets favors and uses the primaries to outvote those who are against him. Liz Cheney was not liberal but she was voted out for one main reason.
Also fascist tend to be supporters of military. He has oddly called dead soldiers losers and suckers. Youd have to have an eerie mesmerizing hold to have any let alone most military people supporting you (not sure the latest polls but probably the case). So perhaps BC, can we split up a cult from fascism and just say its elements of both? Does fascism need a cult of personality or only ideology? Which is worse? Delusional support for person or belief en masse?
So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber.
Personally, I think the idea that the US is anywhere near or even nearing fascism is so humurous it's hard for me to take it seriously.
Why jump to conclusion without reading the post? Didn't schopy actually say:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think what schopenhaur1 implies, rather than that Trump himself is fascist, is that many Trump supporters are fascist, and they see his actions as an opening of the door, inviting them in. In reality he's just using them for his own personal gain, what schop describes as narcissistic. And, it appears like the number of fascists is sufficient to make opening the door to fascism worthwhile for him.
:up:
I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is.
And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.
And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, Trump is the wrecking ball. The people with a real understanding of the political movement, people like Bannon, are the scary ones.
Certainly possible, but not so probable, because a (too) strong fascist (or other political) movement is a threat to the ruling business movement. :cool:
There will be fascists fighting liberals fighting socialists, and postmodern professors and activists relativizing away knowledge from being taken seriously.
I'm no longer so sure about that. The "ruling business elite" knows the risk of some kind of major crash is high and rising. For example: "two thirds of risk experts surveyed expect a multipolar or fragmented world order to emerge in the next decade"
It seems plausible that some people opt to take the "disaster capitalist" route, that is ride the waves of catastrophes to amass and notably power that can be used to safeguard their interests.
Well, what is sure to happen is that any movement that gains power, will likely be called (rightly or wrongly) fascist. Because calling the other side fascist is the usual insult.
Political polarization is now quite structural in the US political field. The two-party system simply enforces this. When there is little to show of your own achievements, then it becomes simply a game of telling how dangerous and evil the other party is and hence you have to vote for us. This message is spoon fed to Americans all the time. It's amazing just how little political violence the US has seen.
And then there is populism, be it leftist or right-wing populism, that will also fuel the polarization. After all, in the heart of populism there's the hatred against the rich, the powerful and the elites that are against the common people.
There is also the disenchantment to the state, the country itself. There's a fine line between being critical about implemented policies and then being self loathing. Many Americans find their own state as this potential enemy to themselves. One could naively think that this would counter the lure of fascism, but unfortunately it goes the other way. The state and it's power is only held by the wrong people, the correct people have to take the power and be uncompromising to those others!
In a similar way, you could assume that conspiracy theorists simply want transparency and sound policies that aren't high-jacked by special interest groups. As the Trump ensemble of Q-ANON people showed, this is the farthest from the truth. These people simply believe all is propaganda and they have to fight it with their own propaganda.
And as an foreigner, what I'm surprised is that Americans don't seem to understand that their perpetual deficit funding of their government relies on the status of the US dollar, which itself enjoys that status because of the Superpower status itself that the country has. Once the dollar loses it's status as the back up currency and just becomes the largest currency among others, then the perpetual deficit funding cannot be sustained.
This kind of economic crisis might then indeed turn the US into a policestate as it has all the trappings of one already in place. If the middle classes then start fearing for their own safety, then you can easily get a state that is quite fascist.
A better word would be "bad loserism", since it more closely captures the nature (and ultimately the limited gravity) of what is going on, namely adults throwing tantrums because their team didn't win the race.
This isn't unique to the US. A similar thing happened in other countries, including my own, where a somewhat controversial party came out the biggest in the last election. In Germany we see the same sort of thing with the AfD (though they have yet to win).
When "their side" doesn't win, suddenly people start questioning democracy, talking about how "fascists" are taking over, etc.
Trump did it when Biden won. In the Netherlands some lefties did it when Wilders won. Germany is now questioning democracy because the AfD might win. Undoubtedly if Trump wins the next election we'll see the same type of thing from the Democrats, etc.
It's all very childish.
So, why is this happening?
- Countries all throughout the West are going through a transitional period, where the ruling political class is being replaced ("populists are taking over"). The desire for meaningful change is high, and elections are close, so all the major sides (and even wild cards like Trump) believe they have a shot at winning.
- A thorough poisoning of the information landscape by propaganda and wrong-headed adverstisement (through algorithms and AI, for example) makes the legitimacy of governments plummet even further. This is something all parties are guilty of, the ruling political class perhaps most of all. Creating internet echo chambers further cements in all sides this belief that they are going to win.
And as such, the democratic process loses its credibility, and people start to refuse to accept the outcomes of elections and fueled by emotion will take all sorts of foolish actions and make foolish statements.
Not fascism, but "bad loserism".
:up: Yes definitely. I was raised Catholic / Christian. Now lapsed, but the core beliefs linger in me.
Core beliefs that in bitter irony are now rejected by militant Fundamentalists as too soft.
Forgiveness, love, compassion, humility Soft Power is unfortunately out of fashion.
(Ive thought about starting a thread entitled Christian Nationalism is neither truly Christian nor truly Nationalist )
I like simple answers as much as anyone, but demanding quick and neat, black / white solutions regarding national (and international policy) is a fools game and irresistibly tempting.
Theres a theory that peoples patience and attention span has been on the wane for decades, and the internet has exacerbated the trend.
Another trend is thinking that one is extremely smart, because of insta-google searches.
Join that with the simultaneous spread of misinformation / disinformation.
It is clearly a type of psychological projection when the Alt-Right whines about wokeness when (taken as a whole) their own movement rests on an unstable and bizarre (and often contradictory) patchwork of lies, blame, intolerance, paranoia, mythology, etc.
Whats the old saying about small lies attracting small numbers, and big lies attracting large numbers of followers?
The leader who appears strong and confident during turbulent times has an advantage, even if he is a cowardly selfish gasbag who doesnt care about anything beyond their little fantasy bubble.
A quick glance at the collection of loonies that stormed the Capitol is a handy reference.
Not that long ago in the USA, the Constitution was near-sacred to many, especially conservatives.
Now it seems that many of them would (as in a fairytale) trade it like a cow for some magic beans.
No, that's not what I mean. It's not that if you support Trump's policies, therefore you must be gaslighting me. Specifically, if you bring up what Trump has said and done to take of the guard rails of the American democracy, and introducing dangerous rhetoric into the political system that echoes things you might here in a rightwing rally in the 1930s, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed alarming, and despite agreeing in various policies, the person is too dangerous, they will say that it's no big deal, or that they haven't read what is all over MSM (because they have their own echo chamber of rightwing podcasts/takshow hosts curating what matters). Or, exactly as was stated here:
Quoting Echarmion
I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that.
I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP!
But that just speaks to the fact that its the VOTERS who are keeping these spineless politicians beholden to their dear leader.. And instead of taking a moral stance against him, they cowtow to their will. Where does that leave politics in general then? As slimy as it's ever been.
In an odd way, I sometimes find it comforting that such ideologies (or idiot-ologies lol) have been kept at bay in the past (though never completely eradicated of course).
And perhaps the intolerance acted roughly like a vaccine to spur a counter-action to increase resistance to short-sighted tribalism, stupidity and hatred, by its very noxiousness.
(This is probably looking through rosy glasses, and desperately searching for a diamond in a pile of manure).
Reading about the history of the Prohibition in the USA during the 1920s gives a similar effect.
(Or watching the Ken Burns documentary about that tumultuous time).
Unless someone wants to define our current system as fascist (which I don't), I put the chances at right around zero. The forces maintaining the status quo are well forged, and not seriously challenged by those marching in the street, writing scathing articles, and or even by the voting booth.
Your post could have appeared during any 5 year period from 1950 until today, and I expect the same sort of responses would have been given, with back and forth about how the political and economic environment will never sustain with way things are going.
The only reason I don't say it's outright zero is because there is always the chance of an unforeseen disruptive force, like a meteor slams into earth, nuclear war, or a zombie apocolypse.
The most likely of those deals with war. Which means its less our morals that offers us protection than it is our military.
Edit: I'd change 1950 to 1865, but I might be convinced to roll it back to 1776.
Trump was happy to let them (mostly) carry out this agenda, and his rhetoric (mostly) reflects this as well code words like liberty, freedom, small government, security, law and order, etc. Meanwhile every policy decision helped the wealthiest people and the corporate sector, the most obvious being his one legislative achievement: the tax cuts of 2017. He also stacked the regulating agencies with insiders from the industries being regulated Scott Pruitt heading the EPA the most glaring example, in my view.
So while his rhetoric has become even more extreme, and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025 policy plans is scary indeed, I dont think the powers that be really want a civil war or suspending the constitution; they dont want fascism. Rather, they want a well run system, preferably with even more wealth transferred to them. They very much need the state to subsidize them and bail them out when their profiteering crashes the economy.
Im not too worried about fascism. A second Trump term will be catastrophic enough, perhaps even worse than fascism.
It's not clear to me that we don't have one already, although I can't say that it's organized. Let's say there are plenty of fascists, or crypto-fascists.
Ever read Sinclair Lewis' novel It Can't Happen Here? It's American dictator, Buzz Windrip (love the name), is described as disturbingly similar to You Know Who.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In my opinion, this is a classic example of framing.
One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?
Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy.
And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system.
Yes, and this is the more subtle version of what is going on.. To morally equivocate standard corruption of politicians (making money from being in office generally in some fashion is usually the corruption here, but also hiding agendas etc.), doesn't mean that these politicians DISMANTLE the very system and MANIPULATE their voters to do their bidding. Also, they do not dog whistle (generally) in blatant and egregious forms of divisive/shocking racial/identity/supremacy rhetoric.
Certainly, I will say, I find it so interesting that the "moral majority" (mainly white evangelicals) go along with him, despite their railing against the Clinton years and so on. Obama gave them nothing to hate in that department, but Trump brought it back a thousand time over, but because of his court appointees regarding abortion, anything goes.
Quoting Tzeentch
I wouldn't say they are fascist. But they may (unconsciously) hold views that conform with fascist tendencies. I might characterize it more as cognitive dissonance. In normal conversation they would condemn such things, but once the cult leader says it, it is defended. It really becomes an identity thing more than anything. It started as sort of a joke.. he's an outsider, and he's pissing off "the libs", and then it becomes actually embracing him no matter what.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's not the same of what I am talking about. If RFK, Jr. Ran as a democrat, and was afraid to bash Biden because he was afraid Biden voters would be angered, that would might be the same. There is nothing comparable on the Democratic side.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's just politics in general. Blame the other guy for your failings. There is a general "my party above all else" that permeates all of it, but that is a different, systemic problem- one that Washington clearly predicted in his Farewell Address.
I agree that the label has many problems. There are certainly some troubling similarities between the "Trumpist movement," and fascist movements, but there are many differences as well. For one, the Trump camp has been openly feuding with the security services and military for a long time, and hasn't done much to court the officer corps. It's also a movement with its core support in the elderly; Trump lost voters under 55 by landslide margins both times.
Most important though, it is far less a movement of unity than the fascist movements. The fascists certainly looked inward for enemies, but they were also looking outward, a far cry from the isolationist trends in Trumpism. There was this potent idea of a "people" that needed to be unified.
While there certainly is some of that in Trumpism, the celebration of the "real Americans" as a sort of exceptional people, the movement takes as its core opponent a whole half of the country. You see this bleed into policy, e.g. when Trump refused to allow a natural disaster declaration for California fires against all past precedent, openly voicing the opinion that federal funds shouldn't go to such liberal states (ironic since the fires largely hit areas he won). There is a war to be waged in Trumpism, but it's primarily a culture war. Fascism was about a sort of top down unity, Trumpism is very much a movement of minority rule.
You can even see this in how Hitler went through pains to organize big rigged plebiscites. By contrast, while Trump will certainly claim he really won the popular vote despite losing by millions of votes, it isn't an area of focus. The GOP has largely embraced the idea that they [I]should[/I] be able to rule while gaining fewer votes, and that the system was always intended to work this way, to boost the power of the votes of the more virtuous. There is none of the hand wringing that accompanied Bush II's loss of the popular vote. Instead, state parties are actively working to enshrine Electoral College-like institutions at the state and local level. The GOP proposal for Colorado elections would have let them win the last governors race despite losing by more than 10% for example.
And then there is the full throated endorsement of police and police unions, despite them being both organized labor and public sector workers, a loathed combo in most situations. Contrast this with all the attacks on the military. If I were to look for a parallel, I might look more to apartheid South Africa. The movement is inward looking, focused on minority rule and control of the levers of power.
I wouldn't frame it simply as "populism." Trump lost by 3.5 million and then 7.5 million votes (his loss margin was equal to 10% of his vote total). He could certainly win this year, but if he does he will likely lose by 9-11 million votes just based on demographics.
The GOP has won more votes in a national election once is the past 36 years, and the trend will almost certainly hold true for 40 years, almost a half century. The only time they won a national election in that period they happened to have the incumbency following 9/11 despite the fact that they lost the popular vote in 2000. And, based on the most complete recount information released back in 2008, they also lost the Electoral College. The Bush victory in 2000 relied on the fact that the deciding state was Florida, where his campaign manager was the AG, in control of the elections, and his brother the governor. Even then, it came down to a party line vote in the court. Without that, the party would be on a near half century losing steak.
So it's populism, but of a very particular sort. It's a populism where restricting access to the ballot box has become a top priority. In a number of states, 1 in every 5, and as much as 1 in every 4 African American males has been stripped of their voting rights. The states where disenfranchisement is highest are all GOP strongholds. When the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported giving these people their voting rights back, the GOP was able to effectively keep disenfranchisement on the table.
I'm not sure if you can even call it "populism." It is decidedly not about the broad will of any people, but the broad will of "the good people." It also isn't anti-elite. Conservative billionaires are heros. Clarence Thomas isn't in any hot water with the base for cozying up to a billionaire and receiving massive gifts from him. It's anti-intellectual for sure, and against many institutions, but it celebrated elites provided they are the right sort of elite. Again, I think South Africa is the better model here.
Certainly, but there is a valid point to be made if a "democracy" has handed power to the side getting fewer votes in 3 of the last 6 elections. The problem looks even more acute when you consider the widespread use of disenfranchisement mentioned above and all the structural issues that support highly divergent levels of voter turn out across different populations. You don't get the day off to vote and if you live in some places you could spend the entire work day waiting to cast your ballot. In terms of actual approval, the GOP does even worse than losing by 7-11 million votes would suggest.
And then there are to consider all the ways in which the Senate and the limit on House seats favors small rural states, or even more so the aggressive efforts to make minority rule even easier to achieve.
Not exactly. The immigrants in the border are the "other". You can support better border security policies without framing the way he is doing.. DeSantis and Haley, whatever your feelings towards their policies, are standard rhetoric regarding this stance WITHOUT the "outward enemy" rhetoric. It's a not so subtle difference to emphasize security and being anti-drug smuggling and "poisoning the blood".
Many Christian literalists hold monarchy as an ideal, as that is what they expect in an afterlife. The extent to which such a view is consciously held varies, but it tends to be there to some degree as a consequence of the culture.
That might be so, yes. I think I have heard this before. I can also see it being, "God brings us messengers in various flawed forms". But you see, notice the convenience that the message is what they already wanted to hear. So it is a very convenient belief to have.
Absolutely. The leader is divinely appointed and the electorate either acedes to the will of God and is rewarded or is punished for rejecting God's will. There has been a lot written about how Donald Trump is analogous to the Persian King Cyrus, who allowed the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. It's not just one person writing on this, but a major theme.
All the problems since 2020, the Ukraine War, the Gaza War, high inflation? Divine punishment for rejecting Trump (or failing to fight for him after he won).
Cyrus is in many ways a good choice because he is a pagan king and not entirely righteous (even the stand out kings of Israel, David and Solomon, have their many very unrighteous moments). This helps wave away claims about Trump's lack of religious observance, the various scandals, etc.
But there is also a movement to see Trump as a sort of prophet, or I've even heard "John the Baptist of the Second Coming." I don't think it's likely, but given the fervency of some Q circles, I could certainly see a small subsection of Trumpism becoming a religion akin to Rastafarianism. When Trump dies, there will be a vacuum in that enviornment, and people willing to step in with prophecy. Given how things already are, it wouldn't be that shocking to see pronouncements that Trump isn't really dead, but in heaven like Elijah, and likely to return in the last days. Modern Judaism has some groups like this too around certain leaders.
You can buy Saint Donald Trump prayer candles and icons, and I'm not sure they are 100% ironic. But the full on Trump worship crowd is a small subset of a subset of his supporters, not a particularly large group.
Fascism has long been absorbed into the structure of the American state, starting with FDR. It's corporatism, grand public works, state propaganda, have a frightening similarity (Wolfgang Schivelbusch Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939) with the policies of Mussolini and Hitler. The missing element is the abject totalitarianism, although weve seen it rear its ugly head during the pandemic.
But Fascism was rarely a policy program. Though in Italy it was founded on corporatism, it was willing to use any economic system, whether liberal or socialist, to advance the interests of the State. In the mouths of its founders, Fascism was more of an ethos. It held a quite common view of man as a political animal, a la Aristotle, and thus conceived of man's duty towards the polis as obligatory, one of duty rather than freedom. Any bourgeois aloofness from the political life was denounced. Wherever man focused more on his own life he risked atomizing the whole.
Its weird statist ethos is observable in some rhetoric nowadays. For instance any ideas that regard the State as "the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it" (Giovanni Gentile The Philosophic Basis of Fascism) agrees with fascism at one of its most fundamental points. Another is its opposition to individualism"Fascism is opposed to all the abstractions of an individualistic character based upon materialism typical of the Eighteenth Century" (The Doctrine of Fascism Benito Mussolini). Anti-individualism is absolutely rife nowadays. Defending individualism on this very forum is sure to be met with disdain. Fascism also despises historical materialism and class conflict, a la Socialism, because it refutes homo economicus and the division of classes; but it seeks to retain the "sentimental aspiration" of it, "to achieve a community of social life in which the sufferings and hardships of the humblest classes are alleviated (The Doctrine of Fascism Benito Mussolini)". Of course, this is achieved through the state rather than communal responsibility, from one man to another.
At any rate, fascism is dead. At best we can have some philosophers and some parties that could be described as Neo-Fascist, even where they themselves might repudiate the label. One can read philosophers Alexander Dugin or his French collaborator Alain De Benoist to see what they're up to. Their whole project, as of now, is illiberalism. And I fear that, from all sides Left and Right, their ideas are catching on.
This is a false equivocation. Fascism has various aspects, not simply that the state sponsors programs, or gives subsidies to corporations. To be fair, Trump doesn't have the militant ideology of traditional fascism, but it has all the hallmarks that surround it:
1) Race baiting/identity politics (poisoning the blood, calling enemies vermin, demonizing illegal immigrants in harsh rhetoric)
2) Allusions to a glorious past (Make America Great Again)
3) Use of para-military forces to enforce will (January 6th, rallies, etc.)
4) Cult of personality of the leader (the unwavering support for Trump no matter what he says or does)
5) A support for fellow strongmen and dictators (admires Putin, Kim Jung Un, Orban, etc.)
6) Vows to exact vengeance on political rivals (calling them vermin, etc.)
7) General amoral stances to get things done (no moral center to values, simply transactional)
8) Believing executive power to be practically unlimited (this new case that the president is immune from any wrongdoing unless a Congress deems it so in an impeachment and conviction).
9) Ignoring democratic norms (using the ambiguities in the system to get into power, like asking for votes to those who count the votes, suing districts for counting the votes wrong, etc.. trying to have the rally-goers and vice president hold up a procedural vote.)
Which various aspects have I missed?
You focused on some of the structural stuff that doesn't apply. I don't even care if this should be called "fascism proper". It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.
I also focused on the philosophical premises, which you avoided.
Hallmarks and echoes arent good enough, Im afraid. One has to show that fascism is the guiding thought and action behind he who implements it.
Well, you ignored what I said in my last post. I said that I don't even care if it's not considered fascisim proper. It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.
Ah, fascism improper. Ok
Call it fascism-adjacent. Who knows what a second term will look like. In the case of the US, you can't just have fascism full-on. It has to be a slow build. It's going to look different.
The USA has an armed populace.
That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters.
I see nothing adjacent here and see much of what you described in the activities of his opponents. At any rate, there is a thread for that topic and if you wish to debate it we can take it up there.
Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism.
Quoting NOS4A2
See here:
[quote="Echarmion;871369"]I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is.
Also, again, it's a slow build whereby the guardrails get taken off a bit at the time and normalized. Then use whatever norms that aren't strict laws to make decisions that work against the spirit of democratic governance, if not strictly illegal.
An intentional or unintentional pun on the question of Fascism?
Haha, you can give @Echarmion credit for that. His quote actually. But yeah, that is a good one :smile:
Like prosecuting ones political opponents or removing them from the ballot? Given the unprecedented nature of each of these, we can watch in real time as the guardrails get removed one piece at a time.
Prosecuting politicians who try to remove the guardrails off the political process (illegally asking for votes, encouraging, aiding, and not calling off a violent insurrection in the Capitol as sitting president?).
Prosecuting political opponents for trumped up charges, yes. Though such activity could be construed as communist, or Putinist, I suppose.
This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard.
Based on these low quality comments, it looks like projecting here. This is now the second thread I've seen you have not much to add when it comes to supporting your ideas except for sound bytes followed by ad hom.
Willingness to use them against the government may be, though. I'm not saying this wont lead to disaster - I just cannot see how its possible fascism rears its head, unless seriously re-defined from its European origin. I don't think Rorty's conception is great, but even using that, I can't see it happening.
He seems more interested in low quality posts and then trolling. Why cajole someone who can't seem to do that themselves?
I can't see a single aspect of the USA that could lead to fascism. Im not really making an argument - I remained unconvinced it's a live issue.
Though, Schops 'slow build' idea could be a problem i;m ignorant to. But i've watch the USA develop across thirty years with interest and its just toddlers swatting at each other in a paddling pool.
Your quickness to impugn when someone disagrees with you is quite clear to me. I've not done this for you. I've said it looks like you're not thinking.
Your assertion that most people who own guns are Trump supporters is an extremely low frequency take.
Here's the course of events. You said:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
This is provoking and then trolling throughout to me.. Sorry but it is. You might want to have NOT started with "This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard". How is that not a provocation? If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking.
I don't think it's likely under Trump either, though. We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism.
Jan 6 was a complete failure and resulted in no effect on the electoral or judicial system because it was utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. And apparently still does
Edit WAY after the fact: This was wrong. The electoral system seems to be very, very marginally changing in a way that helps to defeat Trump, giving more support to my position above.
I'm not seeing any reason to think it would be different - In fact, i think its WAY more likely a civil war ensues given that the 'other side' is now aware to the fact that Trump supporters are able to become actively, and dangerously unhinged at large.
Just to add, Fascism is against "individual self-defense" and "class self-defense". Defense was the sole job of the state, which is a common idea nowadays.
"The Fascist doctrine, enacting justice among the classes in compliance with a fundamental necessity of modern life, does away with class self-defense, which, like individual self-defense in the days of barbarism, is a source of disorder and of civil war." (Alfredo Rocco - The Political Doctrine of Fascism).
I suppose that's why they enacted some pretty harsh gun controls.
It wasn't one, so i'm just going to ignore you in this thread now.
You've quadrupled your post. But the three extensions are of the first.
No. It isn't. You are free to think whatever you want about me. I simply don't care. That's up to you to think, not me to defend or encourage(would a smiley emoji have changed it's valence? No my circus). Nor is it my issue that expressing my interpretation, as an appearance to me of shallow thinking, hurt your feelings. Just walk on if you disagree.
Quoting AmadeusD
I wish I could share this view. I tend to agree with this:
Quoting Wayfarer
Out of interest, if an American leader did have fascist inclinations what would you expect to see?
I think it's also the more terrifying possibility, so my alert level is still quite high, in terms of geopolitical implications of this year/18 months going forward. Given that Republicans are likely to win that way, but a fairly overwhelming margin, I reserve judgement on any long-term outcome as i'm essentially a-political between lump labels like that.
I would expect to see them actually meet criteria to be considered fascist - ethnic supremacy, a rejection of democracy (see Belarus currently for an example that you'd be a complete fool to compare Trump to (and Nth Korea)) military governance (again, examples can be given here that would be entirely wrong to liken Trump to), totalitarian ambition (while i recognise Trump is likely megalomaniacal he is ineffectual in this respect - his own party rejects his more wild actions) and finally, for a country which purports to the be the worlds greatest, most powerful nation I would expect, with no sense of flexibility, that there were an imperial ambition.
I don't think we see any of these. Some other overlapping elements like economic conservatism or (possibly - though, this is definitely a live debate to my mind) social/cultural illiberalism exist in the MAGA/Trump crowd for sure, so i see it would be very easy, on a shallow reading, to lump all this stuff together as just go "Duhhhhh fascism!". Japan appears to be closer to Fascism than does the USA.
So most of these "definitional" threads are going to be about how it's defined obviously. If we want to look at Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, or Imperialist Japan, we can see a very top-down, militarized society, beholden to a strong leader. That is not necessarily Trumpism.
However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. That being said, Trump's stated goals, are very much about pursuing his enemies. That isn't necessarily fascism. It's more mafioso mentality. Get in power in Machiavellian fashion, no matter what methods available, and exact revenge on your political opponents. The use of loyal crowds to promote your cause and cause light chaos when needed, like your own personal army, again, is adjacent to the trappings of fascism. Also for him is to ensure he doesn't end up in jail, and if so, it would be house arrest at Margo Lago. So he would simply make it extremely hard for people to put him in a position where he could be detained for all or any of this.
100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me.
I guess what I see is nascent fascism. The pointers are there, in his words and deeds but he needs another term to consolidate the work - join the dots - so that his nascent fascistic tendencies can come to completion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, I think this is probably the key.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree.
The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity.
I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course.
I do not think this is in the realm of a reasonable expectation, though.
There are some really, really wild leaps being made between his toddler-like behaviour and some kind of Machiavellian genius consolidating power. I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular.
I think that's the problem here. It's like you know you've seen this playbook before, but it's so low level compared to say the rantings of a Hitler, and the much more militarized ambitions that there is a difference. Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics.
Quoting Tom Storm
This is an interesting question. Oddly, most of the bottom rank military I think supports him, despite his horrible remarks on dead soldiers. Boggles my mind actually.
Cool. Maybe this is what we agree on.
Quoting AmadeusD
Fair enough. I guess it's just down to how one interprets the phenomenon. I tend to think he's wanting absolute power and to destroy enemies and there may be people crazy enough in key roles to assist him in this project.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Totally agree.
Quoting Fooloso4
All this sounds ominous enough and it seems to match my understanding of the situation. I would not think it would take a genius to imagine what could come next. Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc.
@schopenhauer1
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/596313fa-4545-4735-8a75-299c5b91fe8a
"Thus, active-duty enlisted personnel who identify with a political party are about twice as likely to identify with the Republican Party as are civilians. However, active-duty enlisted personnel are nearly four times as likely as civilians to report being Independent, and are substantially less likely than civilians to identify with the Democratic Party. "
Not directly related to Trump, but the only data i can find on that specific connection is from 2020 and is about military leaders, rather than Enlisted personnel.
Quoting Tom Storm
I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s?
Once they had control, yes. However, on their rise to power the Nazis were very active in the sort of street fighting that characterized political life in the Wiemar Republic. Their anthem comes from the party's origins as street brawlers defending their turf (they were no way unique in having a paramilitary/brawling organization, many parties had this). You see a similar thing with the reactionary Black Hundreds in Russia prior to WWI.
I would say there is a similar element in the American right, but in general the focus on self-defense is more private, less communal. The Nazis were more focused on collective self defense, and you see this in thing like the Hitler Youth. American sensibilities are far more individualistic.
That said, support for the right to bear arms is conditional. A number GOP strongholds have stripped 1/4th or more of all African American males of the right to bear arms for life, sometimes over trivial offenses like "felony vandalism." There has been no push to undo this (unlike disenfranchisement), quite the contrary.
This alone makes the movement different from the Nazis. It is less about a national people being unified, but about a select people controlling the state.
The left similarly focuses on particular groups quite a bit; no wonder there is such disunity. But in the left it manifests in different ways.
According to a 2020 Gallop Poll, 32% of Americans say they own guns. So, 68% do not. Gun ownership is not a normal distribution across demographics.
According to figures quoted by the NRA, Americans own nearly 25 million AR and AK platform firearms. (NSSF[5])
AR-15s are the most commonly used rifles in marksmanship competitions, training, and home defense.
According to Pew, "About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%)." Hitmen would need a gun, I guess.
There is, not surprisingly, a difference between Democrats and Republicans about whether gun violence is a problem. Why don't more Republicans and Republican-leaning people think gun violence is a problem?
I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. It just needs the right ingredients. Dealing with dissidents or enemies through imprisonment and murder is an eternal favorite, forget the 1940's. Guantanamo Bay?
I'm not saying this will happen like it currently happens in Russia, but I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric.
Is it because they generally think that gun violence is a way to deal with social problems?
I do not think that either, but I do not think we are seeing anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. Back to the 'slow build' theory.. Which i also don't take tbh lol, but is more tenable to me. Quoting Tom Storm
I would highly doubt it. I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. I think it assumes a level of co-ordination and power that simply doesn't exist within US politics..
Quoting Tom Storm
Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation.
I agree.
Fascism may be more easily defined by the way fascism operates than a set of beliefs it follows. That isn't to say it has no beliefs.
American fascism, should it emerge full force, will probably not look like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. We do not have the Freikorps and Communists who engaged in heavy street fighting. We don't have the SA (Sturmabteilung) Brown Shirts marching around singing the Horst-Wessel song and beating up people who didn't "sieg heil" with sufficient enthusiasm.
Our fascism will probably feature what Universeness calls "evanhellicals". White Christian Nationalists, gospel of prosperity preachers, KKK types, misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration Proud Boys, Boogaloo, QAnon, white supremacy groups, demented fundamentalists, etc.
If violence is deployed, it will probably be directed at racial minorities, the left-wing professoriat, prominent liberals, civilian officials, sexual minorities, and might be organized as scattered gang / vigilante / terrorist executions. This kind of violence would not need state sanction.
These seem to be hard-to-define, usually-incorrectly-attributed, subjective and naive things to consider... (minus the underlined).
Am I noticing a somewhat socially left-leaning element to this forum?
it seems most readily employ words like "transphobic" to label ideas without compunction - which, in my real-world experience is utterly preposterous and the source of the perceived conflict is actually this imprecise and partisan usage to smear the opponent. An ironic twist, i'd think.
And this is simply a difference in how we read the events and personalities, I would say.
Quoting AmadeusD
Same as above. However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship. I would think it might help in motivation.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined.
Yes, one thing the Conservative Incorporated likes to forget that Reagan implemented harsh and targeted gun control, especially in California, where he did it to arguably stop the Black Panther party from policing their own communities. The racist beginnings of American gun control are well-enough known, but its surprising to see it implemented in almost the same fashion today, not so much on racial terms, but to defend the established order.
Fascism is undoubtedly conservative, as is gun control. But i would argue that the "American left", if there was such a group, is as conservative as the right when it comes to its culture and institutions. Liberalism and freedom and individual rights are are nothing but rhetorical play-things for all of them.
Of course. Im just unconvinced of the reasonableness of reading it in a way that gets to worrying about impending totalitarianism/dictatorship/fascism.
Quoting Tom Storm
Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas...
Quoting Tom Storm
No argument; but I can't see the relevance to the current situation. I'd still need to see something to indicate it might happen, rather htan is possible.
The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. These folk generally lack the capacity to see that who they choose as advisors and who they invite into the sphere of influence can be dangerous and destructive. I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper.
Hmm, that's true, and a blindspot of sorts for my thinking.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is this suggesting (i'm enquiring, not side-eyeing, to be clear) that we could expect other bad actors to be implicated? Trump being essentially a patsy?
Like most leaders, Trump can't achieve what he wants without allies, supporters, advisors, confidants, etc. I imagine his capacity to choose wisely here will not be good. The previous administration certainly demonstrated this. But who knows what this could bring next time?
I carelessly quoted terms I don't especially like.
These terms are clear enough to me. That said, I don't like nouns with the "phobic" suffix. The term "Homophobia" got some use in the 1970s but took off in the following decades. I don't think people have phobias toward religion or towards homosexuals. I think they just dislike homosexuals. [Granted, some people have psycho-sexual hang-ups; some people are afraid that they might be homosexual. That's probably less common where homosexuality is readily accepted. I don't think there is anyone who is afraid he or she might be Moslem.] I prefer a scale with strong identification on the left side, indifference in the middle, and hate on the right side. Same for Islam. "I don't fear islam; I loathe Islam."
"Misogyny" and "anti-immigrant" aren't confusing you, I hope.
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh yes, definitely.
Fair enough.
Quoting BC
None of them confuse me - It's their application that's the problem. But this seems clear to you also :)
Quoting BC
Ok, cool. Not just me then LOL.
One place to look is how Trumpian conservatism is shaping education and local elections. They may loose some battles but are set to win the war. While it is true that the Christian Right did not start with Trump he has become their champion, helping consolidate their power and further their dream of theocracy. The Claremont/Hillsdale hypocritical elitist intellectuals still think they can pull his strings. Anti-regulation plutocrats think they have an ally. But Trump is only in it for one reason - Trump. His friends became enemies and his enemies friends.
I think it possible that this time around he will be more overt in his alliances with other autocratic world leaders. A new world order that is only a few steps away from a new world disorder, chaos, and war.
I certainly fear it, though I don't know what to expect. I was surprised when Trump won. I have no doubt that he could win again, and I have no doubt that the fascists support him.
But I'm not sure that there's the popular will for fascism to support it. Wouldn't January 6th have worked if there was?
Still -- 5 years is a long time for predictions in the United States. So while I have no expectations I feel some fear of the fascist trends.
Who says it didn't? 139 current members of Congress voted not to certify the election result. They're still there doing Trump's bidding. The Jan 6th coup attempt is not finished.
Two excerpts from yesterday's Washington Post:
On the same day, the headline story was "Violent political threats surge as 2024 begins, haunting American democracy
Not far from krystallnacht, at least in spirit, but with 'Liberals' and 'the Deep State' as targets.
uhhhh......
Krystallnacht was embodied in:
"Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were ransacked as attackers demolished buildings with sledgehammers.[6] Rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland.[7] Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed,[8][9] and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps."
All in the pursuit of Ethnonational intimidation.
I'm unsure how to parse your claim other than as either a hyperbole meant to illustrate the hilarity of such radical misinterpretations - or a position so politically partisan as to amount to a form of lying.
But given I do not fall into wild echo-chamber driven narratives perhaps this thread just isn't for me.
Quoting Wayfarer
Fair that you're using hyperbole - But if the above lands it in 'fascist' territory I am at a complete loss as to what history books you're reading from i guess.
The demonizing of Republicans/Conservatives as ethical monsters in the last 20 years has much, much more to answer for imo.
But the Republican Party has a lot to answer for, doesn't it? After the January 6th atrocity, if the Senate had confirmed the impeachment, Trump's political meddling would be over. As it is, they've re-habilitated him and are continuing to push 'the big lie'. Even the current Speaker, when asked just the other day whether Biden's election was legitimate, would not give an unequivocal answer. They're pursuing a completely groundless impeachment motion against Biden on Trump's bidding, and Trump is once again dominating the Party. And they have allowed that to happen.
I assume it's clear, but just so it's on record: I think Trump is an incompetent child, ill-fitted to working the desk at a Hotel let alone owning one. So the idea that he was President hits me as a joke. I can't grasp it fully. It is insane that someone of his nature (and stature, socially speaking) could have been elected. So, your concern doesn't miss me - a further Trump term makes certain outcomes very much more likely, and they are undesirable outcomes. I don't think Fascism is one.
The effects of Jan 6 are noted, although, I allow far less weight to them than you do.
However, it seems to me that the exponentially worse results of the BLM riots don't cause the same concern in you, so we're talking different languages I think. The ability for DEI and CRT-driven programs and systems to 'other' people based on a merely perceived political affiliation is absolutely abhorrent and has torn families and communities apart. The current Israel/Hamas thing seems a perfect microcosm of that. I think it is maybe a little misguided to consider those issues not as much a risk as the overt peddling of crap Trump and his mates are up to. I'm assuming they are just more-closely aligned to your vision for the USA. Whcih is fine. Plenty of Repubs who aren't psychopaths probably think that about Trump's vision.
I most sincerely hope we are not heading for any kind of Krystallnacht but some equivalent at some point isn't inconceivable. Krystallnacht was not a spontaneous outburst of hatred. It was an engineered event. Nazi cadre performed the outrages. The January 6 Insurrection was an engineered event. "Volunteers" showed up and performed the desired signs of "resistance to the deep state". Manufacturing an event takes very little away from its effectiveness as propaganda of the deed for the receptive public at large.
I agree. But to my mind, taking it seriously as an actual imminent (lets say, within Trump's impending term) possibility is very much misguided. I hope i'm right, but am ready to be wrong and will be sorry if i am.
Quoting BC
I don't deny the fact of this, but i do deny that it instills any real commitment in the population at alrge. Most people wont even vote.
The movement Trump is a part of is not finished. It existed prior to Trump incarnating himself as their messiah and is better organized due to his influence. He even delivered on an old promise of the Republicans with Roe v. Wade so the Republicans have a reason to like him -- he's clearly electable, and he gets things done.
But I think it better to look at January 6th as a defeat rather than a success. If he would have had the popular will or the military on his side then things could have gone differently, but since there's organized resistance, they did not succeed at keeping Trump as president.
Yes, the abortive coup itself was a defeat. But since then the anti-democratic forces have fought a seemingly successful campaign to rehabilitate themselves.
For a few weeks after Jan 6 it looked like there'd be a bipartisan effort to curb these tendencies, but it unraveled and the GOP seems more firmly than ever on the path towards an entrenched minority rule, as @Count Timothy von Icarus has argued in detail.
Incidentally I think one aspect of fascism that Paxton in his definition from the OP is missing is the disdain for the democratic process.
For a few years now right wing pundits and influencers have adopted the propaganda line that "the US is a republic, not a democracy". This could certainly be taken in a direction which sees the "will of the people", as a metaphysical force, as the main determining factor.
This is a pretty interesting take on fascism .
I'm uncertain whether there are any Conservatives left, since Bill Buckley died. Conservatives are against the intrusion of government in our lives. Those called "Conservatives" now seem to relish government control, except perhaps when it comes to the ability to acquire and retain money.
The internal contradictions in American versions of conservatism is the tensions between personal freedoms and states rights, the 9th and 10th amendment, respectively. The ambiguities between when one can have precedence over the other, allows for all sorts of contradictory policies and positions.
Less governmental intrusion is not a plank of the conservative platform (though conservatives commonly claim it is). Rather it is a trope that gets dragged out on occasion to speak about taxes and environmental regulations, yet goes against their stances on abortion and homosexual rights.
Just as with the left, the noisiest (and usually most stupid) prevail in the media and are eagerly picked to be the true representatives by the other side.
I do think that there are the old fashion conservatives, but they are simply muted out by the Trump crowd.
I don't like Trump, I don't like Biden. I think Trump would be worse for the world, though Biden is far, far from being good.
However, and despite my own personal wishes, if Trump is not allowed to run for president, then that could very well lead to something like a civil war.
We have been conditioned to think of negative aspects of powerful ruling agents such as fascism, authoritarianism, imperialism etc as being primarily descriptive and critical of governments.
However billionaires, international corporations and banks play an enormous (though murky) role, and it keeps getting larger every day.
So powerful are these non-governmental Powers and Lords that a case could be made that most governments are now their servants.
At the very least, the many world governments (with few exceptions) are eager partners of these controlling Billionaires, ready to answer the phone in the middle of the night to please them.
The US government fits this description very closely.
The governments set up shop in plain view, at least in liberal democracies.
They are accountable and usually elected, and give frequent press conferences.
Their Billionaire Lords answer to no one.
They create LLCs and shell companies and play clever games with laws.
Games like Change Inconvenient Laws. And Im Above the Law.
And the ever-popular If You Cant Beat em, Bribe em.
These wraiths misrule the world, then disappear like a fart in the wind.
They crouch in the shadows like gangs of vermin.
We are left poor and holding the bag of their shit
:up: Thanks. Tragically, that about sums it up in a nutshell.
Quoting Vaskane
Poop-aganda our steady diet since birth.
Where does a two-ton gorilla crap? Anywhere he wants to.
"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with n] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with k] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."
Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998[/quote]
Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, where formerly-favored groups long for a return to the glory-days of a monarchy or autocracy (MAGA).
For example, Mussolini's Fascist Party won election by a landslide in a multi-party democracy. Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny. So yes, history could repeat, even in an economically powerful Democracy with Free Speech laws. Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, when the system becomes unbalanced without loyal opposition. :meh:
"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with n] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with k] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."
That hasn't aged well. The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out.
Quoting RogueAI
Clearly, either you've not been paying attention and/or you're just choking on reactionary grievance. :mask:
Mostly for whom? To the extent "capitalism" has "increased standards of living", this has happened "trickled down" unevenly, cyclically, and at the cost of mass alienation what John Dewey aptly describes as industrial feudalism the return of "Gilded Age" wealth inequality (e.g. T. Piketty)¹ accelerated by the last half century of neoliberal globalization and fiscal austerity policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_Ideology ¹
I'll cite my own white gay case: over the last 50 years, including working years and then retirement, I have not seen a lot of improvement in my standard of living. I'm not complaining -- I have enough -- but IF I had had dependents, my income would not have been anywhere close to enough. Many minority and GLBT people did or do have dependents, and have found the going pretty tough.
Quoting RogueAI
There have been periods of time over the last century when our capitalist economy distributed more resources to a broader population than at other times--the post-WWII period up until the early 1970s. But the post-war boom was sandwiched between a severe depression (1930s) and a period of neoliberal distribution of resources for the richer 25%, which is still in effect.
For a substantial block of the population, roughly 25%, there just hasn't been economic advancement.
I was more focused on Quoting 180 Proof
This doesn't track with my own experience. I'm a teacher, a career open to anyone who can go to two years of community college, two years of state college, and pass a few tests. Plenty of teachers make over six figures, and teachers are desperately needed. Making six figures for working 185 days a year does not seem like "industrial feudalism". I live quite well on that.
Not for lack of trying. A current candidate for president of US frequently criticizes past & current attempts to "level the playing field" politically, economically, and lingustically. "Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny." Maybe the candidate prefers proactive tyranny. :cool:
The Tyranny of Political Correctness? :
Claims of so-called reverse racism mainly circulate within closed social media groups
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12690?af=R
That's kind of the point we have been discussing. The resentment within populations which seeks antidemocratic 'strong men' to deliver them from political correctness, technocrats and educated urbanites. That's Rorty's point too.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, I think this is the problem when people play with fire.
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
There are social gains, political gains, and economic gains. Which GLBT people have gained what, when, and where varies quite a bit. To be fair, GLBT gains which have been firmly established haven't been wiped out. Where minorities are also economically, socially, and politically marginalized, my guess is that things at least haven't improved, or have regressed -- again, varying by areas.
Somalis in the Minneapolis have done well politically and economically, certainly. The Hmong, not so much, even with a longer residential time. Illegal immigrants are generally marginalized, are generally minorities, and are generally not doing well.
Gay people in liberal, prosperous states have seen solid social and political gains. Many (not all) have seen economic gains, too. In politically and religiously conservative and less prosperous states, the situation is not the same as in LA, Boston, Chicago, and NYC.
The Methodist Church is going through a schism over homosexuality -- how much to accept, who can be married, who can be ordained. Missouri Synod Lutherans are not especially tolerant. Southern Baptists, ditto.
The right to access abortion services was settled law until it wasn't. The protections available to GLBT people is not, for the most part, constitutionally protect on the state level. 16 states have very little protection on the books.
Most teachers are not getting that much, on average, during much of their careers. According to the NEA, the average public school teacher earns $66,745. They are earning on average $3,644 less now than they were 10 years ago. And then there is inflation, of course.
Two teachers making $66k a year is a very good household income. You can live quite well on it. And that's only for 185 days a year. And the retirement and health benefits are great. I'm going to retire at 55. It is also not hard to become a teacher and there's a very severe teacher shortage nationwide. The average pay for teachers in California and NY is over $80,000. Those two states represent a fifth of the country.
I point this out to push back against 180's doom-and-gloom. There are still good jobs out there if people want them, and are willing to go back to school for four years. That's not so expensive if you go the community college-state college route. School districts aren't picky about where degrees come from.
And yet Ohio of all places just codified abortion rights. Trump carried Ohio by ten points! Dobbs was clearly a setback, but paradoxically, it's making abortion rights stronger in certain states.
My overall point though, is the prediction made in 1998 that "One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out." was very wrong. Wouldn't you agree that that prediction failed? Since 1998, we've seen the legalization of gay marriage, the first black president, first woman presidential nominee (who then won the popular vote), first black woman VP, first black woman Supreme Court Justice, etc.
Advocates for human rights (in all of the various subcategories there are), or anything else, don't get anywhere by announcing that things are fine. They may have to dig a little, but problems can be found anywhere, everywhere. It helps if the problems are getting worse. Never let a crisis go to waste!
I'm not as cynical as I sound. If you are in the advocacy business, are a fundraiser, are a middle class liberal well-intentioned non-profit executive, etc. you have to do whatever works, or you get left behind. It's hard to get people to pay attention and send money for honest-to-god good causes. A fundraising letter that says the formerly homeless are all in long-term shelter, the drug addicts are all in treatment, and that the drunks are all sober is going to yield a big fat nothing,
(Confession: I was not a successful fundraiser.).
I'm actually pretty gloomy about the future. My doom-beat is global warming which I think will swamp all the other problems. I'm gloomy about capitalism (WHEN is it going to go away, for god's sake?). I could, however, be equally gloomy about the ocean of debt on which individuals, companies, states, and the federal government are all floating. I could be gloomy about Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, Taiwan, China, India, Ecuador--if it's on the map, I could lament its future.
Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union.
This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded.
How is it an undemocratic abomination?
Just what do you think is the EU? Who do you think it's leaders are?
Quoting Tzeentch
Who sent Tusk?
I think in Poland it was the Polish Parliament that gave Tusk the mandate to form a new government after elections where Tusk's coalition won the most seats.
This plain and simple will not happen. Happy to 'suck it and see' on this one. More a prediction
Collectively, the US standard of living has increased since the advent of industrialization, urbanization, and representative Democracy. But that general upward trend looks quite different when you break the sample down into classes*1. Historically, societies have been characterized by a tiny minority Upper class (royalty), and a great majority Lower class (slaves & serfs), with a small Middle class in between (merchants). Industrialism temporarily increased the SOL of the Middle class, but Computerization (mechanical slaves) is beginning to reverse that trend, as the Middle class is sliding downward : becoming computer operators instead of mule-drivers*2.
One consequence of that downward trend seems to be : for the Declasse*3 Middle to look for a King-like Tycoon --- with executive immunity --- to restore their semi-exalted status by fiat from above (MAGA), not by economic improvements. The Upper classes benefit by owning the means of production and by increasing the number of mechanical slaves working for the 2% at the tip of the top class. Democratic Capitalism is a feudal economy, with Oligarchs instead of Kings*4*5.
Personally, as the son of a unionized blue-collar worker, my economic status increased due mainly to socialistic GI Bill education. But since the last "great" recession, it has taken a nose-dive. But I'm getting by with help from Democratic Socialism : VA medical care plus Social Security. The American economy is a hybrid of Socialism & Capitalism, with those at the top controlling and reaping the economic largesse. But history has shown that Communism is not the answer for modern nations. So, don't ask me what WE need to do. I'm just an over the hill serf, and nobody cares what I think. :cool:
*1. Upper class increased SOL, Middle & Lower classes decreased :
The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/
*2. LOWER & UPPER CLASSES INCREASE ; MIDDLE CLASS SHRINKS
*3. Déclassé : having fallen in social status.
*4. Does 1% own 90% of wealth?
The accumulation of wealth enables a variety of freedoms, and removes limits on life that one might otherwise face. Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia
*5. ECONOMIC CLASS PYRAMID
For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for).
Meanwhile, countries, including my own, are being completely hamstrung in certain fields by European legislation (see Dutch farmers' protests, for example), which, despite never being talked about in Dutch elections and there being no domestic support for much of this legislation, seem to be ever-expanding.
Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway).
Who knows what uncouth, Europhilic lobbies this man is controlled by, but he was clearly sent in response to Poland's anti-EU trend, and indeed was successful in getting elected.
But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track."
They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest.
Not that long before the elections, two parties on the left conspiciously merged into one, even though these parties did not have all that much in common and this merger will likely bite them in the end. However, together they did have a chance at winning upcoming the election.
Then, notorious Europhile Frans Timmermans was summoned out of nowhere to lead this questionable alliance. Timmermans had been working for the EU in relatively major positions for some 10 years, and architected the European Green Deal (which has been a total disaster for the Netherlands, by the way).
Long before the elections the propaganda machine was already churning, extolling him and labeling him possible 'future Dutch prime minister', etc., even though it is now clear that the anti-EU party probably won specifically because so many people did not want Timmermans as PM.
What this should tell you, is that the EU is not some impartial legislative body that follows the will of the European nations, but in fact is trying to influence the European nations' democratic processes towards a ever more EU, and often 'slipping in the cracks' to do so.
It's an undemocratic, untransparent abomination.
That's true, but the union is a de facto confederacy: it is created from independent states, who actually are still quite independent. Furthermore, Central Banksters aren't usually elected in a public election. We don't similarly elect our generals either. Likely that would simply politicize even more the position and make Central Banks even more the "deficit helpers" that they are now.
But I hear you. The problem is that the bureaucratic culture is basically from France and isn't something as open as for example in the US. And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become.
And how would we vote? Let's see, Germany has the most people in the EU, so you would like it to be a perpetual position for Germans to hold? Even if it sounds crazy, perhaps the way Eurovision song contest works could be an answer: you could only vote for those candidates that don't come from your own country!
But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African...
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, and Poles voted for him. Perhaps the reason is that the Poles got fed up with the former Law and Justice -party, the right-wing populist party. It's quite natural that people want to change their leaders.
Populism, and especially populists in power, paint these ideas where they are against a powerful cabal, be it "Brussels" or the "EU" or whatever, yet the fact is that EU is a confederacy and an assortment of independent states pulling in many directions. Brexit here has shown us actually how beneficial the EU actually is.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested...
Quoting Tzeentch
Who here are "they". It's really important to answer this. Because typically it's actually domestic media and parties that are in opposition that promote the "anti-EU" stance of some parties.
I think Italy is the best example of this. There was a huge uproar about the administration of Giorgia Meloni, but in fact (at least for me) the administration simply looks to be conservative. And the fuss has died down. Just how fascist they truly are is in my view very questionable. But of course, I'm not a specialist about Italian politics, so someone can inform me better.
Never underestimate the huge effect that Brexit had. It showed to all Europeans just what a shit show it would be to leave the EU. We've all seen what a trainwreck disaster that was for the UK. If it was bad for the UK to opt out, it is easy to understand that opting out for other EU members would likely suck far more. Hence for example in Finland we have now in the administration the "True Finns" populists that were anti-EU, but they have shed away their ideas of exiting the EU. (Also the war in Ukraine has had them select their partners it the European Parliament too, as the party enthusiastically support Ukraine.)
Capitalism is working just as intended.
I'm not sure, considering the disparate definitions of fascism, whether focusing specifically on fascism is relevant. In that respect, I think Rawls really was onto something with is justice as fairness. And that's a gliding scale. And unfairness can be either about the number of people affected or the egregiousness of the injustice (e.g., from tax benefits for the richt to outright institutional racism). It doesn't really matter whether we then qualify an unfair society as fascist, nepotist, authoritarian, etc. other than as a tool t diagnose why it is unfair.
Quite so. It's an abomination, sadly. I think if Europe wants to remain functional and sovereign, it needs to replace the EU with an entirely different structure. I estimate the chances of that happening to be very low, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this mess.
Quoting ssu
Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. European nations economies function in vastly different ways, and the idea of an economic union has caused serious issues all over and I don't think was ever feasible.
Other elements like open borders (but with protected outer borders) I think would be fine as well.
I'm not sure about a "European identity" - attempts at trying to force something like that are silly, heavy-handed and probably doomed to fail (also reeks of communism) - but I do genuinely feel like I have a lot in common with other Europeans. We share a lot of history, and have reconciled the good and the bad. I also find war between two European nations pretty much unthinkable.
There is a lot of commonality which could be the basis for a more functional union that also respects the differences.
Quoting ssu
And somewhat predictably so. The Law & Justice Party pursued many foolish policies. This I don't have an issue with.
Quoting ssu
Tens of thousands protest in Poland against ex-ministers' imprisonment (Reuters)
Pro-EU fanatics are silent on Poland's new illiberal turn (The Telegraph)
All of this is taking place as we speak, so we'll have to wait until later for some more brainy stuff.
Taking over the media and throwing the opposition in jail literally within weeks of taking office is probably the most blatant power grab I have ever seen in a western "democracy".
Quoting ssu
The Brussels elite, which is pursuing its own agendas that, predictably, never involve "less EU" but always "more EU".
Let me ask you, who does Von Der Leyen represent? Certainly not the European people, so who? Personally, I couldn't tell you, and that's what worries me to no end.
What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island.
If the US goes home to eat it's apply pie, then they can. But they'll wake up one day to see that the apple pie isn't so great as it used to be with them being the Superpower...
Ukrainian official: Johnson Forced Kyiv to Refuse Russian Peace Deal (The European Conservative)
This is the reason.
The UK belongs to the Anglosphere, and together with other countries from the Anglosphere follows foreign policy that is heavily aligned to the US. The Anglosphere consists of exclusively island nations. (The US and Canada being essentially an 'island' in every practical sense)
These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security.
I hope you're right. But at least when it comes to elected officials, it seems that most are willing to follow Trump's lead regardless of their principles, if they have them.
Yes, that's the case now, in any event.
Old news in these quarters.
Fascism does have many definitions, but "the way it works" is less variable. If some people are operating in a fascistic manner, it's worth focusing on.
Quoting Benkei
And, one hopes, do something about it!
That's what I question I guess. Any form of unfair policies is a step in the wrong direction. You're a decade too late if you're trying to assess what type of evil you're dealing with. I think it's much more interesting to analyse how societies get there through the gradual, "legal" means, erosion of the rule of law. And I see this play out in many different conversations, where moral reasoning is reduced to whether it breaks a law or not.
So if we procedurally pass awful laws then these are "just", which is why tax breaks are deserved, breaking up families at the border are fine, gerrymandering is just smart, tax evasion a walhalla for consultants, pollution is a-ok as long as you got a permit, lobbying is effective, improving the material conditions of citizens optional and daytrading considered a meaningful vocation. From where I'm standing Fascism is fucking close in every European country but probably not in the US, which is more likely to fully degenerate into a corporatocracy due to its particular off-brand of delusional idiocy.
Hey, calling our delusional idiocy "off-brand" is an insult!
Quoting Benkei
That's a good point. Bad stuff may crawl out of the swamp, but it takes time to coagulate and grow. For example, the far right wing of the Republican Party wasn't created by Trump. Tax law is critical for the growth of the super-rich class and happened decades ago. 3M was secure in dumping per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS into the ground. Etc.
Fact is, all sorts of bad stuff have happened in the US, carried out by duly elected representatives, following (sort of) open procedures in legislative sessions, and signed by elected chief executives. Fascists weren't required.
'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...'
Even close to 80 years ago this word was seen as devalued currency. It can be used to describe anyone from a Tory Prime Minister to a supermarket manager. Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games.
I think this is a far more realistic position to consider. And, while I personally think its super-unlikely, it's way more possible that Fascism coming into play.
Quoting Tom Storm
And herein lies the problem, right? From any standpoint of intrenched ideology, its almost impossible not to see yourself as the victim of 'the other side' - otherwise your ideology is 'in power' and defeats the point.
Exactly. So how come? What's the real lesson? And how to reverse it when there's a vocal minority claiming taxation is theft and vested interests keen on keeping their privileges because any loss of privilege is considered an injustice by them? And how come a relative minority benefitting from it gets such widespread support from voters? It doesn't, for instance, comport with studies where people would rather force both parties to end up with nothing than accept an unfair result from a negotiation. Fairness is a strong motivator yet we'll gladly vote for parties or people who have no interest in fairness.
Edit: I think the first one is obvious. It's not a negotiation in Parliament and not a trade. So there is no social "contract", just people pursuing their self-interest to the furthest extent as possible that the system permits. This is mitigated to some extent in multi-party systems that require coalitions to form majority voting blocks but over the years has been avoided by trading off unrelated issues before parties actually come into power and thereby avoid democratic control.
Depends on just what UK does. Yes, it's likely that if the US under Trump really would leave NATO, then I guess UK would be the first in line to make a bilateral defence treaty with the US.
But you see the negative effects of this already in Far East Asia: US has bilateral defense agreements with Japan, South Korea, Phillipines etc, and then there is the strange AUKUS. But there isn't coordination among these countries. And SEATO simply fell apart as the countries had so little in common.
Hence taking out the UK from an European helps only Russia!
Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.
Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)
Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience.
The Duran did a good report on this, in which they also briefly touch on Donald Tusk whom I mentioned earlier in this thread as an example of looming fascism.
FT report, EU planning to destroy economy of Hungary (The Duran)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/962250 (loads slowly)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/962520 (loads slowly)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/962668 (loads slowly)
For reference I give Paxton's list below which to me seems a reasonable list of indicators of fascism. Notice how it does not include politically strong arming nations into stepping in line with a multi-level legal order of which it is part. You seem to equate fascism with policies you do not like. The great sovereign nation of Hungary though is free to leave the EU if it so pleases. The problem though is it benefits enormously from it, so it will not.
I think the EU has every right to demand a certain compliance. A monetary and economic union has no future when it does not have a certain level of political coordination. Would you feel better if the EU just decides to sever ties with Hungary or would you think that amounts to 'fascism' too?
Or perhaps you return from your misguided ways and concede you just made a rather poor argument which simply distracts from the discussion at hand?
Paxton's list
a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
the subordination of the individual to the primacy of the group;
the belief in a collective victimhood, justifying any action against its enemies without legal or moral limits;
the fear that individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences will lead to a decline in the group
the need for a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
the need for male authority culminating in a national chief who incarnates the groups historical destiny;
the leaders instincts are superior to abstract and universal reason;
the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the groups success;
the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the groups prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
I think it would take losing a war or a deep economic collapse. Everything else is in place, ready to go.
Quite blatant enough, to judge by the spate of post-putsch executive orders.
Quoting Tzeentch
Denying financial aid to a member nation that has repeatedly flouted both the human rights and foreign policy requirements of the union? That's not so much fascist as sensible - and in this case, several years overdue.
Quoting frank
The economic collapse will be a total surprise to its engineers. As for losing a war, you'd have to engage in one first. The "Let's you and him fight!" approach won't have much domestic impact; the arms merchants will still be fat and happy; the private prisons will be filled up with young people protesting things other than war. The only things we can't predict, yet, is how soon the civil war begins and which side will be supported by more of the professional military - in which I include police.
Ah-yup, that's about it.
I doubt there will be a civil war. We're too lazy for that.
Tarrio called into Infowars.com, the web stream hosted by pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, hours after his Tuesday release and claimed to be the victim of a campaign to put Trump supporters in prison. He called for imprisoning Biden attorney general Merrick Garland for corruption to give him a taste of his own medicine.[/quote]
Trump has instigated a 'commission' to 'look into' the January 6th enquiry, and also issued an executive order to investigate the 'weaponisation' of the Department of Justice.
All highly ominous.
I bet a 1000 Tzeentch-coins on it.
Well, perhaps not to you. But they are already happening to others.
Furthermore, regarding some issues like climate change prevention and mitigation, "nothing of particular note" happening is a catastrophe.
But by all means, believe the hysteria and propaganda. We'll see in four years. Take me up on my bet. There's a 1000 Tzeentch-coins in it if you win.
I mean by your own metrics, it seems like he's already being a fascist if these past few weeks mean anything:
Quoting Tzeentch
Trump threatens retaliation against UK over tax on tech giants
Of course, I suspect they don't mean anything because at the end of the day nothing means anything except left vs. right.
If you want to believe economic rivalry between two independent nations equals fascism then you've thrown all sense of reason and proportion out of the window.
Fascism isn't really about what one guy is doing. It comes from the whole political scene. It comes from a change in attitudes toward acceptance of strong-arm strategies, and of course, acceptance of dictatorship.
No, it's about a nation hearing what that guy intends to do to their institutions, their government, their personal lives, their environment and their foundational document - and then electing him top gun, because ... well, hell, it's better than being ruled by a bunch of liberal do-gooders.
Yes, we've been watching that political scene crumble for years.
Done and done. Quoting frank
Or just not hungry enough - yet.
The democrats also do not believe in democratic culture. For them "culture" means to do whatever your gut tells you; it suffices that you obey the (democrats') laws. If they believed in democratic culture, they wouldn't preach diversity, destruction of family, and other things that humans have used like tools (in the last 5000 years or more) in order to divide roles, responsibilities, labor, etiquette, and so on, without the interference of money, coercion, patrol and violence.
Now we have two parties which are unwilling to make any substantial reforms in the judiciary and electoral systems. The only things democrats and republicans are good at is to point the finger to each other and infuriate their supporters. In these circumstances (without the necessary judicial and electoral reforms), I won't be surprised at all if in the future we have a second civil war in this country. The only thing that surprises me are these Americans who can't see that both parties are contributing in making America a less free, less democratic, country.
You're backing the wrong horse then. This is our manifest destiny!
You are correct though, many of the executive orders are nothing special. When the Presidency changes changes parties there is always a flurry of executive orders, many meaningless (recall Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay on his first day 16 years ago).
The DEI stuff Trump suspended he could suspend because it was created by executive orders, some being Biden's immediate orders upon taking office. What is exceptional in the immigration orders is the language, not the orders. Biden himself oversaw a flurry of orders on migration which is what led to net migration in his four years significantly eclipsing that of the entire Obama or Bush eras.
The stand out order is the pardons for the January 6th rioters, some of whom were obviously guilty of major offenses. The practice of shoveling out a bevy of odious pardons as a President leaves office is now well established, but it seems we might be facing a new norm of waves of odious pardons upon any new party taking control as well. And, as norms are destroyed and both parties rail about "corruption," neither is at all willing to actually place any restrictions in place to stop this sort of thing.
For instance, the scandals over the Clintons' speaking fees or the gifts received by Supreme Court justices would both be obvious felony offenses for the vast majority of public officials, even volunteers on a small town licensing commission. The most powerful officials in the government have, however, doggedly kept themselves exempt from all the anti-corruption measures in place for state and local or lower level federal officials.
The democrats are convincing young girls that being a liberal means that you have an higher IQ than the rest of the society/world, though all the data show that since 1975 (when the liberals and pacifists took over the western world) IQ has dropped sharply, like never before in human history :rofl:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html
Of course. One is a more left leaning group going after a right leaning country while the other is a right leaning country going after a left leaning country. One is bad and the other one isn't.
I'm guessing threatening to invade the Panama Canal if they don't do what you want also doesn't amount to what you call "fascism" either. Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Panama, and the US's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience. Not remotely comparable to the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience when it comes to the EU's "authoritarianism".
Quoting Tzeentch
If it was economic rivalry then the US would be concerned about it's own tax laws instead of the ones other countries make, specifically on Trump's new oligarch buddies.
Define what is "of particular note".
Is it something like the collapse of the Soviet Union or unification of Germany? A financial crisis? Pandemic? End of the dollar system? Conflict over Taiwan? Breakup of NATO?
What would you consider as of particular note?
It's brilliant arguments such as this that convince folk to support Trump.
I missed that! Dang, and I would have enjoyed it too.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5104133-rep-andy-ogles-proposes-trump-third-term-amendment/
They have to put that through likely before the midterms, as likely then the honeymoon is likely over.
Quoting Wayfarer
Just like with inflation, people simply don't understand this or simply won't care. And thus any outrageous reasoning will carry through.
And as I've said, Brexit showed with the British people that once a populism takes hold and it's consequences start to really suck, those that went with the populist streak will be in denial for a really long time. People will believe in the "Morning for" -moment and think that the populists will make it better. These people will simply just become quite silent in the end and once the administration changes, then they have all of this built up fury about how things suck.
Quoting Wayfarer
That was the stuff of the first Trump administration. Then people tried that. Not now. Nope. Nobody is going to tell him that. Likely Elon will tell Trump how much that will hurt Trump's own wealth and people can convince the most outrageous actions by reading what outrageous countertariffs EU or the World in general will put up with the US.
The real issue here is that Trump as many Americans are totally ignorant is that the whole economic system is rigged for the US, not against it. Trump is simply dismantling the Superpower status of the US. Why would the Middle Eastern oil producers just use US dollars in the oil trade? Why would the US dollar have the role it has in the global monetary system? It's really not because the US is so awesome, the economy of the rest of the World is larger than of the US. It's all because of the alliances, because of WW2, that the US enjoys this.
Yet a good question is really if this truly is fascism, as the term usually is used as a derogatory insult. There's not the worship of the state itself as in fascist Italy etc. Much looks more like a populist leader with an oligarchy which doesn't care about the separation of powers or the institutions.
Quoting ssu
Fascism, obviously.
Nobody elected Elon Musk either but Trump is using the weight of the US empire to pressure the UK to not taxing tech billionaires like him.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, who'll be judge of that... Trump is already called that.
Quoting Tzeentch
What? Queen Ursula?
The EU is a de facto confederacy.
Yes, the institution tries desperately to push for federalism and tries to act as a United States of Europe, but that won't happen. The fact is that the union is made up of sovereign nation states, talking different languages, having different cultural and historical backgrounds and in the end, being sovereign nation states. You can imagine something else and perhaps convince the Americans here, but that is the fact. California or Texas aren't sovereign states and their foreign policy is handled in Washington DC, but Spain and Ireland are sovereign states and their foreign policy isn't done from Brussels.
The executive branch, the Commission, just as the Council of the European Union, is under the control of the sovereign states. It won't happen, there's always going to be a Hungary or an Austria or some country whose leader is opposed to things the majority are pushing. This is structural and endemic for the union.
What happens, and will happen, is that countries like Hungary (or similar) will try to portray the EU's executive branch as "fascist" or "deep state" or whatever. But this is just political rhetoric.
I wouldn't be happy with the EU Parliament taking more power, because that would undermine the Parliament of my own country. So people wanting to give more power to the EU Parliament are in my view crazy.
Again, it isn't fascism when the state is working on behalf and for one rich individual. And even if similar things have happened before, it hasn't been so clear, so obvious. Earlier managers from corporations or rich people had to put aside their holdings when acting in a government position. Now Elon has simply circumvented that with the aloof DOGE and can be the World's richest man at the same time as he plans the US state to better for him.
Hey I'm only going off your definition of fascism here. If you felt the need to call the EU "fascists" earlier then you should do the same for Trump as well. Either both are fascists or none are. The only reason I can see for you not doing either is because, as you suggest, one is on "your team" and the other isn't.
I guess you're technically correct. But it's not a stretch to say that all Trump's impulses are at least fascistic, and that the party he now owns has done little or nothing to check them.
If anyone truly believed it was going to turn into something remotely fascist, I'm sure someone would have taken me up on my bet; predictably no one did, because all of them know they're just coping like disgruntled children, but unwilling to admit it.
Quoting Mr Bee
I never gave my definition of fascism, nor did I call the EU fascist, but this is just a dumb argument to make.
The EU is untransparent, overtly undemocratic and authoritarian. The unelected Queen Ursula has recently started her second term - a spot she only got because of her friendship with Merkel.
This situation cannot be compared to the US, and obviously between the two if any are closer to fascism it is the EU by a mile and a half.
You literally called them fascist in your other post:
All I'm asking is for you to be consistent.
Quoting Tzeentch
As far as I can tell there's not much of a distinction between what you pointed out and what's going on in the US. You know apart from the fact that one is on the nefarious left and the other is on the pure right :roll: .
All I'll ask of you is to not put words in my mouth or deliberately take the things I say out of their context.
Well, if you are talking about the Trump family with also the Kushner family, I guess you are right:
Add into the context Elon, and there's the obvious inner circle.
Well, isn't that the beauty of the Constitution of the U.S.? It wasn't that long ago that the Dems wanted to make a similar change to the Constitution regarding term limits for the SCOTUS. The Constitution was designed to be molded by future generations, and any change made by one party applies to all of them where a Democrat president might be able to have three terms as well.
I'm all for limiting terms, I only wish Congress should start with themselves.
Quoting Banno
It's certainly a better argument than this argument: "What we really need is a feminomenon!". https://www.youtube.com/shorts/48G82Cq9C9k
Point is what brilliant argument can be made to continue voting for either side instead of something else considering the state of the U.S. the past 30 years? There are other options. People just need to stop seeing the world as red and blue, or black and white. There are other colors in the spectrum (other ideas/solutions that are neither red or blue). People just need to stop thinking that either-or are their only options and the power to change in ourselves because we know the politicians are not going to..
Again with the strawmans, Tzeentch. Do we start with the Robber Baron's era or United Fruit Company or Halliburton, or go with the Koch Brothers or with the so much loved George Soros?
Anyway, I think today it's far more obvious, with billionaires like Elon not putting their wealth and other duties on hold (or aside) when applying to government positions. At least formally Dick Cheney as vice President wasn't anymore the CEO of Halliburton. But DOGE is just there in the open and Elon can enjoy both worlds. And nobody cares.
Plenty Democratic members of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal 22nd Amendment, like Rep. Serrano, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Howard Berman and Senator Harry Reid. Therefor, fascism has been in America since at least the early 2000s.
I'd be feeling this if I were a native brit right now. The notion of a leadership that barely punishes and largely ignores foreign pedophilic grooming gangs who target its own native population is outrageous without comparison and it tears at the very fabric of civilization.
Perhaps the "advances" of celebrating diversity and abolishing capital punishment and criminal leniency were a step backwards and it's all just gonna fall down like a stack of dominoes. I think we're seeing a major challenge to so-called progressive, civilized world order built over the past several decades. We live in a fascinating time. It is very possible that the UK is just beyond saving.
I'm sorry, but your statement triggered a mental reflex: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Possible, but I don't know whether it is or not. Just guessing, it is salvageable.
Each of Paxton's fascist characteristics might apply in some degree and together not add up to fascism. The January 6 attack on the capital (instigated by DT) seems like an overtly fascist act, which hasn't been repeated so far.
The American political system works. A frustrated voter said it doesn't make any difference who you vote for -- nothing changes. Precisely. Both parties will deliver reasonably adequate government, sufficient to keep the various vested economic interests happy. That's not fascism -- that's merely loathsome corporate capitalism.
I certainly take you up on it. Of course we have to settle on what 'of note' means. I predict that a major constitutional event will take place that furthers or tries to further the hold on power of current government circles, including, but not limited to, Presidents being allowed a third term, prosecution of political and social high profile figures on drummed up charges, the administrative branch blatantly ignoring a supreme court verdict or something else of significant constitutional weight.
Quoting Tzeentch
I find the events of the 6th of January definitely a constitutional event of note.
I would also fin invading a country without any backing in international or humanitarian law to be a constitutional event of note.
Donald Trump ends security deal for Anthony Fauci, says he'd feel no responsibility if harm befell him
I still feel that those guys from the 1930s had most to say about fascism and the way it comes to power: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164?seq=1
I'm talking about fascism, obviously. Or anything catastrophic that is beyond the scope of what is normal for US presidents and is directly attributable to Trump. Keep in mind that he'll have Biden to contend with in terms of wanton incompetence.
It's routine for US presidents to ruin some part of the world for profit during their term, so don't yap about personal consequences.
Yes, obviously, but you seem to have a rather ... peculiar... notion of what that term means. you think that cutting the subsidies of a member of the club that frustrates the clubs overall policy amounts to ' looming fascism' whereas threatening military action against against entirely peaceful nations does not. So what you consider fascism and what not is for me entirely unpredictable.
I can handle your second category but I would say that the events of the 6th of January fall out of the scope of what is normal. So I take it to mean that you hold such events will not take place anymore, that there will be a peaceful transfer of power to a legitimate successor, either democrat or republican, after fair and transparent elections and that he will indeed step down after four years, yes? Nor will there be an obvious puppet nominated after merely tokenist Republican party elections, such as someone from his family? In short, in four years elections proceed in a fashion previously considered in ways that are "normal for US presidential elections"? Moreover there will not be other significant constitutional events of note right, something like, say, an unconstitutional federal intervention in Californian policy suspending the rights traditionally held by States?
Are you really willing to put such a hefty amount of Tzeentch coins on the line?
They will uphold all the regulation in place necessary to support profitable markets, but cut all regulation aimed at preventing market failures. Every legal barrier to innovation will be taken away. Mind you that might not even be a bad idea, it is just a big gamble that will leave a great many people very miserable.
I pointed not just to the EU's actions vis-á-vis Hungary, but at a wider trend in the EU, involving the fact that it is an untransparent, undemocratic, authoritarian den of nepotism and corruption, which makes it a likelier candidate to develop into fascism than the US - which isn't to say that it is likely that it will.
Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades.
The US invades and destroys other nations like its their national pastime. But the term for this is 'jingoism', not fascism. Fascism refers to how a state is organized, not to a foreign policy.
Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.
In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is untransparent, I give you that. There is a democratic deficit, yes well known and freely discussed in academic and civil society circles, but where is the authoritarian part? In what way are its actions against Hungary, an authoritarian country which ranks 85th in the RSF Press Freedom Index, indicative of fascism per Paxton or any other credible researchers list?
Quoting Tzeentch
In a world of rivalry between super powers i which the US might have indeed faced existential those interventions were unlawful and altogether criminal, but might have had a different justification than simply 'America first' . What matters is the motive, per Kant, whom you know well. This motive conforms to the last two on Paxton's list:
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the groups success;
- the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the groups prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Quoting Tzeentch
Foreign policy cannot be separated from state organization, it is a part of it. A state is characterized by the way it exerts internal as well as external sovereignty. Or put differently, it projects its ideology inward as well as outward.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Hmm compare the two quotes. There are certainly definitions of fascism thinkable under which the US can be labeled such ' for decades' as you suggest. I would not label the US as fascist in those days at all an still would not of course. Instead of bandying such words about I think we should agree on a list of common characteristics of fascism and see if these characteristics are displayed by a ruling government. You are dodging the point though. I laid out a couple of indicative events of note. They are all indications of a government moving to the far right (or far left but as there is not any indication of that I will not consider that). Will they or will they not occur?
Let me add to events of note by the way the prosecution of scores (a substantial number, not one, not two, but at least hundreds) of political opponents through either formal or informal means via employment bans and street intimidation.
For reference, these are your words from the previous post to which I reacted. Quoting Tzeentch
Now you are shifting from 'nothng of particular note' to a whole country becoming fascist. It is nigh impossible to label an entire country 'fascist', what we may assess is whether a country's government embraces a fascist ideology. The OP provided a list of characteristics, which seem reasonable to me. Can I conclude you renege on your offer? Such a pity, I was already counting them Tzeentch coins...
'Shifting' :rofl: If you fail to grasp that in a thread about fascism I was talking in the context of fascism then that sounds like your problem to me.
Ohhh... so ' something of particular note' is limited to the whole country becoming fascist? Everything else is ' not of a particular note' and If people warn of troubling trends short of blown fascism gripping the good old U S of A, they are a bunch of hysterics. I see. Well, too bad, I would have liked those coins, but alas, people do not put their money where their mouth is no more....
Quoting Tzeentch
Yeah, just ask Nancy Pelosi.
The fact that you make some argument that is hypocritical in the light of the other side's actions just shows that either you live in a bubble, or you just don't care about being taken seriously.
Politicians are not nice, caring people. If you think that one side cares more for the common folk than the other, you're deluding yourself. Just watch Obama and Trump talking and smiling during Carter's funeral and you will see that they never thought he was a fascist. The left just wanted you think he was to manipulate you, and it appears they have succeeded.
Abandon the group-think and group-hate already. Evolve.
Quoting Tobias
Hasn't that already happened? The thing that each side seems to forget is that increasing the hold on power by one side is increasing it for the other as well. Both sides are stroking each other's ambitions of power while manipulating citizens like yourself into thinking short-term that it is only the other side that is power-hungry. By supporting the two-party status-quo you are enabling them and their aspirations of power.
Neither side is concerned about the country turning communist or fascist. They just want more power and authority.
After reading this thread, any reasonable person would walk away understanding that both sides are hypocrites and is pointless to keep supporting the status quo.
You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.
But Tzeentch I do not feel the need to make up any definitions. You do when you consider that the EU's treatment of Hungary is an indication of looming fascism. Nowhere though can withholding subsidies to member nations be found as an indication of fascism, except maybe Hungarian government propaganda, but I doubt even that does not go as far. I refer to the list provided by OP and made by Robert Paxton an expert on the subject.
I agree with you that diagnosing a certain government as fascist requires that ideology should be reflected in the institutional make up of a nation and requires practical events as indicators. At least, I assumed that you made this sensible point when you posed your challenge about 'nothing of note to happen'. However you refuse to back your point up by identifying what these evens of note might be.
That is a pity and I must assume that you mentioning 'nothing of note' is just idle rhetoric.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree with you Harry, at least partially. The dems seem to have shot themselves in the foot and also maintain the status quo, not transforming the system itself, but keep expanding the powers of the executive branch. However that they are also short sighted, also power hungry and also willing to resist change does not mean they are ideologically equal.
I think the real political division in the West is moderates vs. extremists, with the moderates standing for old school liberalism and democracy. The extremists could be reactionary or progressive, but they have the same drive to upset the status quo.
I've given you literally a blank check - 'fascism' can mean whatever you believe it means - and you still won't take the bet because you yourself evidently do not take the idea that the US may devolve into fascism of any description seriously either.
And if you're expecting me to wade into details about something I don't take seriously to begin with then you are sadly mistaken.
I would say it's more a battle between authoritarianism and liberalism. In (what is suppose to be) a free society authoritarianism is the extreme.
Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. Starting with those who - according to a definition most reasonable people have accepted for decades - have been warning about this particular threat for at least four years.
It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done.
I think the perception is that liberalism ended up screwing people over and leaving them without reliable income or healthcare. Or the perception is that liberalism opened the door to changes people didn't want, like LGBTQ.
Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced?
Given the absolute deluge of criticism that Trump has received and is receiving I find that very hard to believe. But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously.
Yes - an obvious one. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he will replace all the top officials of agencies with people who will carry out his 'retribution'.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's pretty damn serious already.
A couple of recent events that add to the concerns about Trump: his firing of 12 Inspectors General, and his pardoning of the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the 1/6 Capitol break-in.
Success is going to be retribution...We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years. -Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys leader, convicted of seditious conspiracy for conspring to break into the Capitol on 1/6.
Quoting Tom Storm
And yet it is worth a glance at Paxton's definition.
It's the fact that out of the hundreds of other nations that go unreported and are globally acknowledged to not have the level of accountability of Western nations, the only concern, the one tired re-occurring theme, is the only nation that does have fair accountability and open press gets the whipping treatment. Such comedic scrutiny and lack of coherence transcends words like "pathetic" or "blatant" but truly shows what is wrong with a world that tries (and I assure you will ultimately fail) to sweep it's own inhumanity under a rug or keep it's closeted skeleton's undiscovered.
Fascism is everywhere. Wherever man lives, there will be fascism. It just so happens in this case, the only place it's allowed to be called out by those weak or strong, rich or poor, is under scrutiny. It's a joke. That's what it is, a tired joke those set to ending mankind's suffering has grown tired of and instinctively ignores. That's all.
There is a good book called The Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch that details how similar the Fascist, National Socialist, and New deal programs were. Of course, to compare is not to equate, he writes, but all three of those leaders opposed liberalism, and desired a strong militarist and collectivist state.
Hitler told Ambassador William Dodd that he was in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual
That Nazi slogan The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolinis writings. Ive heard variations of it uttered on this forum.
Exactly what he said he would do, and most Americans dismissed as hyperbole. Many - I don't know how many - are still in denial. "He doesn't mean it... he can't do that... it's against the law... we have a Constitution... blah, blah blah." Five days in, some of those commentators have already kissed the ring. The rest are scribbling political cartoons which are not yet illegal, but far, far too late to have any effect.
Yea, but Nazis hated Communists, so obviously collectivism wasn't all there was to fascism. It was also about recreating some mythical lost greatness.
I'd consider myself as someone who broadly supports individual rights, but in the presence of an existential threat the group must act decisively to ensure its own survival and the preservation of the individual rights of the group. The problem is this principle is so easy to abuse.
It's ancient. Supposedly the reason Pharaoh enslaved the ancient Israelites is because they were multiplying too much and threatening the Egyptian state demographically.
They sold themselves into slavery because they were experiencing famine. But that's just a myth. There's no evidence that it happened.
That seems overly simplistic, but tell me if you think the proposition ("The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual) is intrinsically false - meaning that it's necessarily wrong in all respects and in all contexts.
Exodus 1:9-10 (NIV)
Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them; or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, they will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."
It's a demographic fear. We see the same today - fears of certain populations growing.
They were already in slavery at the time. They weren't enslaved because they were numerous, right? Cline thinks the Exodus is a memory of the Bronze Age.
Yes, that definition probably encompasses Trump fairly well. Reading Ian Kershaw's rise of Hitler (Hubris) there are some parallels with Turmp. Its also worth looking at Ian Dunts Origin Story podcast on fascism too. Was Hitler even a fascist? Or is the word specific to one political Italian story? An issue with understanding fascism is that definitions tend to focus on methods rather than central ideas. The notion of fascism (like some other movements) seems to be without theorists or thinkers. It's an approach more than a clear doctrine.
This passage is from before they were enslaved. I would agree with Cline. One of my favorites on this topic is Nahum Sarna who places these events around the 13th century BC so, yes, end of Bronze Age.
Even if the Exodus is completely made-up biblical writers still had this idea of disloyal demographic threat in mind.
EDIT: Earlier the Egyptians sell themselves to Joseph/the Egyptian state due to a famine. That is in Genesis.
:up:
There is no such thing as a Public Weal, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it. What they mean is their own interests transcend that of others, and thats how it always turns out in practice.
That'll do for now.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, not any more, over where you are.
There is at least the potential of a public interest.
That is odd to hear after your years of arguing for a particular vision of that above others.
What would that be?
Re: public weal -- disease prevention, crime prevention, cleanliness are a few that come to mind.
With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.
Good point!
Hitler did the same. Its true that war economies work, especially when you have an army of unemployed young men and women at your disposals, but its not quite clear if the benefits outweigh the costs.
Hitler did nothing remotely similar.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, except that the New Dealdidn't create a war economy. It was about labour unions and financial reform, social security and agriculture. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.
There is no comparison and it's disingenuous to claim one.
Would the rapid decline of the liberal democracy and replacement of it with populist autocracy that is supported by few extremely wealthy oligarchs do? That really doesn't fit the f-ideology. That the democratic institutions become mere shadows of themselves and the liberal rule based order be replaced by might makes right as in the 19th Century? In the f-ideology the state institutions ought to be extremely powerful and dominant the extreme rich totally dependent on the state.
There is no ideology here to see, no 20th Century ideology as we have learnt. The only hugely popular accurate definition used by various different commentators (both American and foreign) is transactional. Everything is transactional. Trump supporters will define it as Trump measuring everything as what is profitable for the US and his opponents as what is profitable for Trump himself. If there's some guiding light in Trump's action, it is this transactional attitude toward everything. It explains the Trump talk of Europe "owing" to the US when the countries are spending less of defense.
I think what's finally dying out is the idea that the US is supposed to have global influence. That was cold war ideology. The new US only takes care of itself. That's been coming for a while.
Regarding Elon Musk using the government to advance his interests, that sounds bad, but that would be normal in Japan. The Japanese don't have the history of strife between government and big business. Maybe that has also needed to change in the US.
Still, change is scary.
I would say that the "Liberals" were no longer liberals. Once you start telling others what they can say or think you've crossed over into authoritarianism.
Sure, they like to label themselves as liberals and progressives, but they are anything but. Authoritarianism is not progressive or liberal. They keep the label to influence the sheep into thinking they are sheep like them when they are a wolf instead, and know that most of their constituents will believe what they are told without question, and if you do question it then you're a heretic. Political parties have essentially become religions.
I no longer call them liberals. They are leftists. Libertarians are the true liberals.
The right is no different - using the term "freedom" instead of "liberal" when they are just as likely to impose their religion on you and call it "freedom". If the Dems had their way, we'd be a communist state. If the right had their way, we'd be a theological state. Both sides are playing us against each other, focusing our attention on each other rather than on them - the real oppressors.
I agree. When Americans talk about liberals or leftists, they mean people who favor solutions from the federal government and greater centralized authority. Historically, it's been American rightists who tried to protect democracy.
I understood your point. You did not understand mine. Would you support a incumbent when you have lost money during their tenure, or does your politics not allow you to make sound financial decisions?
It seems to me that if Trump started to control speech, Elon would drop him like a bag of garbage.
Trump supported both Democrats and Republicans before he ran, and his support earned him the same benefits that any donor gets. This is nothing new. Again, both sides do it.
Well, it's taking a lousy effort to take care of itself. Because a lot of what it has depends on that it is a Superpower. Yet many think it's just the sheer awesomeness of the US that it has this role.
Starting from the role of the dollar. Without the US being the Superpower, there is no reason to give it's currency a special role global arena. The US dollar naturally would be important, but then it would be just one among many, just like basically the role that the euro has in international trade. This gives the US the ability to spend totally recklessly and have no worries about a current account crisis. It really affects the life of every American. We could be easily repeating the lines that only now Russia and China are talking about the "unfair" role that the US enjoys.
Then continuing to the simple fact that other countries listen to what the US president says. They don't listen to the prime minister of India says so much. Not even the Chinese leader gathers so much interest.That the West welcomes the US leadership role is again solely because of it's alliances and it's relations and it being a Superpower. In the 1930's or earlier that wasn't the case. So how much did the World listen to some US President? Only brief episode after WW1 was there a role for the US, but that went away quickly as the US went back home and withdrew.
It's sheer stupidity from the US to think that NATO isn't the Crown jewel of it's hegemony. A whole First World union equivalent of the size of the US has entrusted it's security to the US and wants the US to take the lead. How stupid can one be in giving up this dominant position? At worst make your allies former allies and either lukewarm or even hostile to you? It's now been repeated so many times over that the US possibly won't be there for it's allies that Europeans have understood this. Yet the Europeans are still treating the talks about Greenland as "Trump talk", but if Trump literally will want to expand the territory of the US as he said, even the most obstinate supporter of America's role in the security of Europe might change their heart.
I think the main reason is that nobody is telling to the Americans how their economy and thus their way of life has been depended on the country having the role it has. Nobody can tell Donald Trump what is the real price for him if the US would leave NATO.
It's actually not a stable situation to have only one superpower. There needs to be at least two.
Quoting ssu
No, global trade needs one currency. It's the dollar now because the Chinese want it to be the dollar. When they change their minds, it will become the yuan.
Quoting ssu
They shouldn't. Remember what happened to Syria?
Quoting ssu
The US debt will never be paid. It will disappear in the next global economic catastrophe. Everyone will start over and Americans will turn back to their own resources. As climate change sets in, the global network will weaken. War will become the norm again. I imagine the US will continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal and use it occasionally.
Quoting ssu
Trump is 78. He may or may not get around to leaving NATO. Unless the Democrats come up with a superstar, the next president will be Vance, the "dark enlightenment" guy. Even if the Democrats do win an election, the cold war crew is gone. There is no reason to support Europe. The UK maybe, but not Europe.
Nonsense!
Have you ever heard of a system called a market? And it's simple math to trade with a basket of currencies. No, seriously, the global economy doesn't need one currency. For the vast majority of human history there hasn't been a currency in the role as the dollar was post WW2. This is the major fallacy that Americans seem to have about their awesomeness. It's all related to WW2 and the role the US dollar was given in the post-war system. Ask just why would the Arab states buy an sell their oil in dollars if it wasn't the security guarantees that the US has given to them?
Quoting frank
When the global system is dollar based, why not. China doesn't want a conflict with the American Superpower and China simply isn't as aggressive as the US portays it to be. But yes, that can change...
Hence it's obvious that the Chinese have had to think about this, especially seeing what happened to Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine. You can face then sanctions and severe problems in trade, but it's not an existential threat as Russia has shown. If they would invade Taiwan, the most likely response would be sanctions, freezing of assets and difficulties in normal trade.
Quoting frank
What are you referring to? The line in the sand -speech by Obama?
Quoting frank
Well, then I guess it's paid with inflation. Looking forward to that 1000$ Big Mac? With a 1000$ Big Mac a trillion dollars isn't so much money. And there will be many trillionaires around.
Quoting frank
Oh don't be so dramatic. An economic crisis is just a rearrangement of assets and some generations finishing unemployed until they. But if you have invested well, you will profit from the debacle. And what "turning back to their own resources" are you talking about? That sounds very Trumpian. Do understand that the existence of our societies has always depended on trade.
Look up dark enlightenment. That's vice president Vance, soon to be President Vance.
I didnt claim it. I cited a well-researched book from a German historian. Its called The Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. I recommend it. Heres some quotes from the arch-fascist himself:
When I look for fascistic features I generally don't look at social security, unemployment insurance, public works programs, and the like as examples. Or, was it the rapid marshaling of government programs that struck Mussolini as fascistic? Fascists are not alone in managing economies. Are programs which alleviate poverty fascistic in nature?
The view that government economic policy is fascistic leads me to wonder about the relationship between fascism and libertarianism, which finds government activities so repugnant.
Had FDR waiting until Pearl Harbor to prepare for a war that was already well underway in Europe and Asia at the end of 1941, we would have had one hell of a time. The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Very much so.
Fascism has also been characterized as "a style" -- by which I do not mean a mere preference for brown shirts and goose stepping. "Style" would include the regular crude use of force, ruthlessness, crass manipulation of the public, the deployment of sappy 'Volk' sentimentality (like PATRIOTISM), etc.
"It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind." Indeed.
I'll quote one of my favorite philosophers here, because he explains "style" much better than me:
Quoting Graham Harman, Guerilla Metaphysics, p. 55
Youre right, such programs themselves are not an indication of fascism, since policy predate fascism. If anything welfare statism is the product of European conservatism. But fascism is totalitarian. So the closer one trends towards totalitarianism, the more fascist one can appear. And the idea that only the state can solve the worlds problems is a totalitarian idea.
Roosevelt was open about his admiration for the Prussian militaristic tradition, collectivism, and a strong militaristic state. Include on top of that the deluge of state propaganda during that time and we have a situation ripe for scathing criticism, especially from the laissez-faire inclinations of The Old Right, many of whom were proto libertarians.
I remain unimpressed by your sources. Quoting BC
Okay, he did want to join the fight against Hitler and help France and England, but mostly, he was concerned about being unable to defend the US in case of attack. He persuaded - not forced - business and political leaders to co-operate and to approve his initiative. Readiness is not the same as preparation to invade. Still no similarity to Hitler. Incidentally, this armaments initiative also prompted the desegregation of the defence industry.
So, I talked with my family, but since none of them had ever been fascists, they couldn't quite explain "the gist" of it to me. So, my grandmother (a moderate conservative of Basque heritage, who happened to be married to my grandfather, a moderate conservative of Italian descent), took it upon herself to "explain fascism to me". The conversation went like this:
Her: "Mussolini asked a crowd of people: 'Pópolo, ¿Qué quiere? ¿Manteca, o Cañones?" (People, what do you want, butter or cannons?"
Me: "Butter."
Her: "No, they want Cannons!"
Me: "Why? You can eat butter, you can't eat cannons."
Her: "It's not about what you can eat, that's not the idea."
Me: "Then what is the idea? What is it about?"
Her: "If you choose butter, then that means that you stay at home, like a coward, doing nothing but eating toast with butter. If you choose cannons, then that means that you're brave, that you're proud to go to war."
Me: "That sounds stupid to me. I prefer to stay at home like a coward, eating toast with butter, instead of risking my life in a war just so that I can convince myself and others that I'm brave."
Her: "Then you don't understand fascism."
Me: "No, I don't."
And I suppose that I never really did. Understand fascism, that is. I mean, I understand it to the extent that I see it as right wing populism. I don't see how it can be anything else.
Probably because you havent read them.
I too prefer toast and butter and haven't found a cause for which dying seemed like a good idea.
In the last few decades, the practice of valorizing soldiers and military-adjacent agents like police has become more noticeable, more common in the US. Flags and flag-waving has become more prominent in some circles. Personally, I've been falling through a hole in the flag since the 1960s (per HAIR!) It sometimes sounds like the only citizens who possess and display courage, self-sacrifice, grit, and loyalty are people in uniforms.
Usually, this rhetoric of the patriot's game is voiced by people who are quite conservative, whether they served in the military or not.
A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. [Contrarywise, U.S. United Methodists and Evangelical Lutherans, among others, no longer allow flags in the sanctuary, or allow their display during veterans' funerals.)
Here it is again: style. It's all about the how. Add heritage, racial purity and the right to bully those who disagree and you have the full Monty.
The American New Deal bears a resemblance to Hitler's and Mussolini's version in that apples, oranges and lemons are all fruit. The difference is in motive, means and method.
No doubt. To wit:
[quote=Roger Scruton, 2017]Populists are politicians who appeal directly to the people when they should be consulting the political process, and who are prepared to set aside procedures and legal niceties when the tide of public opinion flows in their favor. Like Donald Trump, populists can win elections. Like Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, they can disrupt the long-standing consensus of government. Or, like Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers in Britain, they can use the popular vote to overthrow all the expectations and predictions of the political class. But they have one thing in common, which is their preparedness to allow a voice to passions that are neither acknowledged nor mentioned in the course of normal politics. And for this reason, they are not democrats but demagogues not politicians who guide and govern by appeal to arguments, but agitators who stir the unthinking feelings of the crowd.[/quote]
I'd willingly die for many causes, such as saving the life of a family member or a friend, for example. I'm not willing to die for a fascist cause, because fascist causes strike me as unjust and irrational to begin with. So, if I have to choose between going to war simply for the sake of "being brave" or staying in my house like a coward, then I'd rather be a coward.
Quoting BC
I consider myself a left wing Argentine patriot, in the tradition of Mariano Moreno. I don't condone the actions of Argentine right wingers, even if they call themselves patriots just as much as I do. And if for some reason the conflicts in our society escalate to the point of physical violence, then I'm willing to fight them, and to die in such a fight. I believe that such is the nature of a civil war. I don't want to die, and I don't want a civil war to occur. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am ready to fight and even to die if such are the circumstances. I don't think that this has anything to do with fascism (at least not on my side, I'm sure the right wingers think that fascism is "a good thing").
Quoting BC
I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. The rhetoric seems (to my mind, at least) to have more brainwashing power than the mere symbols, iconography, and other purely aesthetic, organizational, or structural elements. In other words, no chain of command or obedient service is more persuasive to the fascist mind than the idea that going to war is inherently better for some reason than staying in your house eating toast with butter. It's this last part that makes no rational sense to me, because I suspect that at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with reason. It's pure, irrational sentiment, similar in some sense to the blind faith of Kierkegaard's fideistic "knight of faith". That's why the fascist slogan is "Believe, Obey, Fight", instead of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" which was the slogan of the French Revolution.
I don't think what we perceive of as fascist politics need a reason or even an ideology, beyond the flag-wearing, boot-stomping masculine bonding rituals. All you need is a bunch of disaffected, frustrated, insecure people and a guy to come along and give loud voice to all that grievance. He then needs to point to a culprit - preferably a recognizable and relatively weak group of scapegoats: "They are the cause of all your problems! They are the reason you can't get a job, can't keep a girlfriend, can't stop drinking...." If he can enlist God - "God is angry because you let them behave in this way." so much the better. That worked for all the OT prophets.
It's not that hard to collect a number of factions with otherwise unrelated agendas under the umbrella of "I can stopthem doing whatever you don't like!" It works for every demagogue, whether they nominally belong to an established political faction or not.
What I was trying to get across is that it's not 'irrational sentiments'. People have real problems that the government has failed to address - and in many cases, even to acknowledge. They feel unvalued and ignored. If they're not significant enough numbers to make a difference in elections, politicians do tend to ignore them. Business interests, landowners, unscrupulous preachers manipulate and exploit them with impunity: the government doesn't protect them. They grow resentful and mistrustful. They're not interested in enlightenment; they want something in particular: prayer in their schools, an all-white neighbourhood, free range for their cattle on public lands, better jobs and housing, health insurance, a ban on abortion, no limit on the arsenal they can own, no competition from immigrants - something. Each of the groups wants something different. They don't know why they can't have it, so they're generally angry with everyone in a position of authority.
Each of these inconsequential groups is powerless to get what it wants.
But when a local politician who presents as anti-authority taps into the discontent of two or more groups, he can become czar of his region - since, once he's elected, he does control all the agencies of authority.
And when a federal organization, fronted by a self-proclaimed champion of all the aggrieved factions, organizes the various groups into a coalition, there remains only to direct their anger at an available target and keep beating on the war-drums. They'll bring their own pitchforks.
Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions.
That comes fairly late in the game. First, and for a longish time, government must be rendered unable to to meet the demands. That is, some faction or factions opposed to the public weal must have influence in or on the government long before the figurehead emerges. This influence is usually economic. While financial interests don't intend to bring about any particular ism, their cumulative activities in industry, media and politics set the stage for populist leaders.
Ah, but when it comes to dealing with fascists, cannons have generally proved more effective than sticks of butter.
The current far-right's obsession with fighting seems to me to be well explained by Francis Fukuyama's employment of Nietzsche's "Last Man." In a society where everyone is given the same basic level of recognition, and where their basic biological needs are met by the welfare state, the individual loses any particular recognition (thumos). Your typical alt-right member is faced with the prospect of degenerating into Nietzsche's "Last Man." Their culture sees them primarily as consumers, and even in their own eyes they see themselves degraded into bovine consumers (perhaps a result of trends in modern education that, as C.S. Lewis put it, "produce men without chests.")
This phenomena isn't unique to the far-right. I think it explains the widespread popularity of post-apocalyptic media. The basic idea is "if everything falls apart I can actually become a hero, actually have a meaningful life," or even "war or crisis will help make me into something more heroic." And this also helps explain the phenomena of the "Manosphere," and other changes in patterns of consumption (e.g. "tactical" everything flying off the shelves, people driving off-road vehicles for their suburban commutes, etc.).
It's particularly strong in the sphere of gender politics because sex is one of the last things to be wholly commodified. Hence, sex remains a strong source of validation. And yet, as de Beauvoir points out, Hegel's lord-bondsman dialectic ends up playing out between men and woman, because the misogynist, having denigrated woman, can no longer receive meaningful recognition from her.
You also see this in complaints of the "HRification" of the workplace and schools, or "longhousing."
This search for meaning helps explain why far right circles have also surprisingly become enclaves of the humanities. From an apologetic perspective, the entire "movement's" interest in tradition and the classics would seem to offer a promising avenue for rebutting its more toxic ideas, but I think the dominant philosophy of the academy closes off such an avenue. The trend has been more to "decolonize" syllabi. Required courses might focus on social justice, but the idea that all college graduates would be at least somewhat familiar with a "canon" seems to be increasingly a dead letter.
The call to a "collective greatness" is a particularly powerful siren song if the alternative is largely a pluralistic hedonism.
I think Nietzsche's "Overman," so very popular in these circles, is itself a sort of the fever dream of the Last Man. It is to the Last Man that the goal of becoming an Overman seems so alluring.
Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group?
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes - particularly if elements of the media have been priming people for decades - catastrophizing, intensifying differences, finding scapegoats, promoting hatreds, conflicts and unrest, etc.
Yes, I do. Assuming that the Waco siege is indicative of such differences, of course. I could also mention Ruby Ridge, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the apprehension of the Unabomber, among other cases. State and federal law enforcement are not beyond reproach, especially considering issues such as racism for example, as evidenced in many cases, ranging from Rodney King to George Floyd. That being said, I don't see how law enforcement agents, racist as they might be, would align themselves with someone such as Timothy McVeigh. Cops in general might be right wingers, but they don't seem to be sympathetic towards domestic terrorism. Because that is what you're effectively dealing with when a group of people plans to take over the White House: it's domestic terrorism.
Do I think that would happen? I've no idea. The police and the military aren't immune to corruption, ideological or otherwise. If they were, then there would be no reason for Internal Affairs or military courts to exist. Would I like to believe that they would oppose such tyrannical measures? Yes, I would indeed like to believe that.
Its not unique at all.
They don't need to. They've already put the cabal in charge of all the levers of power. Now, they just sit back, watch the bloodbaths and wait to be disappointed that none of the destruction they've unleashed improves their lot one jot or tittle.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
They did that four years ago, were confronted, chastised and pardoned; now they're plotting revenge for their chastisement. The situation is way far past dialogue.
Quoting Tom Storm
We know that some law enforcement agents are, but we don't yet know what percent. Same with the military. No until the actual armed confrontation will we know the relative strengths.
Quoting Tom Storm
Should he live that long (which I consider highly doubtful), by then one of two situations will prevail:
- either all the mechanisms will be in place to ensure his ascent to the throne and the divine right of his designated line of succession (not necessarily his own progeny)
- or the civil war be approaching its climax.
(Unless the next series of pandemics will have taken out half the population.)
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
I'm not thinking corruption, I'm thinking more that they may be aligned with authoritarian visions for America and long to rid society of deviants.
In that case, authoritarians would do well to keep in mind that the ordinary people of the United States of America, the so-called deviants, will not simply lay down and die just because a group of deluded tyrants want them to. That's not what they're about as a people. That's not what their Founding Fathers would have wanted for their country. If there's one thing that the people of the USA are especially averse to, it's tyranny. It was the aversion to the tyranny of King George that promted their War of Independence. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the enslavers that prompted their Civil War. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the military-industrial complex that prompted Eisenhower's final speech. Sure, all of these historical events can be explained by less "naive" factors, such as economic factors. But it seems to me that anti-tyranny is deeply ingrained into the very identity, the very "essence" if you will, of the ordinary person from the USA, no matter what that person's class, sex, or race happens to be. Whatever faults or shortcomings the people of the USA might have, anti-tyranny is not one of them.
As one of their Founding Fathers said:
So, two utterly and profoundly worrying developments.
The first is that Elon Musk and his troupe have now been granted access privileges to the Treasury system that disburses ALL US Government payments to every individual and organisation (NYT Gift Link).
This is a guy who has never held an elected office. He's putting his lieutenants into Government buildings and scrutinising all the outgoing funds. (Incidentally there's also pretty strong evidence that it was Musk that was behind the bulk email offering severance payments to practically the entire Federal beauracracy.)
The second development is Trump's demands for a list of all the FBI agents that worked on the Jan 6th insurrection and stolen documents cases. It seems many hundreds or even thousands of individuals could be fired or demoted for doing their jobs, following the [s]exoneration[/s] pardoning of hundreds of insurrectionist police-bashers.
//update// I now read that the DOGE stooges only have read-only access to the disbursements system, which is not quite as Dr Strangelove as the initial story. But still .//
And here's why populism leads to fascism: by emphasizing the divide between the rulers and the "ordinary people" and stating that key societal problems are because of the rulers, populism can easily descend into fascism as populism embraces strong leaders, wants to take the power away form the real or many times imagined "elite" and replace it with the movements followers, who will follow their leader. Above all, fascism opposes democracy and democratic system where decisions have to be negotiated with other political factions. It sees democracy as the reason for corruption. Also this leads to a command economy, because the leader has to be in charge of everything.
So there's no such thing as left-wing populism, in your view? It's always right-wing populism? Or are you saying that both left-wing and right-wing populisms lead to fascism?
Quoting ssu
Yes, we know what fascism is, we're on page 10 of this discussion. It's not like we're trying to define the concept. We're a bit past that point by now.
Kash Patel in his confirmation hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee naturally had no idea of the insurrectionist that had pleaded guilty and now were pardoned. And simply wouldn't reply on who he will be going after. But if he gets to be the FBI director, nobody will be as loyal and a willing bulldog for Trump. Until when Trump is disappointed at him when he cannot give everything Trump wants.
Oh no! On the contrary. Read some Lenin and you can see the populist elements in bolshevism and in Marxism-Leninism. Imperial Russia wasn't obviously a democracy, but right from the start democracy wasn't something that the leftist revolutionaries had in mind. After all, the dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't in any way "democratic" with it's class enemies and violent revolution against the capitalists.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Yes, it can lead. Best example of left-wing populism is Venezuela. Would that be a fascist state? Democracy isn't working there. But hey! Maduro is happily taking back Venezuelan illegals from the US and Venezuelan oil isn't under the Trump tariffs (yet).
So Lenin is a fascist now? Is that it?
Quoting ssu
Why would it be a fascist state and not a socialist one? Unless, of course, you're saying that socialism is the same thing as fascism. Is it?
Quoting ssu
Are you expecting me to defend Maduro? I'm not quite getting what it is that you expect from me. It seems like you're just blurting out nonsense. If that's the case, then I'll just blurt out some nonsense of my own: given that I saw Stolen on Netflix the other day, I have decided that from now on, I'm going to call you "Nastegallu". Suomi, Sámi, you're more or less related, aren't you? I mean, if I have anything to do with Maduro despite the fact that I'm from Argentina instead of Venezuela, surely I can call you a Sámi name instead of a Suomi one.
Quoting Wikipedia
Again, the Musk oligarchy has been central to this, barging into secure offices and demanding access to confidential files and systems. Musk is acting like an overlord, with greater authority than any Federal official or deparmental secretary, and complete discretion in deciding what does or doesn't constitute proper spending of US dollars.
Quoting USAID Security Officials on Leave after Refusing Musk Allies
Imagine the predicament of those staffers, many of whom have dedicated their lives to the welfare of their recipient states and nations, who's entire careers are now being ended under the MAGA jackboots.
He wasn't much of a communist or even socialist. And Stalin was a straight-up dictator, once he'd established state control of everything, himself as the state and woe to anyone who disagrees with his policies. Just like any other dictator. Whether the popular movement starts with peasants and labourers or disaffected white Christians or angry Muslims, the endgame is the same: one megalomaniac shouts at everybody and his tools carry out the pogroms.
Yet I suspect that Nastegallu's () argument isn't exactly that, it's something else. I could be wrong, though. That's one of the problems with saying (and reading) things between the lines.
NGO's that contract with USAID to carry out programs in Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia must state clearly what their goals are, how they plan to reach them, and how to measure progress to show success or not early in the contracting process. Further, contractors are audited. These are all rational procedures in the interest of obtaining what taxes are paying for. If goals are not met, the agency may find themselves summarily defunded (as the NGO I was working for years ago was--it was sudden death).
Of course one can find fault with USAID. Its goals may or may not be aligned with a given country's priorities or maybe its self interests. But in general, USAID funds work for the common good. And foreign aid can be a difficult game for any NGO / country to play. The best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
Not that we should be surprised of course -- considering the radical lunatic felon pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accords-- stupid idiotic moronic--the World Health Organization--imbicilic dumb cretinous--or slapping tariffs on our closest friends and largest trading partners--wicked self-defeating delusional.
Yes, that seems to often be the case. Authoritarianism quickly transcends and engulfs whatever politics may have been the original impetus.
And don't forget, SCOTUS has declared that the President has full immunity for official acts. So if anyone challenges Trump, he'll just shrug and say they're official acts, so sue me. And who's that lucky litigant going to be?
Pity those poor government employees - and there are literally tens of thousand of them - who's livelihoods are being threatened, and who's projects are being shelved or cut in front of their eyes. What is happening in the US right now is a massive atrocity.
Oh, and the reason USAID are being called 'radical lunatics' is simply because the staff tend to being - and for completely obvious reasons - Democratic-leaning. And that is a disqualifying attribute in the emerging One Party State of MAGA.
No, they cannot. Lenin may have started out as a communist, but went astray; Stalin had no ideology, any more than Trump does: he was out for personal power. Mussolini may have started out as a socialist, but went over to the dark side; Hitler's ideology was always fascist.
This is the danger of labels: they don't stay stuck.
Yes, it is. Musk has [apparently] gained access to the Federal Government's financial "Holy of Holies" -- the Federal Payment System.
The barbarians have breached the gate and are in a position to start playing with the levers of power. And for them it IS play. What with presidential immunity and being the richest parasite on earth, Musk is neither elected nor cleared by congressional confirmation, and as far as I know, he has not been sworn to uphold the law and defend the constitution. He more like "been let loose".
Of course, being sworn in isn't quite the same as perpetual protection from pesky prosecution, but it at least establishes some sort of possible accountability.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Lol. Nope, hopefully not. And those smart lefties here on this forum won't defend the Soviet Union or Marxism-Leninism either. They might be not as hostile and will note some positive aspects, but in general they do use their brains and don't just loyally support something religiously.
What is hilarious in the present discourse only accepts the American juxtaposition of natives against white "colonial" thinking in how that doesn't fit to the Sámi. The Sámi look exactly like Finns, you wouldn't at all in any way differ them from Finns. The Sámi have their large share of blue eyed and blonds so it ridiculous for them to have to talk about Finns "whites". And the "clash" between the Finns and the Sámi happened I guess in Antiquity when there simply was no Finnish country (as Finnish tribes fought each other until the Middle Ages), so the idea of native people/colonizers is funny in the case of Lapland. And the Sami as actually so few here, far less than people in Greenland.
Quoting Wayfarer
Imagine the actual consequences in Africa and the Middle East. So you stop vaccination programs in Afrinca? Ok. Any thought about the consequences on that? So you basically stop the education department in Jordan? Ok. If people don't know, the US supports directly the Jordanian government:
Next in line is the chaos at the FBI, which will be emasculated.
And for this trade war, that likely will result in a global recession, is as bonkers as US taking Panama or Greenland.
A rational response for Mexico, Canada and the EU would to gang up on the US, try to compensate for the loss of US trade with encouraging trade between themselves.
Even if the trade war and domestic chaos will engulf the Trump administrations time and Trump will just move on from the Greenland annexation dreams (hopefully), the rift has already happened. European politicians have to take seriously Trump's comments about Greenland. What it does to the alliance, when the US wants to annex territory from a very loyal ally that already gives the US free usage and bases in Greenland is really something nobody wants to discuss. But the first thing is obvious: do not rely on the US. Hence if Europe really will spend more on defense, it will do it focusing on creating it's own military industrial complex like France.
The French model can prevail:
I think it's worse for Panama. There Trump really could at least take control of the Panama Canal Zone. I'm thinking starting a thread about it.
And then Trump will honor his promise to deport families together, and deport Kash alongside his undocumented 4th cousin twice removed.
I think people could use a reminder of what fascism actually is, because this is getting a little embarrassing.
(Also, note the IQ differential between those and this.)
I think it's fair to say that Mussolini knew what fascism is.
Quoting NOS4A2
Mussolini has been quoted several times in this thread.
Right, by myself.
And by others as well.
I dont think thats true. One can search the discussion and see that Mussolinis name hardly appears, especially with quotes.. Write Trump in there, however, and youll find the true thrust of the thread.
The following doesn't count?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
It's from a speech that Mussolini gave in Belluno. Here's a reference in English.
A quote of your grandmother quoting Mussolini does not suffice, no.
Which is why I linked to an English newspaper from 1938 for that quote. That doesn't count either?
Quoting The Sheridan Press (1938)
I suppose it counts now, after the fact. Thanks, Ill check it out.
It's a famous quote, it's the "fascist dilemma". It's so famous that even my grandmother knew it.
Here's an article about it in Spanish, from ESIC University:
https://www.esic.edu/docs/editorial/articulos/170616_100602.pdf
Quoting Sergio A. Berumen
Translation: "Benito Mussolini's fascist regime distributed posters with the message "Butter or cannoni?" with the aim of explaining to the Italians why butter was scarce in times of war and, in the process, asking for understanding and sacrifice for the greater glory of the country. Finally, in 1976 Margaret Thatcher in a speech said, "The Soviets put guns before butter, but we put almost everything before guns.""
For someone so interested in fascism, I find it strange that you weren't familiar with the "guns or butter" (alternatively, "butter or cannons") thing.
Quoting Investopedia
Quoting ThoughtCo
Quoting Patrizia Sambuco and Lisa Pine
Yeah, I was specifically looking for quotes about fascism, by fascists, not a general phrase used by a multitude of politicians across many ideologies.
Mussolini famously used it in his 1938 speech at Belluno. He was a fascist, who used that phrase in a fascist sense. Your unawareness of this, which is something that even my grandmother knew, is genuinely surprising.
Did you at least know about the posters?
I knew it as a general economic principle, sure. I didnt know Mussolini used the phrase once in a speech or in a poster. So thanks for that.
Im genuinely surprised that there arent more quotes, despite you saying there were several.
It was one of his most important speeches. How else would someone like my grandmother know about it? She wasn't the most knowledgeable or educated person in the world. So how is it that she knew about it, but you didn't? The posters in question were widely distributed throughout Italy. In your investigations about fascism, you never stumbled across this?
Quoting NOS4A2
You're welcome.
Quoting NOS4A2
Your own quotes don't count?
To what end?
Mussolini's 'spiritual' version of L'Etat, c'est moi.
Hitler's version of making Germany great again.
How the tools actually behave in carrying out the national will doesn't look all that spiritual. But then, hardly any product matches its advertised virtues; fascism, like communism or capitalism or christianity manifests differently from its written theory.
not that Trump would understand any of this.
Very nice. Im glad youve read it. The best way to understand fascism is to understand what its creators were thinking, in my opinion.
And youre right. Thats why Mussolini was willing to use any economic doctrine and policy to further his spiritual one. So fascism could be liberal one day and socialist the next.
Nah.
Except they are not the same doctrine. They have one main feature in common: the will of the people is what I say it is. And, of course, they're just similar in effect: suppressing individual freedom and wasting the nation's resources on weaponry.
It's true, neither Mussolini nor Hitler peddled pictures of themselves on shoes or fake watches. But they sure hopped in bed fast enough with powerful bankers and industrialists.
The Political Doctrine of Fascism - Alfredo Rocco
Sure, the guy who helped developed fascism is wrong about fascism.
Of course he is. Just as Stalin, the guy who helped develop socialism, is wrong about socialism.
And why are they wrong?
In Stalin's case, he was wrong to suppose (to use just one example) that socialism could thrive and survive in one country. It couldn't. The USSR eventually ditched socialism and turned into modern-day Russia.
Would it be fair to say that Norway and Sweden (and to a lesser extent, Finland) carried out fascist policies against the Sámi people? Maybe there's few native people today in Lapland because those are the ones that weren't forcefully assimilated.
Unless they use all of the devices in service to the Fascist state. The phrase the end justifies the means doesnt preclude using these devices to achieve an end.
Let's consider the case of democratic means, to focus on just one example. What would remain of the fascist state if the means of representative democracy were to be the norm? Suppose Mussolini is effectively the Duce. Now suppose that presidential elections are held. And suppose that John Doe gets more votes than Mussolini. Suppose further that, after being elected, John Doe & company (as in, legislators, senators, etc.) carry out a series of reforms such that Fascist Country X starts to look more and more like the United States of America. What remains of the fascist state then, as envisioned by Mussolini, Rocco, and others? Nothing remains of it.
This is just wishful thinking. It's like Stalin's wishful thinking of Socialism In One Country.
Nothing but daydreams.
Could've, would've, should've.
Totalitarianism and fascism are both bad, in the same way tuberculosis and AIDS are both bad but different, and you can have both of them at the same time. The Third Reich had both; the USSR did not.
The US is neither totalitarian nor fascist at this point, even if there are some symptoms of them. Oligarchs are another problem, as are extremists conservatives. (Extreme leftists could be a problem, but we don't have many of those, Trump's claims not withstanding.).
Martin Luther (apocryphally) observed that "A nation is better off if ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian." We are going to have plenty of problems resulting from the rule of "stupid Christians", without having outright fascists in charge.
There are various ways of delivering bad government to the people. Fascism and totalitarianism don't exhaust the possibilities. Run of the mill incompetence, naked self-interest, greed, vindictiveness, crude nationalism, poorly thought-out (if thought at all) policies, ad nauseam will do the trick.
The which of the what now????
Most definitions of socialism are concerned with the economy alone: who owns the land and factories. Yet, the way Americans often talk, you'd think public schools and old age pensions, state health insurance and government regulation of industry are all socialist - if not communist measures.
In the purest sense, socialism means insuring the welfare of polity is the paramount task of government. A functional socialist arrangement isn't developed by despots. It cannot beimposed on a population. It's an inevitable process of a relatively honest functional democracy during peacetime.
The majority wants material security, social stability, control over their individual lives and a [perceived] fair share of the common wealth. They vote for policies that promote the general welfare. This has the side-effect of a thriving communications and arts scene, which in turn leads to a trend toward tolerance. If the population was already diverse, it also leads to measures that reverse entrenched injustices.
Industrialization and collectivization are not socialist ideals; they were considered necessary to end the backward feudalism prevailing in Russia before the revolution and catch up with the 20th century. There was also the looming threat of the American atomic bomb in the hands of a commie-hunting administration. Certainly the way these policies were carried out was far from democratic.
His regime instituted some women's rights, free universal education (the indoctrination of the young), nation-wide vaccination programs and universal healthcare (of a sort) Food rationing and vast construction programs were a response to war damage.
Overall, however, the 'socialism' of that time was a police state, wherein the people had no voice or choice.
My contention is that Stalin was not involved in the development of socialism: he may have made speeches about it (which added nothing to existing social theory), but all his official acts were aimed at making a stronger, better armed federation than the US.
Fascists saw Fascism as the purest form of democracy, so long as the people are considered qualitatively instead of quantitatively. They did use democratic means, such as elections and voting, at least until they achieved absolute power. Again, the point is to use it to service the state, and then perhaps be done with when it is no longer required.
Yes, they are terrible ideas. But this is what fascists believed and tried to implement. If we are to oppose it, it might be helpful to recognize it before it becomes action.
Very cool. Thanks.
My point is that once they achieve absolute power, the use of democratic means necessarily weakens the fascist nature of the state. Conversely, it precipitates its transformation into a representative democracy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have a fascist state or a democratic one.
Quoting NOS4A2
Be done with what, with the democratic means or with the fascist state itself?
I think youre right that popular sovereignty would eventually be fascisms downfall, but they literally did create a democratic fascist state in the form of the Italian Social Republic. You can read in their Manifesto of Verona that a leader would be chosen by citizens every 5 years, not to mention the adoption of plenty liberal and socialistic devices in order to further the fascist state. So fascism has veered into left-wing populism, after all.
But those devices that you mention actually weaken the fascist state instead of strengthening it. At least that's how I see it. Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro also became the heads of state in Venezuela through democratic means. But once they got there, the democratic means that they used began to show their limits. It's not possible to fully democratize Venezuelan politics and still have an (arguably) socialist regime. It would weaken it. It's the same reason why you can't have full democratic means in today's China: it's simply anathema to the very existence of the CCP. It's the same reason why you can't democratize North Korea: it's anathema to Kim Jong Un's Juche-based regime.
Trump is a right wing populist, as far as I'm concerned. He's not a fascist in the same sense that Mussolini was. Yet there is a real danger (to my mind, at least) with some of the policies that his administration wishes to carry out. Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that his administration "means well", I would say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
It is more than probable that DJT is preparing exactly the same methods for the U.S. I mean, he's already demonstrating it - many of his executive orders in the first two weeks of his Presidency might be unconstitutional and/or illegal - but how can they be challenged? He's gutting the Justice Department and purging the FBI of anyone deemed disloyal - classical authoritarian moves. Fox News was complaining that the Democrats are 'shredding the Constitution' by stalling the confirmation of Trump's dangerous Cabinet selections. Republican Congressmen have already started talking about how to remove the two-term limit for Trump. And so on. You're seeing the birth of an authoritarian political regime right in front of your eyes.
I guess well have to see about all that.
Argentina, was it? What do you think of Milei? Im watching his rule with great interest.
Suffice to say that I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I hope Trump's administration benefits the people of the USA. I'm just skeptical about it, and I think that my skepticism here is warranted.
Quoting NOS4A2
I didn't vote for him. That being said, the inflation rate seems to be showing some signs of improvement, as well as other economic indicators. However, his reduction of so-called state bureaucracy has meant less funding for (what I believe are) key areas for the further development of Argentina, such as science and technology. Currently, only a 0.2% of Argentina's gross domestic product (GDP) is invested in S&T. By contrast, in the United States, in 2022 the investment in S&T represented 3.4% of that country's GDP. Investing in science and technology is crucial for the development of any nation. At least that's how I see it.
No, I can appreciate the skepticism. The establishment wouldnt have it any other way.
I appreciate the comments about Milei. After all, he may be the first libertarian leader in human history. All I can say is I hope it awakens some private initiative instead of metastasizing a reliance on the corrupt and wasteful public initiative.
"It's complicated", is what I would say here. Argentina has a strange history.
The only ism Trump adheres to is opportunism. He believes in nothing except his own enrichment and aggrandizement. He's a grifter with a huge ego and unlimited spite.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Wrecking the economy and shredding the constitution is a real danger?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Of-bloody-course it doesn't mean well! This is the end-times feeding frenzy.
Fascist? Again an awkward use of the term fascism. It's basically eugenics and racist ideas, not fascism. Sweden or Norway (or Finland) weren't fascist states.
And just what to you would be by "native people"? Compared to whom?
In America it's so different. You do have a divide between native Americans and all others. You have had a class divide by race thanks to the Spaniards, who were so racist that they made the children born in America to Spanish parents who had migrated from Spain, peninsulares, a lower caste, criollos. There's still a divide between the native population and those of basically European origin and it's really different. Some countries it's a bigger problem, some countries a lesser problem.
First of all, with the Sámi, we are talking about really a small group of people. In Finland there's only about 10 000 Sámi. That is a population of a small town. And about the genetics in Finland in general. Archeologists found this ancient village that was one of the earliest human settlements after the last Ice Age in Finland. When they looked at the geneology of the ancient people and compared them to the local people now living there, it was such a perfect match that they could say with high probability that likely the current folk living in the area were descendants of these ancient dwellers. Another example, which is actually quite common, I remember my parents summer cottage in Middle Finland had a farm as a neighbor. The farm had been owned by one family since the time Columbus found America. Unfortunately the Church books went only so far (to the late 15th Century), so likely the family could have been there for longer time.
Hence the idea of one group being indigenous and another not is a bit confusing, when basically these migrations happened thousands of years ago. Sámi became reindeer herders only in the Middle Ages.
But yes, the Sámi activists have to adapt to the dominant narrative of the indigenous/native people being the victims of the "white colonizers", because that's the only narrative which people use about these issues. Hence you end up with totally white Europeans calling other white Europeans "whities" and having to claim they aren't so white. Bit awkward when you have pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair.
What we can say as objective facts are that:"
Regardless of whether that meets the definition of fascism, it represents a dangerous slide into authoritarianism, one that risks permanently altering the USAs democratic structure. A democracy that refuses to defend itself isn't really a democracy for long
Quoting ssu
It seems to me that their small population is due to the fact that their ancestors were forcefully assimilated into the nation-states of Scandinavia, but I could be wrong.
Quoting ssu
You say that as if it happened last Monday or something.
Quoting ssu
It doesn't seem that the issue here is about having white skin, blond hair and blue eyes. From what I can understand about this issue (which is admittedly not much), it's a cultural issue. The Sámi have a culture that has been deemed primitive or inferior in some sense, in relation to the modern nation states of Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., which is why those countries carried out policies to assimilate them in a cultural sense. That seems like fascism to me. Bundle of sticks with an axe and all of that.
You are wrong, at least in my opinion. The history wasn't like that. Believe or not, but Lapland was very much uninhabited and is still quite uninhabited. The population density is similar to Santa Cruz province in Argentina or to Alaska. The Sámi people have basically grown in size and actually the number of people speaking Sámi as mother tongue have increased.
The population of now Finnish Lapland in the year 1500 is estimated having been about 5000 and in 1830 about 20 000. Only in the 18th Century records of people started to be kept in Lapland. And actually the Swedish government banned Finnish migration from the south to Lapland until 1675, yet even then there were already Finns living in Lapland as Lappish people or Laplanders can be also a Finn (or Swede or Norwegian), not only Sámi. One cannot talk about colonization as for example in the Americas. Those that migrated to the area in the 17th Century had to get a permit from the Lappish villages to settle down or the land was bought or rented from then. Another way was through marriage. And the Lappish villages weren't only Sámi. Furthermore, there was no government project of "settling" Lapland, so the idea of similar attrocities as in America isn't a reality.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Well, the domestication of the reindeer happen in historic times, in the late Middle Ages. I think it was first the Norwegians that domesticated mountain reindeer. The Sámi adapted to this, but also other Lapplanders too. Usually domestication of wild animals, if you can call that about herds that freely walk around tundra, has happened far more earlier.
The classic picture of a Sámi with a reindeer in the tundra:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Well, racist ideologies don't need any logic and there isn't logic. Europeans have been racist towards each other, not only other people.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Yes. Indeed those kind of ideas were popular during the era of nationalism and the classic racism that eugenics promoted. Wildly popular in Sweden. Yet in fact the opposite happened what you think. This made Sámi identity more evident. In 1917 there was held the first congress of the Sami people in Norway because of the actions of the Norwegian government. Similar "national consciousness" didn't rise in Finland then, because there wasn't much if any tensions between Sámi and other Lapplanders. Or there simple wasn't enough activists.
But note the time line here. All that talk of inferior people, the need for assimiliation and eugenics ended quite quickly after WW2. Eugenics and classic nationalism of the 19th Century went away in the Nordic countries quite quickly. Then in the 1960's and 1970's the governments have supported the Sámi culture and language. And why not, when you are talking about 10 000 people of whom 2 000 speak as a mother tongue Sámi language, it isn't a huge amount to sponsor Sámi culture and have a Sámi parliament of Finland. More like a tourist attraction nowdays when you have Europe's "only indigenous people" around.
Finnish president in the Sámi parliament:
Quoting ssu
Yeah well, except in Norwegian Black Metal, right? For the most part, at least. Swedish Death Metal bands don't seem to be overtly racist in that sense. And Finland doesn't have a comparable metal scene. I mean, it has one, but it's basically Nightwish, Finntroll, and Korpiklaani. And few dozen bands that sound more or less like one of those.
Quoting ssu
That's a bit of a strange thing to say. Aren't Germans indigenous to Germany, the Irish indigenous to Ireland, and the French indigenous to France? Etc.
Depends upon how far back you go.
Sure, at the end of the day, humanity started in Africa. So, no one is really indigenous to anywhere except the African continent.
The changes and movements of people from the early Bronze age are significant. We don't have to go back as far as the emergence of the species.
Nobody has agreed on a hard-and-fast definition, not even Hitler and Mussolini.
What we do know about its various sub-species: how they manifest in a nation's life, the tactics they employ and the figurehead they set up as all-powerful leader.
If you wish to call what's happening in the US by some other name, I'm sure that would be fine, so long as those conditions are met.
7February25
"Truth matters" ...
What about the warm little pond?? Where was that? :brow:
We know things must be truly desperate when 180 starts posting The Bulwark.
Let me present you with a small exercise:
Vietnam
American people: :rage:
Cambodia
American people: :yawn:
East-Timor
American people: :yawn:
Iraq:
American people: Unfortunate. Carry on.
Afghanistan:
American people: Unfortunate. Carry on.
Libya:
American people: We came, we saw, he died! LOL!
Etc. etc.
The real question ought to be, how did the American people get so dumb?
Well, there's a hypothesis that says that life started somewhere else. I don't think that's true. But if it is, then no living organism is indigenous to Earth, not even microbes.
PSA Monday
Quoting Tzeentch
Proudly Voting rich, Living poor since 1788!
Why 1788? What's so special about that specific date? For Oossians, I mean. I know why it's important to other folk, beyond the borders of your country.
edit:
Old posts on the roots of American "fascism" ...
(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504611
(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/420051
But without the Declaration of Independence (1776), there would not have been a Constitution (1787), nor a ratification of it (1788). And without a Constitution (1787), there would have not been the first US elections (1788).
Hindsight bias is completely. uninformative.
I prefer these other Roots:
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm saying that the Declaration of Independence was a necessary (but insufficient) condition for the Constitution, as well as the first US elections. Why? Because of what you said here:
Quoting 180 Proof