Thread of What Is Fascism And Is Donald Trump A Fascist

do we reveal anything new/useful about the world by calling him a fascist, or do we just enjoy having the opportunity to use the word?

everyone itt probably knows both the strict and loose definitions of the word fascist and understands donald trumps' political views and place vis-a-vis the republican party. there are aspects of his appeal that call back to strongman fascist leaders, but not so long ago we had a cowboy president who had a 90% approval rating and who said stuff like 'you're either with us or against us'. even though that guy was less openly racist I'm not sure the situation was less 'fascist'.

trump appeals to the white-identity nationalist reactionaries who form the base of the republican party. this group existed before donald trump and they'll exist after him, he just found himself w/ a bulworth-esque situation where he can say whatever he wants (so exactly what they want to hear rather than mostly what they want to hear) as he's not tied to any political donors or a political career.

geez I go tot sleep for a few hours

xxp It's not racial identity he's talking about, it's national identity. Pinochet was arguably not much more racist than a lot of other Latin American leaders.

Trump's palingenetic appeal - one great leader will return a faded and corrupt nation to its former glory by sweeping away the old order of both political stripes and giving birth to the new forged in his own image - is outside of the scope of yr standard politician who'll "make x great again" but i don't think he really believes it or would know what to do with the power given the opportunity.

"one great leader will return a faded and corrupt nation to its former glory by sweeping away the old order of both political stripes and giving birth to the new forged in his own image" i'm not going to say it's impossible to squint and see this as trump but i think it's a bit of a stretch. he's running as a republican, he says he likes a lot of the other candidates, he has agreed not to run as an independent, he's deeply indebted to the current system, he talks about america "winning again" but not as a rebirth or awakening. i think he's much closer to a candidate claiming to make america great again than a fascistic leader.

he has agreed not to run as an independent,

oh come on

you're penchant for giving him the benefit of the doubt is truly baffling

your egh it's early for me

i'm not giving him any benefit of the doubt, i'm just looking at what he has said and how he has presented himself. if we're talking about his true motivations i think there's a slam-dunk case that he's a berlusconi-style buffoon who doesn't believe or give a shit about any of this. if we're going to talk about him as a fascist it needs to be on the level of his political presentation and reception.

I'd argue he's not running as a Republican. He's running for the Republican nomination as Donald Trump. Either way, he's not really a fascist though i wouldn't discount the idea that there's a crossover between traditional fascism and some elements of his support base who wouldn't self-identify as such.

in the last debate they asked him (and then after the debate he was asked 2-3 more times in interviews) about whether he'd run as an independent and he said (not exact quote) that he has grown to respect the other candidates and he feels a part of the republican party and so no he has decided he won't run as an independent and he just hopes the republican party treats him fairly at the convention. he also kept emphasizing that in some polls he beats hillary bc i think he has moved onto making the case to the party that he is a bet they should take.

if we're talking about his true motivations i think there's a slam-dunk case that he's a berlusconi-style buffoon who doesn't believe or give a shit about any of this.

otm

he's made it abundantly clear his "commitment" to the Republican Party is conditional on how he's "treated" - he doesn't give a shit about the party.

he's using the party, he has no allegiance to it

i think he's going to try and start his own news network tbh

Actually Donald Trump isn't a fascist, he is a dumb whiny man-baby with freedom fries where his testicles should be

anyway I agree w what Alex in SF and JCLC have said so far and stand by what I said on the og campaign thread: there's enough overlap between the positions and statements Trump has made and traditionally fascist ideologies to merit the use of the term imo. I think it's strange and inaccurate to act like his racism and eagerness to exploit racism in his base are situational responses to particular conditions - there is no "problem" with undocumented immigrants or Muslims in the sense that Trump and his base think it is (that they're "taking American jobs", depressing wages, destroying American culture, pose a security threat, etc.), those are all window-dressing manifestations of deep-seated racism rooted in the sense that the volk (white + Christian) of America feel threatened. That his statements don't mirror or match the extent of Hitler's views is irrelevant, it's the appeal to the violation of "true" Americans, to the sense of aggrieved identity, that is fascist.

xp

since we've got this thread and part of the title is "what is fascism," let me ask a question i asked facebook yesterday:

In 1944 George Orwell wrote in "What is Fascism?":

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make.

Here's the link for full context: http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

do we reveal anything new/useful about the world by calling him a fascist, or do we just enjoy having the opportunity to use the word?

back to iatee's point, beyond our potential (ab)use of the term in our little backwater of the internet, to the limited extent that the press/media has any impact on the polity's grasp of the candidates I think it's useful for major media outlets to be comfortable applying the term to Chump, it could be useful in solidifying opposition to him and making the views he espouses less acceptable in the general discourse. I think the degree to which we can limit the general acceptability of hateful demagoguery with potentially violent consequences is an important end-goal in itself.

xp

What do you suppose are the admissions Orwell thinks Fascists, Conservatives and Socialists are unwilling to make?

I would assume he means they don't want to admit how much alike they can be

i don't know why you think in a political context saturated with accusations of fascism applied to all sorts of disparate figures, ideas + parties calling trump a fascist would be anything but another trump in that bucket

guys this is all just pre-opening hype for his DC hotel

https://www.trumphotelcollection.com/washington-dc/

mainstream media has always been p hesitant to apply the label (justifiably so), Trump campaign is the first time I've seen the term used in places like the Washington Post, for ex. Trump is different.

xp

I would assume he means they don't want to admit how much alike they can be

In politics the name of the game is gaining and maintaining broad popular support. This is as true of monarchies and oligarchies as of democracies. So it is not surprising that the tactics and strategies used by practitioners of the art, as opposed to the nostrums of political theorists and philosophers, will align in many basic ways. For example, scapegoating is universal and propaganda is indispensable. Machiavelli's advice is evergreen.

I'd say the features that distinguish fascism are more of degree and of emphasis than of kind. Stalinism and Nazism manipulated very different narratives and mythologies to enlist popular support, but their overall practical strategies were extremely similar and have been widely mimicked worldwide. In turn, those strategies were derived from long standing principles used by monarchies since forever.

Trump is piecing together a set of narratives and mythologies that would be very adaptable to establishing an extra-constitutional regime based on the presumed need to secure the nation from the dire threats posed by a set of easily-scapegoated outsiders, Mexicans and Muslims in this instance. He also casts himself as so far superior to his rivals as to be, in effect, a 'supreme leader'. These are primary foundations upon which to build a cult of personality and a police state.

So, yeah, Trump is following the fascist road, which is also the road to a totalitarian, extra-legal government focused on one leader.

Mexicans and Muslims in this instance

let's not forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

Along these lines, part of his appeal is "fight Putin with a Putin."

"Political scientists have long known that “government legitimacy,” or the popularity of particular administrations, is going down. But many of them have argued that “regime legitimacy,” or citizens’ attachment to democracy as a political system, is as strong as ever. Our research shows that this is just not true: Attachment to democracy has fallen over time, and from one generation to the next. … For Americans born in the 1930s, living in a democracy holds virtually sacred importance. Asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how important it is to them to live in a democracy, more than 70 percent give the highest answer. But many of their children and grandchildren are lukewarm. Among millennials — those born since the 1980s — fewer than 30 percent say that living in a democracy is essential."

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/12/18/9360663/is-democracy-in-trouble

gee it's almost as if capitalism's undermining of democracy over the last 80s years has made democracy look pointless

gotta love those hilariously alarmist graphs though

negative opinions of democracy have SKYROCKETED from 17% to 23% OMG WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO

btw, if you are looking to establish a popular, ultra-nationalist police state, then you don't need the intellectuals on your side, but you damn well better have strong support in the working class. intellectuals tend to shrink both from breaking heads or getting their own heads broken. they're more likely to take a principled stand and wind up safely buried as political prisoners - or corpses.

i hope this trump episode shows lots and lots of people that a supreme danger of laissez-faire trickle down bullshit is unqualified spoiled assholes are empowered to take over, but i'm not holding my breath

it's going to show more unqualified spoiled assholes they can run for office imo

like this distinction is very subtle but he wants to keep muslims out of the country bc of worldwide islamic radicalism and he wants to deport 10 million undocumented immigrants bc they broke the law being in this country.

no bearing on his 'fascism' but i think this distinction is a little too subtle. trump doesn't seem too wedded to the rule of law; he wants to deport 11m undocumented immigrants because all mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. he wants to keep muslims out because all muslims are terrorists. he enjoys chatting with jews because they're all nearly as shrewd at negotiation as he is. see also the central park five, statements about women, obama birtherism, etc. he has a very simplistic worldview that, funnily enough, boils down to people who aren't like him not deserving the same rights

anyway i'm less concerned about about trump himself than that he makes other assholes like cruz seem less extreme than they are

Shakey otm about how it's not that useful to view the thread as a referendum on the state of Trump's soul: "i don't think that trump thinks that mexicans or muslims are an inherent evil" isn't the point as much as whether, as a politician, he's willing to say things that warm the hearts of those that do.

The use of the word is (okay, ideally) less "we have successfully attached this label, minus 20 points to you" as much as you know, a description of a pattern that we can look for - basically http://www.theonion.com/article/historians-politely-remind-nation-to-check-whats-h-26183

Trump is an idiot without a coherent ideology but what if he picked an actual evil smart fascist dude for VP or something

An idiot without a coherent ideology can definitely get elected, make decisions that lead to the loss of important rights, turn democratic institutions into empty facades, and generally turn the country in a totalitarian direction, while remaining very popular. A smart VP isn't necessary, just an instinctive sense of what measures he can take that increase his arbitrary power, and which he can sell to the public as appropriate, each step along the way. Any canny opportunist will do the trick.

ok replace smart with "has Tea Party friends in the House"

nevermind me, just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKnCeeAW48 ing things up as usual

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWTffIhWEAAdxTq.png

USA at the time of european fascism was prob more racist or nativist than trump's wildest fantasies in 2015. i mean, ok there was WW2 going on but i mean

Approximately 600,000 Italian aliens lived in the United States in 1940. About 1,600 Italian citizens were interned, and about 10,000 Italian-Americans were forced to move from their houses in California coastal communities to inland homes.

There were approximately 264,000 German aliens in 1940. During the war 10,905 Germans and German-Americans as well as a number of Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians were placed in internment camps.

In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults."

otm

*strokes beard* america was more racist 70 to 80 years ago than now...hmmm maybe

so the argument is that the relative racism of a given society determines what constitutes political fascism?

i don't think trying to keep jews out of the united states (a decision that i am well aware cost many jews their lives as they found themselves stranded in nazi europe) was a fascist decision. it was a racist decision. just like trying to keep muslims of the united states is not a fascist decision, it's a racist one. imho ymmv etc.

balls: pt is just that the policies trump advocates that get him called fascist were done by us when we were fighting fascism. it's kinda like when ppl call obama a socialist or communist; US introduced more socialist policies during the cold war (when there were legit full commie countries) than in the past 30 years and probably in the next 30 years.

however i agree with joan that

OTOH it's really fine to call him a fascist because calling assholes fascists is a time-honored tradition and we're not all fedora-sporting EXCUSE ME THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS bores

associating him w/ racism is probably a better tactic than associating him w/ fascism.

cause everyone knows what racism is, everyone (even republicans) accepts that it.is.bad. calling assholes fascists is such a time-honored tradition that the word fascist kinda just means asshole to a lot of people. whereas racist means racist.

my intro to the word fascist was when my ill-tempered spoiled nerd friend called his mom one for not driving him to a magic the gathering tournament when we were 11

it has a whiff of sputtering, imprecise anger

early in Obama's presidency it seemed like some people on fox news (and elsewhere) were having trouble deciding if he was a fascist or a socialist ha :/

Maybe they were running tests to see which word stimulated growling among their viewers more.

saw this just now:

https://jewishcurrents.org/neofascism-after-trump/

brilliant, sic

Trump is piecing together a set of narratives and mythologies that would be very adaptable to establishing an extra-constitutional regime based on the presumed need to secure the nation from the dire threats posed by a set of easily-scapegoated outsiders, Mexicans and Muslims in this instance. He also casts himself as so far superior to his rivals as to be, in effect, a 'supreme leader'. These are primary foundations upon which to build a cult of personality and a police state.

So, yeah, Trump is following the fascist road, which is also the road to a totalitarian, extra-legal government focused on one leader.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Five years on, I'd say he followed that road as far as his limited competence could take it. Lucky for us, he failed. But he still blazed a path that will be easier for someone else to follow, even if he dies, is imprisoned, or simply drifts into irrelevance.

"Again, it’s instructive to look at the case of modern India. The BJP came to power in India before Modi. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the first BJP prime minister, in the 1990s. He had little political support, and could not deliver on much of the cultural program so important to the BJP. But this period saw the infamous Gujarat Riots, in which Hindus engaged in a pogrom against Muslims for nearly two months, killing a thousand people. Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, was accused not only of neglecting the situation but actively inciting it. Meanwhile, Vajpayee proved the economic utility of a BJP government by accelerating market reforms and leading to stunning profits for Indian capital. The BJP did not win the following election; it was not repudiated, but it underperformed, and neoliberal “normality” was reinstated with Manmohan Singh. Modi came to power a decade later.

No analogy is perfect, but Trump is more Vajpayee than Modi. This is not the end of something; it’s the beginning. We have yet to see what Trumpism 2.0 will bring. There will be a fallow period as these forces regroup post-Trump, but neofascism is likely to continue to develop in the US. Meanwhile, we are likely to see an uptick in sporadic neofascist violence outside of electoral politics."

brilliant, sic

Did he want to bar Muslims from entering the country? Yes. Did he call Mexicans rapists and "bad hombres"? Also yes. But did he have an operating plan to build the country's economy through strategic investment and tax reform on big business? Not on your nelly, baby. We were rounding the fourteenth hole - Don was working on his slice, while I was fishing one out of the old-fashioned my caddy, Cherice, had handed me - when I asked him "Donald, if you could have it all over again, is there one woman you'd stick with?" He might have answered, but I was already thinking about Ali, and how I could now afford to have some Venice Beach muscle men send that rat bastard McQueen to FedEx to sign for a new set of teeth.

You've made me want to rewatch The Kid Stays In The Picture all over again.

just want to chime in that i am also extremely here for that post

reading through the fauci interview, one of the most frightening things to me about the modern paranoid republican movement is how instantly, devastatingly effective it is at designating enemies.

anyone can be called out as a baddie at any time, and the mob will swing unhesitatingly into line. death threats, social media campaigns, texts to daughters' mobile phones, the apparatus works extremely well and it works almost instantly.

so, i don't know if that's fascism. but it will make any public figure think very hard about taking certain stands, contradicting certain people. it's not about 'guts' really it's about personal capacity to endure these threats and harassment not just to yourself but to your whole family, and not everybody will be willing to do that. i honestly don't see a way out of this situation. social media and the amount of information available on the internet makes this sort of intimidation trivial.

Yes, we live in the age of social media-enhanced, weaponized mass paranoia.

anyone can be called out as a baddie at any time, and the mob will swing unhesitatingly into line. death threats, social media campaigns, texts to daughters' mobile phones, the apparatus works extremely well and it works almost instantly.

This is exactly what they say about "the left," btw

also, K-Pop stans

Trump was 100% intending to continue along that path toward fascism/dictatorship. His first term he was just testing his limits. If he had won a second term, that term would have been focused on putting pieces in place to cement his power for a third term and beyond. Whether or not he would have succeeded is questionable, but surely if he was able to put enough enablers in the right positions (say, another hand picked SC justice?) and continue driving militant furor among his base for intimidation and leverage, it could have happened.

yeah when the right talks about "cancel culture" I'm pretty sure they're just talking about fascism, they have zero problem getting people fired for taking a stance on racism

I think these judges he appointed were loyal to the conservative project, not Trump himself. (Look how they dropped his spurious lawsuits!) I don’t think they’d have been reliable allies in cementing his power. Even his AG had a line and it was this coup stuff.

I mean, who knows, but I think he was always going to fail in this final endeavor to become the first American dictator.

if he'd had the institutional support to hold onto his position regardless of election results he would and could have done. someone who is just as racist and authoritarian but with more establishment support and/or a better-organised mass movement behind them could easily do or have done so. I could even see more powerful interests proping up (a) trump if someone from further left had won the presidency

True. I think Trump’s greatest contribution toward future dictatorship was his incessant testing of limits and boundaries which ultimately showed just how soft and malleable they are.

yeah I think the brazenness in which Republicans have shown their willingness to defend literally anything, up to and including a violent insurrection, bodes very very poorly for our future, especially now that it's been telegraphed that nothing's gonna happen to Trump and guys like Hawley & Cruz are gonna keep their seats

Then you have these kinds of fascists:

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, @Reuters finds https://t.co/bsudhNVHEF by @AramRoston 1/5 pic.twitter.com/igVSVCKOzK

— Reuters (@Reuters) January 27, 2021

“I don’t know any of this,” he said, when asked about the transcript. “I don’t recall any of this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-justice-dept-seized-post-reporters-phone-records/2021/05/07/933cdfc6-af5b-11eb-b476-c3b287e52a01_story.html

this is so fucking funny, they've built him a little fake Twitter that does nothing to keep him busy pic.twitter.com/NozGe89UVa

— 📻 thomas website (@nailheadparty) May 10, 2021