Thread of What Is Fascism And Is Donald Trump A Fascist

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.

his mom is definitely more of a fascist than donald trump, she sounds like a true monster

it has a whiff of sputtering, imprecise anger

it's the fricative-sibilant combo, first you spit then you hiss

He's a racist (keep Muslims out) and a Fascist (lock down the internet, kick out the press). Plus, under Trump I doubt the trains would even run on time. He'd cut Amtrak money, because the free market has shown it doesn't work. Plus, only losers take public transportation.

everyone itt probably knows both the strict and loose definitions of the word fascist

Actually, no, I'm not that clear on what the strict definition is and the Vox article has not convinced me that there is one.

Or if there is, it does not seem like one that amounts to a very coherent ideology.

iirc, the strictest definition would be: a member of Mussolini's National Fascist party before it was outlawed.

Well, Trump is def not a fascist by that definition.

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

ill-tempered spoiled nerd friend otm, what has parenting come to

imagine if Hitler's mom had taken him to a magic the gathering tournament when he was 11.

Regarding Trump's racism (I understand that that's orthogonal to the thread topic), what he said about Latinos in his campaign announcement was essentialist racism. I don't care to quibble about Trump's "actual" beliefs about race; all we have is what he's said, and he seems all id to me anyway. It is true that he hasn't apotheosized racial struggle into an "ideology" the way Hitler did, but I think that claiming his statements about Latinos and Muslims are rationally grounded is wack.

i think what i was trying to say by [hamfistedly] contrasting a kind of reasonable racism of trump to an irrational mytho-poetic racism of hitler is to suggest that the way that the US treated european jewish immigrants in 1938 and the way hitler did were both 'racist' in that both essentialized ppl acc to their group racial identity but that only one, as you say, apotheosized racial struggle into an ideology. i see the former as existing in any number of political + social ideologies but the latter as being a phenomenon unique to fascism. i wasn't trying to claim that non-fascist racism (if you buy this distinction) is somehow actually rational or appropriate. just that it bears a different relationship to reality than fascist racial categories + mythos.

i think that this idea that trump isn't principled enough to be a fascist is maybe buying into a bit of a myth about fascism, that it was actually principled and not a presentation of the right ideology at the right time for what was a more important goal beyond any principle, the rise to power of a hierarchical faction. trump basically embodies this imo but the right ideology for the time in re: a rise to power is different right now in the US, it's .. whatever he does, macho grandstanding and reality tv cooing and an ADD-addled racism that will hate anyone it makes sense to hate in the moment. whether or not the bourgeois who backs him is large enough to make his rise happen is a measurement of how much of a fascist undercurrent there is in the culture right now. i guess my take is, why not make the word work for a contemporary reality that is just as real and full of unfulfilled potential as the reality was in germany during the 30s. i don't think it diminishes the word to make a connection where it's appropriate instead of walling it off in history.

v otm I think

i think that this idea that trump isn't principled enough to be a fascist is maybe buying into a bit of a myth about fascism, that it was actually principled and not a presentation of the right ideology at the right time for what was a more important goal beyond any principle, the rise to power of a hierarchical faction.

That's more or less where I was wondering. Do many political scholars actually regard fascism as a coherent ideology in the way that e.g. classical liberalism, democratic socialism, or Marxist-Leninism are coherent ideologies? Genuinely curious. Point 4 of that Vox article is basically an open admission that it had no real ideological position at all when it comes to the economy, which is sort of a huge aspect of how any society is governed. Point 1 mostly tells us what fascism is not. I followed the article to read Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism (written a decade after the March on Rome), which does give enough info to suggest that the term may well not be apt for Trump but also seems to basically acknowledge that the 'ideology' (or at least 'theory') fascism was largely made up on the go:

The years preceding the march on Rome cover a period during which the need of action forbade delay and careful doctrinal elaborations. Fighting was going on in the towns and villages. There were discussions but... there was some­thing more sacred and more important... death... Fascists knew how to die. A doctrine - fully elaborated, divided up into chapters and paragraphs with annotations, may have been lacking, but it was replaced by something far more decisive, - by a faith. All the same, if with the help of books, articles, resolutions passed at congresses, major and minor speeches, anyone should care to revive the memory of those days, he will find, provided he knows how to seek and select, that the doctrinal foundations were laid while the battle was still raging. Indeed, it was during those years that Fascist thought armed, refined itself, and proceeded ahead with its organization.

i really don't think nazi-style racial ideology is necessary to fascism. obsessive purgation of internal "weakness" incarnated by a scapegoat class is necessary, but as the class is always at least partly disguised (jews, communists, etc) it can really be anything at all, and is usually multiple things. (the symmetry of fascism w/ totalitarian communism is probably overstated, but the stalinist hunt for "wreckers" feels like a refinement on fascist othering: an invisible class that is literally sabotaging the state from within and which can be revealed to include literally anyone-- including of course jews, "left deviationists", etc.)

nazi racial theory is unique and the nazi state and hitler's head are clearly unimaginable without the specific spectre of the jew, but i don't think that the anti-semitism of italian fascism (before it became a nazi client ideology) is so completely inseparable from its anti-intellectualism, generalized racist xenophobia, macho paranoia, potency theory etc (all things of course tied up with anti-semitism in europe of that time and others) that the f-word should be off-limits when those exact things show up in another populist demagogue during a time of widening inequity and widespread popular disillusionment in the democracy he claims he will cure; and tho i can only guess, disorientatedly, w the help of various aids, as to the causes of those feelings at stokable levels in mass numbers of people, i don't think that mass mystical race-hate is the sole or even biggest one. even in germany-- it is clearly hitler-personally's prime motive, but i don't know if it is his prime source of power. (in general i think the psychology of leaders is less important than the psychology of peoples. so i.e.j0an's remark above--

a fascist, however wrongheadedly, believes he is doing good for his nation. Trump's pathology is messier.

--is likely true, but the people at the rallies believe trump is doing good for his nation and that they are doing good by supporting him. this matters more than trump's soul does imo. it particularly matters because trump will likely eventually go back to scamming people in more apolitical ways, but the people at the rallies will still be here.)

that the totalitarian states of midcentury europe are unique (like all states at all times) and should be remembered as such is obviously true; also obviously true is that people call anyone who tells them what to do a fascist. also true is that donald trump does not at this time command an organized paramilitary force which polices public ideology by applying violence to perceived sources of weakness or sedition and with which he might seize the state, so no, his movement is not today a fascist movement, but i think lots of people in his audiences have absolutely no personal compunction against applying violence to sources of weakness or sedition (like for example black people[*]) and are ready to do it, and i don't think we should wait until they start before we begin to remind people that the combination of populist xenophobia and contempt for the sclerosis of democracy amongst a population that fetishizes violence and domination and in an exciting new wrinkle happens to be awash in high-powered ego-inflating weaponry (and by the way compare mussolini's insight above--that the real fascist core has something to do with a sanctified relationship to death--not just to the suicide bomber, or to captain blicero, but to the friend i used to have whose opinion on gun control was "i can take the first two through the door"--but not, he knew, the rest) looks really dangerous in ways it would be irresponsible, not responsible, to downplay. i agree that we should not go around saying "you're just like HITLER!" every time someone tries to push people around but there is such a thing as a pattern and i think the only people who really benefit from locking a word as vague-from-birth as fascism in a museum are fascists.

[*] incidentally, despite all of our vaunted Advances, full-on phrenology-style objectivity-cloaked pseudoscientific race theory is just beneath the surface in this country, and the fragmentation of consensus reality isn't doing anything to bury it deeper

merry christmas

lol, it's a very good post though

that the totalitarian states of midcentury europe are unique (like all states at all times) and should be remembered as such is obviously true;

feel like probably the biggest differences in the ways states in general function now are moderated by mass media, at least in the rich white west. trump is an actual expert in that field, and i'm not sure if historical fascism -- however defined -- is a fertile strategy in this context, but i guess we'll see. paramilitary force seems like a good line to draw. otherwise you can end up equating hitler and stalin and so on, lose history.

is anyone in the world affirmatively identifying as capital f fascist right now?

biggest differences in the ways states in general function now are moderated by mass media

radio was used extensively by most western regimes as a propaganda tool in the 1930s, as were newsreels. these were legitimate mass media with an extensive reach.

i always thought that the third reich was agreed to be a mass media pioneer, though not even one of the first real movements to take advantage of it. c.f. triumph of the will. xp

with trump i think part of the reason maybe that his will be a losing coalition is that he's riding a somewhat diminished media wave that is already a bit of a relic? idk it feels like it's late in the day for mass media as an omnipresent influence on cultural discourse in america.

i guess what i mean is that trump seems like a pre-internet media creation, from a land of blonde daytime teevee, and the increased visibility of minorities post-internet seems to have shifted the conversation to the point where centers of power are being forced to do some reshuffling, and trump hits a formidable roadblock.

yes but it's late in the same sclerotic day. "social" media barely defined from effects vs previous "mass" in politics proper

right, that's a huge topic and i don't really have any good information on it obviously. i'm usually the first to agree that much has stayed the same regarding media effects after the internet, but i feel like there are some important changes that do really mess up or at least complicate the schematic for a figure like trump. what those are exactly i'm at a loss to say without trying to find research on it.

While traditional media clings to him like it would anything with a bit of juice, I'm not sure it's wise to underestimate the effect of being clearly the own candidate to be running his own Twitter, able to pick out nuggets of shite from his followers and rebroadcast them as well as his usual weakness-shaming.

lol, it's a very good post though

OTM

is anyone in the world affirmatively identifying as capital f fascist right now?

yes - largely people WAY out there on the fringe though

I actually had to research whether a band I wanted to review for The Wire this year was affiliated with the Order of Nine Angles. (They weren't; the review ran.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocalls-white-nationalists-iowa

I really shouldn't lol, and yet... lol

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34573-it-was-like-a-fascist-rally-sikh-protester-ejected-from-trump-event-speaks-out

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-inspired-tale-bullets-pig-blood-article-1.2538283

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/23/donald-trump-on-protester-id-like-to-punch-him-in-the-face/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumppunch-755am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

yeah, i feel like the media has revealed its incapacity to deal with this guy

imagine if he told a similar anti-semitic parable along similar lines

if i were muslim in this country i'd feel like it was germany 1932

this is everywhere

http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_-_Eternal_Fascism.html

After reading Dave Neiwert's Orcinus blog for 13 years, I'm more watchful for and betting on Trump's candidacy stoking up proto-fascist movements, rather than straight fascist. I think dude can create the conditions where horseshit can foster, rather than being the standard-bearer himself

yup

Probably relevant: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

what happens to trump, after the election he probably doesn't win? is he fucked in the business world (or moreso than he ever was)? is his television career over? has he reached irredeemable levels of toxicity yet?

I doubt it. His toxicity has led to his name being taken off a number of major projects across the Middle East, like the golf course he is developing with DAMAC in Dubai, but afaict the underlying agreements remain in place.

He is probably not the worst human being major property developers are dealing with.

haha, yes that is very true

Most publically worst though - he may not be the only thing on the list of "We're hoping no-one finds out about this aspect of the deal", but why add something to that list?

Because they don't give a fuck? Different in the Middle East because Muslims.

He is probably not the worst human being major property developers are dealing with.

Yes, they're probably just as bad.

I can see his name being more of a disincentive in Europe than the Middle East, tbqh. The gist of DAMAC's statement was 'we don't condone his political comments but his company builds really good golf courses'. His face won't be plastered everywhere but in the grand scheme of things, people tend not to care too much about who owns the apartment blocs, golf courses and shopping malls they go to.

This is obviously tinfoil hat territory, but it's a little concerning to consider the damage that populist causes may be done by being associated with this huckster.

http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-i-think-about-when-they-say-donald.html

https://www.facebook.com/drdaviddukeFANpage/posts/1026085247449055

"Of what are they afraid?"

The fuck u bringing me into this