US Politics 3

VlaSoul wrote:I don't know much about McCarthyism but I do agree that it's probably not a good idea to call Trump and his politics outright fascism. Trumps politics is way more reactionary in nature, whereas fascism I think tends to have more of a pre-existing ideological basis.

Hmm, I'm not sure that's completely true. Hitler obviously had an ideology, but Mussolini didn't seem to believe in much other than he should be leader and his country should be powerful. Mussolini didn't even bother with things like racial purity laws until Hitler forced him. That's not to say Mussolini wasn't a racist of course, just that he didn't explicitly make laws promoting racism.

Here's a list of signs of fascism.



Almost all of them fit Trump, either in what he said/did or on what he'd have liked to do if he had been able to.

Fascism is weird though as it's hard to actually define.

Yeah true he does fit all those points, but I still find it hard to call it fascism. I can't prove this but I do not think Trump and his adminstrations true goals were particularly fascist in nature more than they simply wanted to benefit the rich and their organisations. Mussolini while similar in his reactionary nature, did have a more concrete goal in mind beyond simple profit, and this makes him easier for me to class as a fascist. Trump's administration is easier classed as primarily reactionary and neoliberal, and secondarily proto-fascist, if that makes sense; I would put jordan peterson types in these sorts of classes, or borderline. I don't think the Trump administration is quite there yet in respect to fascism, but it is possible that an actual fascist regime would evolve from it as it promotes the propagation of those types and their ideology.

Out of interest, what is the source on that image?

VlaSoul wrote:Yeah true he does fit all those points, but I still find it hard to call it fascism. I can't prove this but I do not think Trump and his adminstrations true goals were particularly fascist in nature more than they simply wanted to benefit the rich and their organisations. Mussolini while similar in his reactionary nature, did have a more concrete goal in mind beyond simple profit, and this makes him easier for me to class as a fascist. Trump's administration is easier classed as primarily reactionary and neoliberal, and secondarily proto-fascist, if that makes sense; I would put jordan peterson types in these sorts of classes, or borderline. I don't think the Trump administration is quite there yet in respect to fascism, but it is possible that an actual fascist regime would evolve from it as it promotes the propagation of those types and their ideology.

Out of interest, what is the source on that image?

I think Trump's lack of competence and the strong protections built into the US system were the only things stopping it being fascism. I don't doubt for a second that Trump would have been a dictator if he could and a pretty damn fascist one at that.

The image I just grabbed from a Google search, but it comes from Ur-Fascism, based on writings by Umberto Eco.

Trump courted fascist groups and implemented fascist policy. We can say with certainty he was not anti-fascist, that's significantly damning enough.

If Trump wasn't white, people wouldn't be as cordial as describing him 'maybe he didn't meant to be fascist/wasn't clever enough to be fascist'.

He was fascist, and very obviously so. End of.

Trump ticks every fascist box that I know of. As someone said, it’s quite difficult to actually define the political ideology of fascism at times, but there are certain hallmarks of the leadership style and Trump hits every one. I think it’s called “strong man” style - Mussolini did it, Hitler did it, just about every wannabe dictator has done it, and so had Trump.

Fascism can be difficult to define because every culture that adopts it does it a bit differently. American fascism is not German fascism is not Italian fascism, etc. They share many things, but they're also different in their own ways that are local to a given region or country.

Isn't the fact that Trump basically criminalized Antifa a bit of a giveaway?

He's a fascist.

Corazon de Leon wrote:Trump ticks every fascist box that I know of. As someone said, it’s quite difficult to actually define the political ideology of fascism at times, but there are certain hallmarks of the leadership style and Trump hits every one. I think it’s called “strong man” style - Mussolini did it, Hitler did it, just about every wannabe dictator has done it, and so had Trump.

Wouldn't that define certain eras of communist dictatorships as fascism? It seems too simple of a criteria

DML wrote:If Trump wasn't white, people wouldn't be as cordial as describing him 'maybe he didn't meant to be fascist/wasn't clever enough to be fascist'.

I don't quite follow the logic here honestly. The most iconic and prototypical fascists of the 20th century were white, surely the colour of skin wouldn't affect the perception in this case.

Moggy wrote:

VlaSoul wrote:Yeah true he does fit all those points, but I still find it hard to call it fascism. I can't prove this but I do not think Trump and his adminstrations true goals were particularly fascist in nature more than they simply wanted to benefit the rich and their organisations. Mussolini while similar in his reactionary nature, did have a more concrete goal in mind beyond simple profit, and this makes him easier for me to class as a fascist. Trump's administration is easier classed as primarily reactionary and neoliberal, and secondarily proto-fascist, if that makes sense; I would put jordan peterson types in these sorts of classes, or borderline. I don't think the Trump administration is quite there yet in respect to fascism, but it is possible that an actual fascist regime would evolve from it as it promotes the propagation of those types and their ideology.

Out of interest, what is the source on that image?

I think Trump's lack of competence and the strong protections built into the US system were the only things stopping it being fascism. I don't doubt for a second that Trump would have been a dictator if he could and a pretty damn fascist one at that.

The image I just grabbed from a Google search, but it comes from Ur-Fascism, based on writings by Umberto Eco.

Ah cool I'll check that out. Yeah I think the fact he existed in a democracy is a big part of why I find it hard to classify his regime as fascism; even within a 'democracy', something like putin's regime fits the fascism glove more easily. Well I say democracy; I'm not so convinced the US fits that definition either.

f wrote:Isn't the fact that Trump basically criminalized Antifa a bit of a giveaway?

China does the same with anarchist and generally anti-auth groups that would be an eastern equivalent of antifa. That doesn't make them fascist.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Fascism can be difficult to define because every culture that adopts it does it a bit differently. American fascism is not German fascism is not Italian fascism, etc. They share many things, but they're also different in their own ways that are local to a given region or country.

This is a good point and I didn't initially consider this. Perhaps I'm applying too much of a classical european view of fascism to the trump administration.

OrangeRKN wrote:Trump courted fascist groups and implemented fascist policy. We can say with certainty he was not anti-fascist, that's significantly damning enough.

I wouldn't say courting fascist groups is enough to pull someone away from being a reactionary/self interested. I doubt trump is the first to do that sort of thing. Of course when we come to policy and look how differential treatment of 'alien' groups pops up, then yeah my arguement becomes more difficult.

I just don't see the point in arguing it. Taking an empirical approach, Trump did measurably fascist things. I wouldn't want people getting the impression they weren't actually, and I don't think it should be taken for granted that Biden won and US democracy has apparently survived. If it wasn't for the pandemic things might have been very different, and his support has far from collapsed.

OrangeRKN wrote:I just don't see the point in arguing it. Taking an empirical approach, Trump did measurably fascist things. I wouldn't want people getting the impression they weren't actually, and I don't think it should be taken for granted that Biden won and US democracy has apparently survived. If it wasn't for the pandemic things might have been very different, and his support has far from collapsed.

I can concede that I may be incorrect here, you guys have by and large constructed better arguments than I. For what it's worth, I thought trump would win this time honestly. I'm not hopeful for Biden's presidency though.

I get where you are coming from questioning the driving ideology, but I don't see what is to be gained from stressing the potential difference. Is an ideological fascist implementing fascist policy worse than a reactionary implementing fascist policy? You get fascism either way.

VlaSoul wrote:[
Ah cool I'll check that out. Yeah I think the fact he existed in a democracy is a big part of why I find it hard to classify his regime as fascism; even within a 'democracy', something like putin's regime fits the fascism glove more easily. Well I say democracy; I'm not so convinced the US fits that definition either.

Hitler existed in a democracy, as did Mussolini. They were able to turn their democracies into dictatorships. But the definition of fascist isn't "was able to carry out their plans". It's not about competence, it's about what they believe and what they want to do.

I'd agree his regime wasn't fascism. The protections in the USA were strong enough to resist and Trump wasn't able to overturn them. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying!

A failed fascist is still a fascist.

OrangeRKN wrote:I get where you are coming from questioning the driving ideology, but I don't see what is to be gained from stressing the potential difference. Is an ideological fascist implementing fascist policy worse than a reactionary implementing fascist policy? You get fascism either way.

I think there's a value in making the sort of like academic distinction between types of politics. I would say that more specific identification leads to a more appropriate response. What that response is though, I can't personally say; but it is easier to squash the reactionary than it is to suppress the ideologically convicted fascist. This is why the reactionary is by nature temporary and situational, but the ideologue persists.

At same time, I can't disagree with you really, because yeah the results are the same.

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.

Cheque mate, libs.

Dual wrote:Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.

Cheque mate, libs.

Actually he was the leader of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Dual wrote:Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.

Cheque mate, libs.

Cal alt confirmed

God can you strawberry floating imagine if Cal was still around?

I can and I wish it were so.

Tafdolphin wrote:God can you strawberry floating imagine if Cal was still around?

I can and I wish it were so.

It'd be interesting to see what he said although I'm guessing he'd be it total denial there were any problems.