The United States is not Fascist

[coffin_dodger]

Is Russia fascist?
Syria?
North Korea?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
India?

How many of those countries have you experienced, personally?
Beyond what you are told about them?
Told by the vested-interest inherent within your own bubble?

The change that you have instigated is knocking at the door and it may not be what you hoped for.

[seemslikeadream]

Is Russia fascist?
Syria?
North Korea?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
India?

Yes, Donald Trump is a fascist.

The internet proverb known as Godwin’s Law warns of the increasing likelihood of a Nazi or Hitler reference the longer a conversation goes. That law would seem to apply to Donald Trump in a different way: The longer he runs in (and atop) the Republican presidential primary, the probability of him sounding like a Nazi increases.
Jeffrey Tucker made the argument in Newsweek earlier this summer, noting that Trump’s outlook is simultaneously conservative and totalitarian. Conor Lynch later echoed that in Salon. But in a new Yahoo News profile, Trump makes an alarming proposal that echoes the practice of making Jews in Europe wear yellow badges.

Look at what he told Yahoo’s Hunter Walker, after insisting that “we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago” to monitor Muslims in America:

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.
Who will be the next people to frighten Donald Trump? Will they have to wear a badge, too?

[JackRiddler]

Is Russia fascist?
Syria?
North Korea?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
India?

A couple of these governments -- I'm assuming you mean -- may qualify as replicating the structures in the usual definitions but with an ideology appropriate to the respective culture and country. Like that famous comment that when it comes to America it will wave the stars and stripes and carry a cross. No answer can be given without first choosing a definition and then examining the case -- and before that you have to assume that it's really important to decide how this particular label among others are applied. In any case, fascism is generally understood as a phenomenon of western societies and cultures. Elsewhere you probably do need a different name for it.

Are these governments capitalist? I see at least 5 out of 7.

[American Dream]

I'm in favor of being clear and thoughtful in who/what we define as fascist, though going beyond simply sticking to a historical model from the 30's. I think there can be authoritarianism, nationalism/racism/xenophobia, strong men and etc. without "Fascism" necessarily being the best term to describe a specific phenomenon.

If Fascism is exclusively Western, that raises interesting questions about people who style themselves as Nazis in Latin America, Asia etc. and would rule out most talk of "islamo-fascists", as generally used

[Novem5er]

I'm sure I posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Author and philosopher, Umberto Eco, defined a way of looking at Fascist in a 1995 essay, "Eternal Fascim". Wikipedia lists 11 of the 14 traits on their page, but anyone can find more details with a google search.

"The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
"The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear'of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
"Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
"Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
"Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
"Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
"Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

[coffin_dodger]

I'm in favor of being clear and thoughtful in who/what we define as fascist, though going beyond simply sticking to a historical model from the 30's. I think there can be authoritarianism, nationalism/racism/xenophobia, strong men and etc. without "Fascism" necessarily being the best term to describe a specific phenomenon.

So, basically, it's whatever you want to define it as. That's clever. A neat trick.

[JackRiddler]

Trump is sure hitting everything on Eco's scale. Meanwhile, no one's sure if even Mussolini hits everything on Paxton's.

I'm in favor of being clear and thoughtful in who/what we define as fascist, though going beyond simply sticking to a historical model from the 30's. I think there can be authoritarianism, nationalism/racism/xenophobia, strong men and etc. without "Fascism" necessarily being the best term to describe a specific phenomenon.

If Fascism is exclusively Western, that raises interesting questions about people who style themselves as Nazis in Latin America, Asia etc. and would rule out most talk of "islamo-fascists", as generally used

Sure, sure, but in this case you gotta go with what they are actually performing for you on stage, on live TV. They're not disguising anything other than the label, which they don't give a fuck about. Call them fascist, see if they'll even notice. They want a declared war on the domestic foreign scapegoat, in the name of returning to mythical past greatness. It's not classic capital-F, and nothing is any more beyond Golden Dawn and the like. It's post-modern, it doesn't have the brownshirt cadre (except that those that already exist have lined up with it), and with Trump everything is kayfabe. These caveats now stated, Kayfabe Hitler is what he's dishing out.

I didn't say it's exclusively Western, the post-classical forms style themselves as out of that tradition. Latin American fascist/nazis would consider themselves Western -- and they murdered a lot of people in defense of what they thought of as the West.

[American Dream]

There are people who are clearly fascist, those who are clearly not, and some in the grey zone in between. Trump is clearly pandering to a the highly reactionary and has made allusions towards Fascism, for sure. I would characterize him as someone who emphasizes his right wing populist appeal and who leaves open the potential for more emphasis on outright fascist leadership.

Which way is he going to go? I have no fucking idea, as I get the sense a lot of his schtick is calculated, and yet there seems to be a broad base of people who eat it all up, and don't seem to want to put on the brakes.

[American Dream]

Umberto Eco's criteria are valuable but I feel that many could apply to a reactionary agenda that appeals to nationalist and other chauvinisms but is not fascist. Putin works this general tendency to a certain degree, as did Nixon.

I'm sure I posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Author and philosopher, Umberto Eco, defined a way of looking at Fascist in a 1995 essay, "Eternal Fascim". Wikipedia lists 11 of the 14 traits on their page, but anyone can find more details with a google search.

"The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
"The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear'of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
"Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
"Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
"Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
"Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
"Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

[Novem5er]

I believe in his essay, Umberto Eco said that a movement wasn't required to have all 14 principles to be considered fascist, and that even a few could describe a fascist movement. He was very clear in expressing that fascism was a system constantly in conflict with its own identity, and that different fascist states would look different. He described that Nazis as being based on a philosophy, where as the Italian fascist (that he grew up under) was actually devoid of any underlying philosophy and was basically being made up on the fly.

I think Putin could be described as a fascist pretty accurately. I think Nixon probably tried it on, but was also up against a power counter-culture; he was never able to completely snuff out his opposition and he was deposed before he too long.

[American Dream]

I thought that Nixon was deposed because he was not hard line enough for some in the power structure- that he wanted detente with China, was ending the American War in Vietnam, etc.

This makes me reflect on how I think of being fascist as something one is, essentially, when it can also be a strategic option along the continuum with reactionary populism that one actualizes, or not...

[JackRiddler]

All schtick from sociopaths is calculated. Triply true of Hitler himself. Reality show Trump presented himself in a classical fascist mode. "Which way will he really go" is an irrelevant question. The presentation was of fascism.

[American Dream]

I'm mulling about where I draw the line between Right Wing Populism and Fascism in that murky zone where they come together. Nationalism and Xenophobia are common to both but authoritarian/one party/one dictator type regimes help define the fascist side. The simple cult of the Strong Man, not necessarily so.

Equally important is domestic organization. Aggressive enforcement of authoritarian dominance over most/all citizens would be a key indicator to me.

[Novem5er]

True, AD, but something to consider then . . . it would be impossible for ANY political candidate to be fascist because they don't have any power (yet). Even Hitler rose to power through democratic means (although pretty shady ones), and it wasn't until his party got some legal authority behind them that they were able to enact their fascist state.

But I see what you mean. America does have a balance of powers, so that even if a far-right candidate is elected and has some power, it would still be hard to classify it as a truly fascist regime IF our balances of power remained. For instance, if Trump is elected, but hundreds of university professors are still able to openly criticize him, then it wont really be a fascist state (to the full degree). The same thing with the press. As long as there is vocal opposition, in the media, in the press, in the streets, then it's hard to claim that any system would then be full fascist or even authoritarian. That was my point about Nixon, really.

I thought we got very close to fascism under G.W. Bush during the beginning of the Iraq War. The media wasn't critical of him or the war. Everyday Americans had a hard time expressing opposition after the events of 9/11. I remember being an active member of the Life After the Oil Crash forum, and at one point, I scrubbed the entire forum of my posts because I was afraid that my words might someday be used against me in some federal witch hunt. It never got as bad as everyone feared, and damn people were afraid!

[American Dream]

One of the reasons why I push back more on the fascist thesis now is that in the period leading up to GWB's election I was subject to a steady barrage of scary conspiracy propaganda telling me how the Bush family were fascist to the bone and had been for generations. When 9/11 and the GWOT happened this pushed me forward many notches in believing the Apocalypse was upon us. I'm more careful now, though I do agree that the Bushes are a subject of deep political significance.

As to the paradox of an electoral candidate being a fascist, I would have to look at their platform. The nativism, racism and other forms of bigotry do not bode well for Trump for sure. Here though is my core belief: the ruling class is kept somewhat rational by their think tanks, analysts and executives. Ideology is in the mix but Profit and Power must get their due. So, if somebody is going to upset the applecart is likely to be against their wishes, coming from the bottom up.

The last few decades in Latin America are instructive in that, despite all the brutal dirty wars, there was a continued emphasis on some semblance of democracy continuing, too. Today we can see that neoliberalism and death squads can function as two sides of the same coin. Capital must be accumulated and social order must be maintained. Fascism- when not needed- is a destabilizing factor.