|
Post by robeiae on Dec 12, 2016 13:15:58 GMT -5
When would it be appropriate to use the term fascist? From your OP it sounds like probably never again. Maybe not. That's kinda the point--which of course I'm getting from Ernst Nolte--that the term is an historical one, not an ideological one. And really look at that Merriam-Webster definition again. If that's really the one people want to use, Trump doesn't actually fit it. He can't because he's never going to be a dictator and there's never going to be severe economic regimentation under him. But again, that definition would make a ton of other people fascists. Most communist leaders would fit the bill, in fact. So would a great many kings and emperors across history. At the very least, they'd fit much better than does Trump, at any rate. I think you're largely alone, there. But let me ask you this, when you think of Castro, what do you think first? Communist or fascist? Because again going by the Merriam-Webster definition, he would be almost a perfect example of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2016 13:26:21 GMT -5
I think of Castro as a fascist dictator. But I know that Cuba is a communist country (no private ownership of property). Can't it be both?
Also, re: your earlier reference, I think of Kim Jong Un as a fascist dictator.
I think of Trump as having the qualities of, but not the conditions in which to operate as, a fascist dictator.
But honestly, if when I say "fascist," most everyone thinks "gas chambers for entire ethnic groups," that's a good enough reason not to use the term.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 12, 2016 13:37:16 GMT -5
Well, one of the problems here is that fascism--as a movement--arose in opposition to communism. If they can both describe the same state--a state can be both fascist and communist--that begs the question: what's the difference? Again, going by the MW definition, it seems to me that all historical communist states could be classified as fascist. Again, so could many other states of the past, where the person in charge--king, emperor, what have you--possessed absolute authority and used it. And that's basically turning the word into a very general term for any "bad" authoritative government or leader, which I think robs it of its historical meaning almost completely.
And that still would mean Trump wouldn't fit the bill, though I guess Putin would.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 12, 2016 14:04:54 GMT -5
I think "fascism" is one of those words that has simply evolved to mean something other than its strict, academic definition, like it or not.
"Bad/authoritarian guy in charge" is pretty much the modern definition. No, there aren't a lot of actual fascists who advocate actual fascist ideology and call themselves fascists. Outside of a few fringe groups, there haven't been since World War II.
The fear of "fascism" isn't fear of that specific ideology, but fear of a popular leader who gives rise to an authoritarian regime that grinds individuality beneath statehood. Which also describes Marxism, of course - another ideology that most people who use the term can't actually define beyond a few broad descriptions of traits.
Trump is no more a fascist than Obama is a socialist, but that isn't going to stop people calling them that, because it's not the ideology per se that they actually hate.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2016 14:14:33 GMT -5
Well, one of the problems here is that fascism--as a movement--arose in opposition to communism. If they can both describe the same state--a state can be both fascist and communist--that begs the question: what's the difference? Again, going by the MW definition, it seems to me that all historical communist states could be classified as fascist. Again, so could many other states of the past, where the person in charge--king, emperor, what have you--possessed absolute authority and used it. And that's basically turning the word into a very general term for any "bad" authoritative government or leader, which I think robs it of its historical meaning almost completely. And that still would mean Trump wouldn't fit the bill, though I guess Putin would. I see what you are saying. I was thinking of fascism in terms of the "modus operandi" of its leaders, not specific economic policies. Fascism doesn't seem to have a whole lot of specificity in regard to economic operations*, unlike Communism, which I think of as primarily economic. But yes, they are more in opposition to each other than not, economically. *At least according to Wikipedia. But look at this bit: Sounds right up Trump's alley! : P
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 12, 2016 15:53:04 GMT -5
Sounds a lot more like China than Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 12, 2016 17:11:14 GMT -5
I've also thought communist whenever Castro was mentioned, but I really can't recall anyone uttering the word fascist for anyone other than online.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 12, 2016 19:22:22 GMT -5
Well you know, back in the good old days of GWB, there was an awful lot of fascist talk, as well. I believe it was Olbermann who called Bush a fascist on TV. And really, Cheney caught more heat as a supposed fascist than Bush. There was also some supposed scholarly pieces that showed how the U.S. was slipping into fascism back then, as well. I'll see if I can locate some of it later.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 12, 2016 19:52:57 GMT -5
Well, one of the problems here is that fascism--as a movement--arose in opposition to communism. If they can both describe the same state--a state can be both fascist and communist--that begs the question: what's the difference? Again, going by the MW definition, it seems to me that all historical communist states could be classified as fascist. Again, so could many other states of the past, where the person in charge--king, emperor, what have you--possessed absolute authority and used it. And that's basically turning the word into a very general term for any "bad" authoritative government or leader, which I think robs it of its historical meaning almost completely. And that still would mean Trump wouldn't fit the bill, though I guess Putin would. I see what you are saying. I was thinking of fascism in terms of the "modus operandi" of its leaders, not specific economic policies. Fascism doesn't seem to have a whole lot of specificity in regard to economic operations*, unlike Communism, which I think of as primarily economic. But yes, they are more in opposition to each other than not, economically. *At least according to Wikipedia. But look at this bit: Sounds right up Trump's alley! : P "the government exerts strong directive influence over investment while often subsidizing favorable companies" "private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state" So that would be something new? Best I can tell, "Fascist" is the left's term for the right's authoritarianism, while the right calls the left's version of the same vision of the state over the individual as "socialist." Column A or Column B, you get state first, individual afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2016 20:02:13 GMT -5
"the government exerts strong directive influence over investment while often subsidizing favorable companies" "private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state" So that would be something new? True story: I was going to add, "Sounds like America already," but I didn't want to steal your thunder.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 12, 2016 20:22:20 GMT -5
"the government exerts strong directive influence over investment while often subsidizing favorable companies" "private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state" So that would be something new? True story: I was going to add, "Sounds like America already," but I didn't want to steal your thunder. Awww. And I would have been so proud of you!
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2016 20:29:59 GMT -5
True story: I was going to add, "Sounds like America already," but I didn't want to steal your thunder. Awww. And I would have been so proud of you! Awww, shucks, grandpa!
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 13, 2016 2:01:13 GMT -5
I like the following brief and simple discussion of fascism, mostly because I'm a bit stressed right now and having trouble delving very deeply into more complicated stuff. And Robo's brain is better than mine. www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm It's a short read, and after the author gives his background info, he comes to the following definition: Trump is not a fascist. That always makes me laugh. Getting pissy at someone who disagrees with you is not "intolerance for dissent". And I don't see him using police and military forces. Nor is he abandoning traditional ideologies. He's really not an ideologue at all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 13, 2016 7:36:12 GMT -5
Interesting site, thanks CE. I'd note with a great deal of happiness that the author talks about corporatism and syndicalism--as I do in the full blog post--and gets it right (imo)! He's also critical of those who seek lists of "traits" that can be used to identify fascism. We're not THAT far apart. But the definition itself...well, I can't say I like it much at all. It's an attempt to control for the reality of historical fascism, while still leaving room for adding new regimes, but it fails to capture the counter-radical element that is critical to fascism, imo. And I don't really see the point. It strikes me as trying way too hard. But a good read, nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 13, 2016 8:28:59 GMT -5
ETA: from c.e.'s link above:
As I've said previously, I don't think fascism is possible in the U.S. (right now), and after reading the whole article, I'm even more convinced it isn't because of how much push-back there is against it -- there's no "unity," nothing even close to unity, thankfully. BUT. If you look at Mann's definition above and apply it to Trump's rhetoric during his campaign... this is *why* people have called him fascist, and I frankly don't blame them. His rhetoric was appalling regarding Mexicans and Muslims, he believes that he, through the state, can "accomplish anything," he refused to condemn citizens who beat up a homeless man (calling them "passionate"), refused to denounce the KKK for the longest time, made casual reference to Hillary and "exercising second amendment rights," talked about jailing her when he came into office, talked about suing the NY Times, talked about the press being rigged, etc. If it's all rhetoric and nothing more, then good. We'll see. What's disturbing to me now is the way the Cabinet positions are filling up, the majority GOP in both houses, the Supreme Court vacancy and potential vacancies over the next four years, and so on. We need balance, we need opposing sides. Hell, I already miss gridlock. This is all looking very bad to me, from the "statism" point of view, at least.
|
|