Before you get too pleased with how well this aligns with the president-elect, think about how well this lines up with the current president, or any administration in the past few decades.
My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis.
I think a lot of his "not being good at it" may be supplanted by actually skilled folks of the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment.
It would be amazing if he could actually bring jobs back into the US. I really really doubt this is possible, without making the corporations hurt in the short/mid term, so I doubt it's really possible, as they have essentially captured government.
This is my preferred reading as well, but neoliberalism likes to keep its oppression and overt violence overseas, while Trump's rhetoric brings it out into the open at home. This is not denying that America was always a racist, sexist state, but now the elected power is no longer shy about hiding it.
"My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis."
Well, maybe any one of them taken alone. Combined together it seems to give a pretty helpful lens through which to view a society.
A related book is _Friendly Fascism, the New Face of Power in America_, by Bertram Gross. It highlights how modern "corporation/government" fascism differs from the earlier "strongman" fascism. It was written back in 1980 but is (even more) applicable today:
https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-America-Forbidden-Bo...
Funnily enough, this list of characteristics doesn't even map completely to Hitler's Germany. They were very gender progressive for the time.
Regarding "Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.", surely the author hasn't seen any other societies from the times of notable fascist regimes, they might realize that anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation were prettymuch everywhere. Until fewer than 50 years ago, both were completely illegal in Canada.
As for it aligning "well" with the president elect; I don't think that's accurate. "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" is off the table, since the unifying cause is "making america great again" and the stated avenues are "enforce immigration law", "reduce taxes for commoners, and simplify the tax code", and "maintain government infrastructure". As for "Corporate Power is Protected" he's got the fewest corporate sponsors of any candidate we've seen in quite a while, so it's hard to imagine who he owes. The rest of the points are largely questionable, and the descriptions largely sound like the ravings of a tween marxist.
Seems like it's just mostly bollocks, and some salty HNer just wanted to insinuate something.
It was later extended into a book length treatment (https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%...) which is very worthwhile, and readable, if you are interested in what he calls (paraphrasing) the most significant political development of the 20th century.
“I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.”
Heaping the likes Pinochet and Franco with that of Mussolini is conflating authoritarianism with fascism, and that can only debase the meaning of "fascist". No wonder the word is thrown around so often.
This list excludes the essential characteristic of facism and without it reads more like an ultra right-wing, ultra-nationalist state. I'll let Il Duce wax authoritarian about it:
"We have created the united state of Italy remember that since the Empire Italy had not been a united state. Here I wish to reaffirm solemnly our doctrine of the State. Here I wish to reaffirm with no weaker energy, the formula I expounded at the scala in Milan everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." [0]
"We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. "[1]
Does this kind of united state, with everyone marching in lockstep towards a common goal, sound even remotely close to America? A country hurtling towards facism would not allow people protesting and crying in public areas days after an election. Healthy protests that aren't broken up by jack-booted thugs are a sign of a healthy democracy. :)
[0] speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26, 1927
[1]Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927
I find it a bit disturbing how this focuses on people in power's attitude, and not on the mass of people's behavior, like if fascism was something a handful of people put in place and the rest of us had nothing to do with/about it.
Well, I'm certainly not an historian, so this is just my two cents, but it seems to me that the very core of fascism is anger and defiance. And believing just a few people can make history (thus, the exaggeration of the leader role).
I would say the main characteristic is the murdering of people who oppose the fascist government. All the rest is just wishywashy blah blah. Oh, and watchdogs on every corner, prepared to punish you if you step out of line.
Honestly, I wish all the people comparing Trump to Hitler would spend some money and read a book on how the Nazis came to power and what went down in Germany when they had grabbed power.
Mass killings are an excellent bright line test for recognizing that an authoritarian regime is spiraling out of control, but it seems like a good idea to find indicators that work a little earlier.
I kind of made one of the low-vocabulary posts on the page here, I guess that is part of the problem with our politics, that people don't really have the tools to reason about it. I would certainly defend criticism of the US as being (for a long time) excessively authoritarian and oddly patriotic a lot more strongly than I would hang on to the 'fascist' label.
Good point with the warning signs. I think Hitler was always driven by hate and given to hateful speeches and writing, including his infamous book. He and Stalin also emerged from turmoil of WW I, bloody revolutions, socialism (nazis are socialists). But I admit I don't know enough about other fascist dictators to generalize.
It's just that Hitler's story is the complete opposite of Trump. There are zero similarities there. What motivation would Trump have to go on a killing spree among the US population?
This is remarkably stupid, at best descriptive of convergent evolution in generically authoritarian regimes. It's not too far from describing the current Chinese government, which to put it mildly has no connection to the thought of Benito Mussolini.
"Fascism" is a word that actually means something, it's not a signifier of generic BadGov. It was a specific historical movement driven by WWI veterans with socialist backgrounds, whose core idea was using militarism & nationalism as a way to suppress class conflict. It's related to but distinct from Nazism; Franco, Mussolini, Gömbös, etc. didn't have any elaborate racial theories.
It's really not always 1934. Pick a different historical analogy, it's as ridiculous as seeing everything in light of the Russo-Japanese war or continually worrying that we're seeing the rise of Orléanist governments.
Readit News
My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis.
For example, how often do we choose to use the force of the state and how often do we choose to do nothing?
In this formulation, the big difference with Trump would be that he isn't very good at it. He's ham-handed about it, too obvious.
It would be amazing if he could actually bring jobs back into the US. I really really doubt this is possible, without making the corporations hurt in the short/mid term, so I doubt it's really possible, as they have essentially captured government.
Well, maybe any one of them taken alone. Combined together it seems to give a pretty helpful lens through which to view a society.
A related book is _Friendly Fascism, the New Face of Power in America_, by Bertram Gross. It highlights how modern "corporation/government" fascism differs from the earlier "strongman" fascism. It was written back in 1980 but is (even more) applicable today: https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-America-Forbidden-Bo...
But then... its early days.
Regarding "Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.", surely the author hasn't seen any other societies from the times of notable fascist regimes, they might realize that anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation were prettymuch everywhere. Until fewer than 50 years ago, both were completely illegal in Canada.
As for it aligning "well" with the president elect; I don't think that's accurate. "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" is off the table, since the unifying cause is "making america great again" and the stated avenues are "enforce immigration law", "reduce taxes for commoners, and simplify the tax code", and "maintain government infrastructure". As for "Corporate Power is Protected" he's got the fewest corporate sponsors of any candidate we've seen in quite a while, so it's hard to imagine who he owes. The rest of the points are largely questionable, and the descriptions largely sound like the ravings of a tween marxist.
Seems like it's just mostly bollocks, and some salty HNer just wanted to insinuate something.
Dead Comment
It was later extended into a book length treatment (https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%...) which is very worthwhile, and readable, if you are interested in what he calls (paraphrasing) the most significant political development of the 20th century.
[0](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/)
[1](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173823)
This sentence seems apt.
("Gresham's law to the white courtesy phone, please.")
"We have created the united state of Italy remember that since the Empire Italy had not been a united state. Here I wish to reaffirm solemnly our doctrine of the State. Here I wish to reaffirm with no weaker energy, the formula I expounded at the scala in Milan everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." [0]
"We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. "[1]
Does this kind of united state, with everyone marching in lockstep towards a common goal, sound even remotely close to America? A country hurtling towards facism would not allow people protesting and crying in public areas days after an election. Healthy protests that aren't broken up by jack-booted thugs are a sign of a healthy democracy. :)
[0] speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26, 1927
[1]Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927
Well, I'm certainly not an historian, so this is just my two cents, but it seems to me that the very core of fascism is anger and defiance. And believing just a few people can make history (thus, the exaggeration of the leader role).
Honestly, I wish all the people comparing Trump to Hitler would spend some money and read a book on how the Nazis came to power and what went down in Germany when they had grabbed power.
I kind of made one of the low-vocabulary posts on the page here, I guess that is part of the problem with our politics, that people don't really have the tools to reason about it. I would certainly defend criticism of the US as being (for a long time) excessively authoritarian and oddly patriotic a lot more strongly than I would hang on to the 'fascist' label.
It's just that Hitler's story is the complete opposite of Trump. There are zero similarities there. What motivation would Trump have to go on a killing spree among the US population?
"Fascism" is a word that actually means something, it's not a signifier of generic BadGov. It was a specific historical movement driven by WWI veterans with socialist backgrounds, whose core idea was using militarism & nationalism as a way to suppress class conflict. It's related to but distinct from Nazism; Franco, Mussolini, Gömbös, etc. didn't have any elaborate racial theories.
It's really not always 1934. Pick a different historical analogy, it's as ridiculous as seeing everything in light of the Russo-Japanese war or continually worrying that we're seeing the rise of Orléanist governments.