Comment by epolanski
7 hours ago
The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
Presidents have been doing the undeclared war thing since the end of WWII. Nothing new there, the tariffs and other EOs have maybe increased markedly in the last few presidencies.
George W Bush sought and received authorization for Iraq from Congress.
It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
Democracy is not an on/off light bulb, it's a material under constant stress that can bend a lot before breaking.
But if you start calling it broken, while it's bending your thesis is easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it.
> easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
What's missing from the general definitions of fascism?
Authoritarianism? Dictatorship? Fascism is a specific form of those that doesn't necessarily map to current forms.
How does it not map? Read Umberto Eco and I don’t really see any point that is not present at all in trumpism. Or, in more words: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-... .
Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it.
I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
2 replies →
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian.
Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
Are you using fascism as an ideology or a governing structure?
> If you start calling everything fascism
Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
How?
I'm European, and from my point of view:
- despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc).
- despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021
Americans voted for all of this to happen.
What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient.
Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic.
All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
Serbia used to be parliamentary republic. Nominally it stil is. In fact it is currently governed by SNS, former political party turned criminal organization.
> Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Honestly I’ve been filled schadenfreude with as the American civic religion collapse. Even the right is giving it up as they view it as too obstructionist.
The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded. It’s been fascinating to see the explosion of political thought amongst Americans in the last few years.
6 replies →
>Americans voted for all of this to happen.
We did. And if anyone would stop to actually analyze it, instead of just insinuating that we're all yucky poopooheads for doing so (in the futile attempt to shame us into stopping), they might come to understand why. Whatever the alternative is to how we're voting, as exemplified by Europe, we don't want it. Maybe there are more options besides those two, but no one's offered those or even described what they could be. Europe certainly hasn't.
>not one was a parliamentary republic.
And thank god that we're not one then. We'd truly be hopeless.
1 reply →
[flagged]
2 replies →
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.
On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.
Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.
Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning
The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically.
Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.
So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).
The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.
It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.
So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:
- nationalism
- right-wing
- totalitarian
- violence as a means of control
etc.
Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
10. contempt for the weak
11. everyone is educated to become a hero
12. machismo
13. selective populism
14. newspeak
I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.
At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar.
But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed.
So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
>Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I'd like to hear your rationale for that. In the meantime, I'll add my comments on those points. But first, let me set a ground rule for myself: this review covers the political left in the United States. A circle of thinkers with no sway over the government isn't considered for whether the left matches the qualities of a fascist government. If that circle does have sway, then sure.
>1. cult of tradition
I cannot think of a tradition the left holds in nearly religious sanctity. This might be a "fish can't see the water" thing, so I'd be happy to learn one.
>3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
You didn't list this one, but I will. The left is prone to subgroups fracturing off and calling for extreme reactions (e.g. "defund the police"), and then not strongly quashing these dumb ideas. I think it's a bias to being inclusive and not wanting to deny anything that comes from an oppressed person. Noble intent, but doesn't always lead down the best path.
>4. disagreement is treason
I think you're conflating "cancel culture" with accusations of treason. Trump has literally accused people disagreeing with him of treason ("Air strikes on drug smugglers is illegal, and you should refuse to do so"). Has a modern Democratic official accused somebody of being treasonous for disagreeing on a political matter?
>5. fear of difference
If anything, the left defaults to celebrating difference. And no, "fear of MAGA" is not enough to qualify as fear of difference.
>6. appeal to frustrated middle class
Yes. Everyone does that these days, but yes. It almost seems like a pointless quality to isolate, because any political party would appeal to middle class frustrations. Maybe the better way is to offer hope. In that case, both parties could do a lot better.
>7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
The left is sliding down this path with fears about the midterm elections. To be fair, after the 2020 election, Trump did spread lies, prepared slates of fake electors, got Republican representatives to vote against counting voters from certain states, and instigated what ended up being a violent assault on the electoral certification. So it's not as crazy as "Democrats are busing in illegals to vote."
>8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
Democratic officials have called this administration dumb, selfish, and cruel. But not weak.
>9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, who was the enemy during the Obama years? That administration even had the laughable "reset" with Russia.
>11. everyone is educated to become a hero
I can't think of much evidence for or against this. Maybe it's just an American thing to lavish praise on "common people* doing amazing things. Neither party truly praises a humble life, despite mentioning it to cloak bad economic policy in "salt of the earth" rags.
>13. selective populism
I'll have to read the original work to see what this term means.
>14. newspeak
I genuinely would like to know some leftist newspeak. Again, fish and water.
This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
> I think you misunderstand fascism.
I think you're projecting.
Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties.
It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
And how do you call someone who advocates for the advent of such a government? A fascist. Which Trump and the MAGA right clearly are.
I suggest to learn what projecting means.
You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?
During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
3 replies →