askchapo

I'm no fascism expert, but he literally hits every one of the 14 points in Ur-fascism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

I'd say Trump II is more similar to FDR than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. I'm going to list some things here, it may sound familiar to what Trump's doing now:

Putting the "foreign enemy" in camps to secure the country - FDR. Looking to revitalize American manufacturing and awaken the "sleeping giant" at home - FDR. Consolidation of power to the executive and "ignoring the courts", including the supreme court - FDR. Believing one can do no wrong if the ultimate goal is to "save the country" - FDR. Using outside advisors (Trump uses Witkoff) for key negotiations with Russia because you believe that the insiders are comprimised - FDR. Looking to fight a Naval war in the Pacific - FDR. Running for a third term - FDR.

Social conservatism or reactionary ideology does not necessarily equal fascist. Trump is more an amalgamation of ideas from various US presidents that were generally popular or considered influential if they weren't popular, from McKinley to FDR to a "reverse Nixon" to Reagan. A "greatest hits collection" of US presidents and ideas. In essence, he is the most American president that has ever existed, a distillation of Americana. If you define fascism like that, then yes you can argue that Trump is fascist. But I still think it's useful to differentiate from pre and post WW2 Pax Americana and Hitlerite fascism. The closest Trump got to the latter was when he ordered the police to clear out the protestors so he could do a photo op with the Bible in front of a church during the BLM protests in 2020.

Arguably yes, arguably no. I'm not convinced it's a particularly useful way to think about things tbh

He's a rabid Zionazi who arms, funds, and surrounds himself with other Zionazis. The ecpnomic heads of this country are fascists. Inwardly, outwardly, by policy, by decree. Fascists. He is of that class and he would not be where he is if not being an abject fascist. Black bagging people at the bequest of other fascists feeling being hurt. Race purity stuff. Attacks on acedemia, the arts, intellectualism. You could go down the list of Ur-Fascism and easily start checking off the boxes.

Just like isn't real's problem isn't so much Bibi - America's problem isn't so much Trump. You wouldn't have Trump if it wasn't for deliberately working the system to prop him up on bequest most likely of Wall Street itself.

Removing one head of Hydra and two more pop up because it is systemic. All the way to it's founding and if we want to be more modern see the Buisnees Plot revealed by

Trump is fascist because his words, deeds, policy, and set menu illusioned choice is a direct reflection of the fascist system and instiutions that put him there.

Same as with same as with same as with and and and. before. And I'l even toss in there for enabling fascists and fascism too.

I lean towards the "No" side and I'm mostly informed by Daniel Bessner's work and Richard Evans' book "The coming of the third reich" about the rise of the Nazi movement, that goes for Trump as well as other far-right parties around nowadays. The center argument against I think is the lack of mass politics in these countries (not the case in Israel and maybe India), and that most people who use fascist just mean it as a term of insult for the right, like calling social democrats "communist".

Danny's been on some chapo episodes, did that Hinge Points show with Matt and does a global politics podcast called American Prestige.

If anyone wants a quick rehash of the debate there's this podcast called Spaßbremse (it's mostly about german politics from a left perspective, in english) and the host, which used to lean "No" and now leans "Yes", recently (past 2 episodes I think) brought on Danny to argue for No, and then in another episode gave the right of response to John Ganz to argue for "Yes", I recommend those 2 episodes because each are under an hour long and I think Ganz presented the strongest case for "Yes" I've seen so far. I would like if the host brought Danny back to respond.

He's the most American man in existence, if that looks like fascism, well I'm not going to disagree with you.

I'm gonna say no he wasn't (past tense), he was an opportunist that used others to seek position and power and ego.

The fascism came through being the path of lowest resistance to what he wants. If an alternative non-fascist path had less resistance he could have been the woke president, he's exactly that uncommitted to any cause, he is a media figure who will mold himself into any shape that would be successful. He molded himself into the fascist because it ultimately was the easiest way to reconcile the contradictions in the right, the fighting factions previously divided now show very little sign of division. These contradictions were not resolved in his first term and he was not wholly a fascist at that time but he certainly is now.

What this means ideologically however is to be determined by those around him, not by him, he is a true marionette to capitalists around him.

I never finished r.paxtons anatomy of fascism but yeah I'd argue he is. But I call libs fascists to the point my friends have told me i need to dial it back.

I cant find the quote I'm looking for to reference, but there's a fascist inside all of us and we have to fight them or whatever

I'm not sure he's anything. I feel like he's operating on a combination of base instinct, desperation, self interest, and whatever unholy drug cocktail they're using to keep his neurons firing.

https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

• The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

• The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”

• The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”

• Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”

• Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

• Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”

• The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”

• The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

• Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”

• Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

• Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”

• Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”

• Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”

• Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

To me he meets all fourteen criteria of ur fascism.

edit: Or as Mussolini defined fascism it's the merger of state and corporate power. Having Silicon Valley as a co-president is structurally fascist.

Anybody trying to define fascism based on the very specific characteristics of Italy, Japan, or Germany is going to run into reasons to call trump a fascist or not and be able to debate. Like the 14 from ur fascism. I don't think that's a useful way to spend our time. I think that the definition of "Actually Existing Fascism" from redsails is the one that is useful, and there Trump can really only be considered the current captain of a success of fascism. The US has been fascist (in expropriating from its shifting periphery) since it's inception, and managed survived the birthing pains. The "classic" fascist examples failed to become the dominant force of their own existence and thus failed. So Trump is just as much a fascist as every other American president; he just partially shifted the periphery to be an internal enemy instead of external.

Western definitions always find that shift mega-important, but I think Cesaire's famous quote ("fascism=colonialism turned inward") was dialectically supposed to mean that all the expropriation at the periphery has been fascism too, not that fascism should be defined by its inward turn. That would only make the definition of fascism be an easy way to hide the oppression of the 3rd world as better than oppression of the 1st world. We Marxists should not accept that.

So yes, his fascism aims slightly different than the democrats, but of course he's a fascist

I don't think Trump is intelligent to have an ideology, but he enables fascism regardless.

He became classically fascist when he put all the other billionaires on his team. This is the distinction Mussolini himself made, the capitalists must be in the decision making room, no proxies.

I think anyone with a billion dollars is a fascist. You don't get that rich without stepping on people.

He may not fit the definition exactly, but fuck him, yeah, he's a fascist.

I'd say that historically fascism is a somewhat nebulous term that tries to cover a few disparate movements, but generally speaking has been a capitalist response to a rising domestic communist movement, and so in Marxism has a very specific/scientific meaning in that regard. So without that movement in the United States currently existing Trump doesn't qualify in my opinion.

I wrote a long thing about this in a different thread awhile back so I'll link it here: https://hexbear.net/comment/5927199

I'm going to add to it here too:

I think the issue we have is that there is fascism as a material outcome and Fascism as an ideological movement that arose in Italy and Germany which people still identify with. A goose-stepping swastika wearing guy and Trump are not the same person.

Trump could still choose to do everything that fascists did or would do because it benefits him and never think of himself as a fascist or someone who identifies with Hitler or Mussolini.

He certainly has fascists who advise him, but they likely aren't saying "Donald, we have to do this because it is how we achieve a fascist world, which is our grand plan." They probably just tell him he will make a lot of money as will all his friends. It's a good idea economically.

I think this is because he is American, and America was the original fascists before that word or idea we identify with Italy and Germany existed, and that everyone who accepts or promotes Americanism is a fascist materially because they are accepting and promoting the same material outcomes, but calling it being pro-American without even imagining it is intentionally fascist.

There are enough real fascists around to use this to their advantage and accelerate fascism, and enough people who think they are the farthest thing from fascist but accept fascism because it isn't marketed as fascism, but as making themselves richer and their lives easier. If you are American, you accept everything fascism does, as long as it isn't called that. This has been the case since the 13 colonies, since before America existed as a nation, and so now it goes totally unnoticed

No he's a wholesome freedom lover and flag kisser, like all our greats 🥰🤗

To be perfectly honest, it doesn't really make sense to define ideologies too tightly, because that's not how people think or movements works.

In a practical sense, one might label any "more right wing than even liberals" as fascists, aka, fascism is what happens when "ordinary liberals" are radicalised in favor of the status quo. Fascism becomes to liberalism what Communism is to socialism. Both ideologies seek to strike directly at the frontlines of class war and colonial war, just on opposite sides.

So in this sense, yeah, trump is easily fascist and has been fascist since his first term (I think people are kind of forgetting how quickly power was consolidated towards the capitalists during the first term). He never even pretended to give a shit about liberal ideology (and thus became hated) and directly worked towards empowering the bourgeoise and imperialists.

Only in the sense that fascism is the logical end point of American Exceptionalism.

Trump might be a fascist, but the bourgeoisie has no need to give him dictatorial powers to rule as a fascist. The bourgeoisie will only resort to fascism if they feel threatened by a Left movement. There is no Leftist movement strong enough to even make the bourgeoisie sweat, the bourgeoisie are still raking in massive profits

No, only because fascism doesn't occur on an individual level. Individuals can only really identify or not with fascist movements.

He's leading capitalism in decay like a leader of capitalism in decay, so yes.

If dems were in charge however, I'd argue that leading capitalism in decay like it wasn't in decay would be not fascism, just neoliberalism, denial edition.

I do think that in an academic sense, Trump is not fascist. I mostly agree with Daniel Bessner on this front. The purpose of creating a category or ideology called fascism and not just what a weird Italian party called themselves because they are Roman LARPers, is that there was something new with this strain of European politics in the 1920s. So I do feel that any definition of fascism has to embrace that part, that it is something that is unique to Europe in the 1920s and not pre-existing political positions or precedents. So, to some extent, the lack of mass politics or the use of a party paramilitary being involved can lead one to say that Trump isn't fascist.

To a lesser extent, I do think that maybe Bessner is correct in that there is real stakes to this discussion, in that this is trying to make Trump's ideology and actions a foreign, European import and ignoring how it is a natural extension or direct conclusion of the American Right-Wing.

I don't usually push back on people calling Trump or American politicians fascist, since most people think fascism is just racism and reactionary politics. But as I said, I am mostly just looking at an academic classification, and even though all political terms being contested, any definition of fascism has to take into account that the use of the term as a category was because Europeans in the 1920s said "wait, this is something new and unique". Why people get worked up about this is that fascism, due to the united front, is something that is almost universally agreed as a bad thing. Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, and even some Conservatives were united against fascism in allied countries. So fascism fulfills the roll of the political bad, so when people hear you say "Trump isn't a fascist", what they think or hear is "No, he isn't really that bad". Despite the fact that things can be bad in multiple ways, so Trump doesn't have to be fascist to be really racist, "authoritarian" and bad. The Belgian Congo under King Leopold wasn't necessarily fascist, but it was extremely evil and bad.