What was the “Is Trump a Fascist?” Debate Ultimately About?

I’m afraid I can’t read the actual piece (yes, I know there are ways around login-walls), but your conclusion seems very strange. I guess what I’m having trouble with is your definitions here:

This is the situation we now find ourselves in. One party, representing the popular majority, remains on the outskirts of power, thanks to the Constitution. The other party, representing the minority, cannot wield power when it has it but finds its position protected nonetheless by the very same Constitution.

You say that (presumably the Democrats?) remain on the outskirts of power, yet they currently hold 1-party control of the federal government and briefly held 1-party control of the federal government just two presidencies ago. What are the outskirts of power?

When you refer to the Constitution, I assume from context that you’re referring specifically to the Electoral College. Yet while I think the Electoral College definitely has a significant warping effect on the Senate, is it even in the running for Most Important Structural Warper compared to voter suppression efforts and gerrymandering? On the flipside, is it fair to say the Constitution is holding the Democrats back, when the 15th and 19th amendments play such a massive role in preventing Republican minority takeover?

And when the Republicans do take power, you say they cannot wield it. This seems like a very strong statement on what it means to wield power. I rather assume that the launching of war against Iraq, the historic suppression of workers’ rights in my home state of Wisconsin, the unprecedented wealth inequality, and the creation of concentration camps on our borders all constitute the wielding of power. Are you arguing otherwise? Or what am I missing here?

It’s quite possible that I’m missing the point entirely. I haven’t really addressed Trumpism or Fascism at all. Operating just off of the title, it seems like you might be trying to get everyone to stop calling Trump a Fascist, but the conclusion I quoted suggests a broader argument that I don’t understand.

Let’s just make this nice and easy: the thing that unites literally all ‘real’ fascists (not the ‘pretend’ kind of the liberal unconscious, or conscious) is the one party state. Which means what it says: only one party is legal. All the others are not. Obviously this is a necessary and not sufficient criteria (Communist states were also one party) but it is absolutely essential.

So two things: did Trump ever state, ever, anywhere, that he would like membership of the Democrats to be made illegal? Did he ever speak up for elections in in there would be only one candidate, and one could either vote for him(sic) or spoil the ballot? Did he ever claim to want Nancy Pelosi, Biden, Harris et al put in concentration camps, tortured, murdered? (be prepared for lots of ‘no but blah blah blah’ type answers to this from The Usual Suspects, incidentally).

And even if he did (and here’s a clue as to the answer to the first question: he didn’t), is it conceivable that he could ever have done so?

How?

Isn’t it interesting, incidentally, that all the chatter about how the US in 2021 is exactly like Weimar in 1932 has now simply evaporated, now Biden is in power?

My disagreement with the piece is not about the carachterisation of Trump, but with the idea that “fascism” depends on a strong right.
In the case of historical italian fascism, for example, fascism came as an answer to years of rather succesful leftish agitation; it also happened in a moment when the italian economy had huge problem.
So I think that fascism is the answer of a right that feels the ground falling under its feet.
For example, the attempted coup of 6 january happened because Trump lost the election, there is no point in having a coup if you win the elections.

First, I have not read the New Yorker piece yet, so not going to comment on it.

Second, I don’t really care all that much whether people call Trump a fascist or not.

Third, I’m wondering why I should accept Hidari’s statement that a one-party state is what unites all “real” fascists simply on Hidari’s authority. It may be a necessary criterion for a fascist regime but that’s a bit different from saying it’s a necessary part of the definition of “a fascist”. Obviously Trump never said he wanted to make the Democratic Party illegal. Why not? Because, while Trump may or may not be a fascist, he’s not a complete fool.

47 years late to the observation.

See Peter. Berger’s “Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change” Anchor 1974. Among other points, Berger observes that democracies are most vulnerable when they cannot make decisions in demanding, i.e., crisis or crisis like, contexts. It is in these moments that they can turn to an authoritarian leader.

Daniel 03.14.21 at 2:29 am @ 10 —
I don’t see a necessary contradiction between democracy and having an authoritarian leader. Many people seem to prefer such leaders. Under certain conditions they may form a majority. In due course, then, an authoritarian leader will probably be elected.

However, I don’t know if all authoritarians are properly labeled ‘fascist’. This word is now used very loosely. Mussolini was precise: ‘Everything within the state, nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state.’ Even if we extend the meaning of state to include every social structure upheld by government power, one can’t reasonably apply Mussolini’s definition to the Republicans or the soi-disant ‘conservatives’ of the U.S. They are too fond of getting off their leashes.

Trump’s instincts may be authoritarian or fascistic, but he is far too incompetent to exemplify a coherent political philosophy like fascism. Therefore, the application of the term ‘fascist’ to Trump seems unreasonable, even if it is fun.

and so ”the piece at The New Yorker”
says:
”Trump’s legacy is the rejection of his party’s premises by more than half the country. Where Reagan and Bush respectively got a hundred and sixty-eight and forty Democrats to vote for their tax cuts, Trump got none. Asked to name her most significant achievement, Margaret Thatcher replied, “Tony Blair.” Trump’s will be Arizona, Georgia, and A.O.C”.
AND? –
as the NY Times says:
”Two Decades After the ‘End of Welfare,’ Democrats Are Changing Direction –
President Biden’s stimulus plan is a poverty-fighting initiative of potentially historic proportions, with major support for families with children”.
OR –
as Susan Sarandon said:
”Trump more likely to bring ‘revolution’ than Hillary?
OR
as I asked:
Did America really HAVE to erect ”An Insane Idiot” in order to get back to Sanity?

@Chetan Murthy: Buckley’s original quote is “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” It’s meant to describe a powerless underdog.

Hidary – the Right in the USA has frequently had to dogwhistle a one party state, but that’s because they can’t – yet – get away with that.

And we are seeing a massive surge in laws which have the effect of cementing one-party rule.

I also really like the argument that when a party actively subverts democracy in order to win elections that they would otherwise lose, that is just pragmatic behavior, not an ideological commitment against democracy. Precious.

I suppose the Burmese Junta is really honestly committed to democracy, they just understandably don’t like to lose elections. Of course it’s just a coincidence that the Burmese Junta used the exact same justification that Trump had used before. And Trump clearly would have loved to do as the Burmese generals, he just lacked the means. By the logic on offer around here, a fascist is only a fascist after he succeeds in capturing absolute power; by corollary, there can be no unsuccessful fascist movements. Several commenters have pointed out the absurdity of such claims. They are truly beyond parody.

JimV @13: Good point re the Supreme Court and 1-party control. I generally focus on the legislative and executive branches when discussing who “controls” the federal government. I don’t know if we’ve had the full 3 on one side at any point in recent history.

Your point about the coddling of conservative Democrats, though, is not relevant. Manchin and Sinema are Democrats regardless of how we may feel about them, and Democratic control of the House and Senate is not lessened by their existence, even though they may block legislation that some other Democrats want.

Hidari @17: Your use of “obviously” highlights the weak point of your argument. Gerrymandering is not obviously incidental to Republicans’ political aims. If we hypothesize, for example, that the Republican party is a bunch of Fascist sympathizers, then one of the fundamental tenets we would expect them to promote would be the practical removal of rights from everyone in the Out-Group. Gerrymandering fits very neatly into this project. And yes, they might not bother to gerrymander if they could remove your voting rights and mine some easier way, but given that the current approach has been to try everything they can think of at once, they probably would keep doing it.

Broadly speaking, I’m contesting two points you’ve made: (1) I believe the Republicans DO want a 1-party state, even if they aren’t willing to admit it, and (2) I believe Fascism is characterized by a desire to neutralize and eventually eliminate or subjugate the Out-Group, not simply by an open desire for a 1-party state.

= = = one can’t reasonably apply Mussolini’s definition to the Republicans or the soi-disant ‘conservatives’ of the U.S. They are too fond of getting off their leashes. = = =

Some Republicans are fond of talking about getting off their leashes, certainly. Look at US Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) for example. Very much in favor in freedom and individualism – so much so that he voted in lockstep with Trump for 4 years, including supporting the seditious insurrection of 01/06. The christianist right-wing evangelicals are similar: all in favor of personal freedom, as long as no one contradicts the Supreme Lawgiver with this year’s direct pipeline to the deity.

„One party, representing the popular majority, remains on the outskirts of power, thanks to the Constitution. … We are seeing the sufferings of Sisyphus, forever rolling his rock—immigration reform, new infrastructure, green jobs—up a hill… When no one can act, any performance of power, no matter how empty, can seem real.“

Who benefits when democratic political institutions are paralyzed, when democratic governance appears impotent, unable to act in the face of challenges and crises, when public confidence in their ability to solve problems erodes and government is presented as a TV and social media performance?

How hard is it to understand that precisely this impotence and paralysis is the result not of „the constitution“ but of a conscious strategy of antidemocratic forces with the aim to undermine the legitimacy of democratic government, and how blind do you have to be as a political scientist to overlook the obvious parallels to the late Weimar Republic, when antidemocratic parties (both the extreme Right and the KPD) gleefully mocked the democratic institutions as ineffective while consistently working to undermine them?

Trump wasn’t able to cling to power but he least office with nearly half the population doubting the legitimacy of the elected president, large parts of the population distrustful of both the news media and the democratic institutions, a large minority expressing support for violent insurrection against the elected government. What will the likely outcome be if Biden fails? Very possibly a fascist more competent and successful than Trump. Fortunately, it seems Biden and many Democrats understand the stakes and are acting accordingly.

I regard fascism as an upwelling of an emotion that perhaps is latent in every population. The leader and party are secondary phenomena, although of couse they can do great damage. What triggers it is a catastrophic failure of the market system as Karl Polanyi wrote. It is characterized by a longing for vicinal isolation and casting out of the Other (nationalism, racism), and an absolute disregard for logic and facts. Facts do not matter. Trump is just an opportunist who inserted himself into a GOP that is colliding with reality. His Administration was standard Republicanism with few more shortsighted alterations in trade & foreign policy. But even now somewhere around 50% of Republicans believe the election was stolen because Trump is willing to take advantage of “facts don’t matter”. A sine qua non of fascism.

@16…I always interpret that quote literally, as in wanting to halt the flow of history, of human progress. This was when the stars and bars flag was introduced, when the Pledge and coinage were altered to add references to a god.

The GOP (or GQP as seems to be more apropos now) has never been powerless…perhaps in the Wilderness years of the 1960s but not in the memory of many of us.

Seems like we need to remember Wilhoit’s Proposition.

Trump, supported by most of the Republican Party, just attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election by claiming that Republican state legislatures (chosen by gerrymandered electorates) could replace the electors chosen by voters with one of their own choosing. When that failed in the courts due to lack of preparation, he organized a riot/inusrrection to intimidate Congress into doing his biddin.g

As I understand it, Republicans in several states are now moving to make this proposal law. That seems close enough to a demand for a one-party state.

My own view is that Trump has crystallised a change that was already under way in the Republican Party. The result is a party that may reasonably be described as fascist https://crookedtimber.org/2020/07/20/the-republican-phase-transition/

and @28

”I regard fascism as an upwelling of an emotion that perhaps is latent in every population. The leader and party are secondary phenomena, although of couse they can do great damage”.

Couldn’t we agree that fascism as an upwelling of an emotion empowering the lowest instinct – that perhaps is latent in every population and it needs some kind of ”role model” to tell the people that it’s okay or cool to be a ”trump”.

Like the Harley Driver who just tried to run over our Asian friend.

AND there is NO EXCUSE for it by ANY ”catastrophic failure of the market system as Karl Polanyi wrote”. BE-cause at any ANY ”catastrophic failure of the market system” you can come up with a ”American Rescue Plan Act” – instead of Tax relieves for the Rich.

and this silly (American?) idea –
that ‘news’ papers like the New York Times –
who are trying very, very hard to report that ”Belgium isn’t a beautiful city” –
(as Trump insisted) –
are in ”any sense, any more”, NOT ”objective or independent” is –
indeed simply risible –
Hidari –

AS I can promise you – that Belgium isn’t a beautiful city.
As isn’t nearly everything else – what ”trump” ever said or did.
AND
to finally having reported IT has absolutely NOTHING to do with ”partisanship” or ”politics” –
It’s in a matter ”of anthropological research” – just ”the basic geography” – of the American Landscape – if you understand the Parabel?

So –
in conclusion
perhaps? –
”What was the “Is Trump a Fascist?” Debate Ultimately About”?

The confusion of the American people – who lost ALL ability to differentiate between the utmost basic differences between Racist Right-Wing Science Deniers and their Opposition?!

Hidari @37

While the U.S. media “landscape” has changed in a whole variety of ways from what it was in, say, 1980 or 1990, it is false to say that particular media outlets are all “clearly linked to political parties.” No one who pays even a small amount of attention to the U.S. media could think this. I can’t even bring myself to finish reading your comments, so utterly divorced are some of your statements from anything that even comes close to resembling a facsimile of reality. For one thing, you have to distinguish between editorial pages and news “holes” or non-editorial reporting, which you don’t do; while the lines get blurry, there’s still a difference. For another thing, there’s a difference between leaning in one direction or another politically and being “clearly linked” to a political party.

From my perspective, there are a lot of good observations in the essay, mostly pertaining to the problems with the strongman view; I also agree with most of Hidari’s objections – and 03.15.21 at 9:34 was an especially healthy dose of truth. Robin persists in viewing the Democratic Party as the ‘chosen one’ of History, the natural but all-too hesitant and inefficient bearer of overdue democratic progress, rather than as one of the two fairly efficient and enthusiastic servants of oligarchy and empire. And while the latter view is objectively more accurate, in fairness, the former one does have its rationale: for all their noxiousness, I think it’s true that the Dems can be pushed to effect some left-wing policies on some issues.

It’s a tense and complicated dance that much of the US left is engaged in with the Dems – alternately signalling faith and hope in them and threatening clear-eyed disillusionment, haggling and pressuring them to become what it wants them to be (‘their best self’) by pretending to believe that they, in some sense, already are that. It’s manipulation through strategic self-manipulation. Both ‘steps’ in the dance are crucially necessary, at least at the level of rhetoric, for it to work. From an outside anti-imperialist perspective, looking at this game is a bit like looking at the Wars of the Roses as a serf, at the struggles between Athenian aristocrats and democrats as a slave, or, perhaps, closer to home, between Jacksonites and Whigs as a black person. But I can see how it serves a useful long-term good purpose in its context, as long as it doesn’t go too far in the direction of full-on, internalised partisan belief in the goodness of the Democratic mainstream, so that instead of pushing them in your direction, you end up being pushed by them in theirs – and this is, inevitably, all too prone to happen.

Personally, I prefer to both remain aware of the truth and speak it openly to the greatest possible extent and I believe that this serves a useful purpose, too, but I have to admit that I don’t know how you can be consistent in this respect and still be published in an influential outlet like the New Yorker, rather than becoming a fringe outcast. Writing anonymous comments is easier in this respect.

Who knows – perhaps it is only for this reason that I can bring myself to voice an even more heretical position: I am disappointed that Robin so easily bowed to the mainstream Democratic orthodoxy that the Capitol riot was some kind of serious attempt at a ‘violent assault on democracy’ by Trump. He never called on the protesters to storm the building, indeed he explicitly admonished them not to. The rioters never had any remotely realistic or thought-through plan and neither did he. The violent aspect of their actions was ridiculously overblown – it was mostly performance and role-playing. There is no proof that they caused even the single death that was ascribed to them, and as soon as a single one on their side was killed, they gave up instead of becoming enraged and escalating the violence. These people identify with the police themselves, they have neither the desire nor the courage to fight it seriously. Until the upper echelons of the US security apparatus want a coup, it won’t happen, and they have no reason to want it, because they are permanently in power in the US; it would also need the support of much of the oligarchy, which has no reason for that either, because it, too, is permanently in power in the US.

I see no reason to think that Trump ever wanted the protesters to do anything more than add some appearance of ‘public pressure’ to help him cheat and lawyer his way to victory (assuming that he was even serious about that). His very attempt to deny reality and cheat in such an egregious way was no doubt a serious matter and he shouldn’t be anywhere near holding a public office again. However fake US ‘democracy’ is, it seems to me that more blatant disregard for the law can only make it worse (although I can imagine ways in which I might be wrong about this). But as for a coup – please. There is some depth to the bitter joke that has long been popular among opponents of US empire in the global periphery – a coup can never happen in the US, because it’s the only country where there is no US embassy.

@
”But as for a coup – please. There is some depth to the bitter joke that has long been popular among opponents of US empire in the global periphery – a coup can never happen in the US, because it’s the only country where there is no US embassy”.

what about the joke that ”the coup” was Trumps e(r)lection?

@48 ‘Hidari circa 1925′.

It’s worthwhile parsing what this sentence means. What this means is that the author of this sentence is claiming that it is a reasonable prediction to claim that in 2029 (i.e. in 8 years time) the 83 year old Donald Trump will (or at least, is likely to be) dictator of the United States in some non-trivial way (i.e. and e.g. only the Republican Party will be legal, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris etc. will be dead or in concentration camps or in exile, the US will have invaded Canada or Mexico, the internet will be abolished or all websites are under direct government control etc etc etc) despite the fact that all of this is literally impossible under the US constitution as it currently stands (Hitler’s putsch was legal under the Weimar constitution, which permitted the total removal of all civil liberties under a state of emergency).

OK fine. Want to put money on it? £1000 say? This to be decided upon by a neutral arbiter?

(my counter claim is that the Democrats, having won this election, are the most likely to win the next election, as 2 term Presidencies are the norm in the US electoral system and Trump is unlikely to stand as the Republican candidate).

I mean it’s important to have something at stake because right now, because for the last 4 years you have been able to find ‘dozens of articles’ claiming that Trump was an aspiring dictator, many by people who ‘found out exactly how wrong they were’ but refused to accept this by claiming essentially ‘ah by the fact that I was wrong just goes to show that I was right’. By which I mean people claiming that Trump was a dictator even after he had left office after a democratic election.

It’s also not a trivial point to point out that Trump doesn’t exercise much and has a terrible diet and lifestyle. I mean he might actually be dead in 9 years time. There have also been rumours that he might have dementia and might not be allowed to stand even if he wants to. Nor is it easy to see how he can win an election without access to social media. And of course, he might not even want to stand. But these factors don’t matter in the Green Lantern version of politics, in which someone (e.g. Trump) simply wills something to happen, and then it happens. Interestingly, Democrats can see the flaw in this logic when it suits them.

The fact that the American liberal class have apparently taken leave of Planet Earth, and have created a counter-reality that is more to their taste, in which they have been living for the last 4 years, is, objectively, more of a threat to American ‘democracy’, such as it is, than 99% of what Trump did, and the latter day zaibatsu of the Silicon Valley oligarchies are more of a threat to freedom of speech, movement, and the rest, than the Republican Party, as I think the next 20/30 years will show.

When American ‘democracy’ finally ends, if it does, the DNC will not be the good guys fighting against the dictatorship to the bitter end, I guarantee you that. Au contraire.

(I am totally aware that this post may well get me banned, incidentally but “Hier stehe, ich kann nicht anders”).

AND was the Racist Right-Wing Motorcycle Rider – who really ran over our Asian friend – the other day in Orange County on his way… to Atlanta?

And do we ALL have to change our way of thinking about:
What was the “Is Trump a Fascist?” Debate Ultimately About??!

AS actually –
plain and simple –
in the 21 century it’s ALL about to tell the people on the Internet that the HAVE to HATE everybody and everything ”fureign”?

Z, I was referring specifically to the Beer Hall Putsch.

Hidari, I’m not suggesting an exact repetition, or claiming inevitability. I’m saying that there is a significant probability that the 2024 election will see the existing quasi-democratic Electoral College system overturned (at least putatively) by Republican state legislatures appointing their own electors in states where the majority of voters support the Democrats. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution that clearly prevents this, so it will be up to the Supreme Court. As you say, the Democrats are more likely to prevail, but not because the Republicans are committed to accepting the will of the people.

As to Trump being an aspiring dictator, that’s obviously true. Admittedly an unsuccessful aspirant, but there are many such. Your reference to his “leaving office” is quite disingenuous, if it’s meant to suggest that he did so voluntarily. You could, if you wanted, observe that Hitler left office in 1945. He even named and acknowledged his successor. By contrast, Trump still refers to himself as the “45th President” and refuses to acknowledge his defeat.

Well, “shill” is the wrong word, because that is an accomplice to another. Perhaps “bounder”.

and about:
”It’s worthwhile parsing what this sentence means”.

Yes –
as I finally understand how ”literal” the ”Hidaris” of this World will take it –
if you tell them – that ”trump” means ”GOD” –
(and NOT ”DOG”)

Z@49 I believe was referring to the savagery with which the SPD put down the continued general strike (and perceived dual power) in the Ruhr. The SPD unleashed the Freikorps yet again and killed hundreds of KPD and other militants (mainly USPD.) By contrast, once Kapp/Luttwitz had been suppressed, the right wing perpetrators were very leniently treated. Von Seeckt, who stood the Reichswehr idle, was I think promoted upward as “punishment.” The implication in John Quiggin@47 that it was the KPD that was targeting the SPD and making light of the putschists (instead of pushing further,) was thus seen as questionable, like solidarizing with the butchers against the victims.

F. Foundling@44 wrote “Until the upper echelons of the US security apparatus want a coup, it won’t happen, and they have no reason to want it, because they are permanently in power in the US; it would also need the support of much of the oligarchy, which has no reason for that either, because it, too, is permanently in power in the US.”

This is Deep State crackpottery, fundamentally a right-wing ideology indulged to replace any rational I.e. left-wing understanding of power in class society. Trump had arranged for an acting secretary of the army and an acting secretary of defense to prime the military to stall.

Recent precedent shows the plan to cheat and lawyer a second term was for the insurrection to seize some members of Congress, interrupt the formalities, then bring the military in to restore order…and part of the order would have been overturning/replaying key elections to change the Electoral College votes. As in the effort to bring the military out in force during the summer, such corrections were expected to be much more feasible with an intimidating, organizing force. Foundling and Hidari falsify the coup attempt by refusing to look at what happened with the military.

As for the notion the oligarchy is always in charge, the whole career of Trump is based on the increasing distaste of the oligarchy has for the accoutrements of bourgeois democracy. The greatest support for Trump is not even the enraged petty bourgeois losing their property values in flyover country, but the rich who have invested in cultivating the right kind of audience for decades using vehicles like Fox and talk radio (which are mainstream media, by the way.) The oligarchy has not even managed to do away yet with Social Security. The default is of course to lambaste the vile souls of the people for Trumpery.

Hidari invents something called the “liberal class,” with occult powers to shape social reality. This does not permit an answer. This really is a case where fantasy has barred any discussion, I think.

As to why paralysis still somehow leads to historical trend to the right, with an ever narrowing set of players in politics and an even narrower set of policies to choose from?
I think Corey Robin needs to answer this question to support his thesis. Insofar as I understand it, as it is rather subtle, of uncertain import, undecided consequences, imprecisely aimed, what have you. The Republican majorities in state capitals for one thing are omitted entirely.

Fascism is closely tied to defeat in war, which is why Poujadism in France after the Franco-Prussian war anticipated so much. Defeat in WWI was countered by fascism as the political form of restoration. Trumpery is engendered by the need to Make America Great Again. You would think a committed anti-imperialist would find MAGA a red flag in the other sense of the phrase, but, curiously, no.

steven t johnson’s Jan 6 story is good, but another blue-anon, named in all caps, was much better. “Opsec”, was it? Yes: “there were a number of folks photographed who maintained decent operational security (opsec, as it’s called). This isn’t by accident: it takes training“.

I’m waiting for more shocking revelations, like, hopefully, participation of Russian spetsnaz. Where is that excellent blue-anon? Are you disappearing him? Please don’t.

“The fascist solution of the impasse reached by liberal capitalism can be described as a reform of market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of all democratic institutions… The economic system which was in peril of disruption would thus be revitalized, while the people themselves were subjected to a reeducation designed to denaturalize the individual and make him unable to function as the responsible unit of the body politic. …the tenets of a political religion that denied the idea of the brotherhood of man in all its forms…

“The appearance of such a movement in the industrial countries of the globe, and even in a number of only slightly industrialized ones, should never have been ascribed to local causes, national mentalities, or historical backgrounds as was so consistently done by contemporaries. Fascism had as little to do with the Great War as with the Versailles Treaty, with Junker militarism as with the Italian temperament. The movement appeared in defeated countries like Bulgaria and in victorious ones like Jugoslavia, in countries of Northern temperament like Finland and Norway and of Southern temperament like Italy and Spain, in countries of Aryan race like England, Ireland, or Belgium and non-Aryan race like Japan, Hungary, or Palestine, in countries of Catholic traditions like Portugal and in Protestant ones like Holland, in soldierly communities like Prussia and civilian ones like Austria, in old cultures like France and new ones like the United States and the Latin-American countries. In fact, there was no type of background—of religious, cultural, or national tradition—that made a country immune to fascism, once the conditions for its emergence were given…

“A country approaching the fascist phase showed symptoms among which the existence of a fascist movement proper was not necessarily one. At least as important signs were the spread of irrationalistic philosophies, racialist aesthetics, anticapitalistic demagogy, heterodox currency views, criticism of the party system, widespread disparagement of the ‘regime,’ or whatever was the name given to the existing democratic setup…

“In no case was an actual revolution against constituted authority launched; fascist tactics were invariably those of a sham rebellion arranged with the tacit approval of the authorities who pretended to have been overwhelmed by force…”

The Great Transformation pp. 237-8.

While the US Democrats are acting now – in trying to fight against the ”Fremdenfeindlichkeit” – it’s time to help them and change the order in #
the definition
of
”Fascism”.

As in the 20th century it might have been –
”Faschismus vertritt rechtsextreme, rassistische und fremdenfeindliche Gedanken”.
while in the 21 Century it has become –
”Faschisten vertreten fremdenfeindliche, rassistische und rechtsextreme Gedanken” –
with the ”Fremdenfeindlichkeit” as the main expression of Fascism.

”Spearheaded by the worst President the US has ever seen – Donald Trump.
And as stupid and powerless ”authoritarian/fascist/tyrannical” he ever might have Benn –
his power to produce the utmost HATE against ALL ”the others” – might finally put him in the history book as ”Americas most powerful Fascist”?

”a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy with

When no one can act, any performance of power, no matter how empty, can seem real.

Frank Wilhoit@63 is correct, I was thinking of Boulanger, and the anti-Dreyfusards too. The anti-Dreyfusard crusade was I think a new phenomenon, not a mysterious recurrence of old medieval ideas, suddenly popular for no cause. The need for heroic measures in politics for revanche, including brushing away corrupt politicians (and they are all corrupt in fascism) and their corrupt games (because parliamentary democracy is always a corrupt game in fascism,) is rarely so attractive in a country that feels like it is winning. Or that is is still “Great” as in MAGA.

Stephen@58 is incorrect in thinking Italy won the war. The severe military defeats were not compensated by the minor territorial adjustments. Italy wanted things like Libya, Ethiopia and Albania but it was fascism that got those. The reality of defeat on the battlefield is why the government was so weak in facing the left surge in the forgotten Red Summer, why fascism was useful in domestic class conquest to begin with. The government’s credit was shot on the battlefield. Stephen also caught my error on “Poujadism,” though, so at least this once Stephen got something right!

Lee Arnold cites Polanyi. Unless I am hopelessly out of date, Polanyi’s expansive definition of fascism is precisely the kind of thing condemned as woolly thinking by Robin, etc. The trend is pretty strongly to limit fascism proper to Italy, because they actually started the name it can’t be denied, and to Nazi Germany. I think Stanley Payne for one took the tack of declaring “fascism” to be so problematic that it was a dubiously useful concept. This is doubly so now, when narrow definitions of fascism are so useful in denying Ukraine is fascist or that interwar Japan was fascist, or that Finland was fascist-influenced. I think Polanyi was correct in using a broader definition of fascism.

But I have to say that after explicitly denying things like national temperament were fascism or causes thereof, to define fascism in terms of things like esthetics or irrationalism is too anticipatory of things like Umberto Eco’s checklist. Polanyi himself talked of strange money theories, but how finance is separable from Versailles is a complete mystery to me.

Additionally, to be truly useful, the different susceptibilities to fascism should be taken into account. Barrington Moore is unfashionable, but not wrong. The more thorough going the bourgeois revolutions that remade a society, the less susceptible. France is the test case, I think. But France was defeated in 1870 and 1940, so no, I think defeat in war is relevant.

Further, thinking of fascism as structural, a mode of political rule to mobilize a nation for conquest, suppressing class conflict (including intrabourgeois rivalries, at least to some degree) the role in conquest, not just revanche, is apparent. Here the test case is interwar Japan, I think.

Overlooked in the case of many others, is that formation of a new bourgeois state is, mechanically so to speak, the same thing as conquest. Finland is denied to be a fascist-influenced (if not fascist) state now, for reasons contemporary. But the exigencies of counter-revolutionary struggle to establish a new state should be pretty obvious.

One of the notable features of fascism, the tendency to exterminate populations, was of course not unique to fascism as it congealed into a separate movement in the late nineteenth century. But the commitment to extermination and/or enslavement is why I think some elements of fascism came from the New World, especially the bigly victorious US. (Arendt’s emphasis on de Gobineau I think has been a bad influence.) But possibly the first genocide approaching the fascist technique, the Armenian genocide, is closely linked to the formation of a Turkish bourgeois democracy. Suppressing class struggle in the nation seems to go much easier if somebody else can be excluded.

Arguments about definitions are sometimes useful, sometimes not, but here goes one. Fascist movements are (I claim) necessarily
* Anti-democratic & authoritarian
* Rightwing
* Organized around mass political parties

Are there important examples of movements that satisfy these conditions but can’t properly be called Fascist?

@
”Suppressing class struggle in the nation seems to go much easier if somebody else can be excluded”.

In other words:
…”and Asian women have been disproportionately affected by the skyrocketing number of hate crimes reported against Asian Americans during the coronavirus pandemic.

A report on hate incidents released Tuesday by the reporting forum Stop AAPI Hate found that among the 3,800 incidents that were reported over the course of roughly a year during the pandemic, 68% of those were reported by women.

Russell Jeung, a professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University, recently told NBC Asian America that it’s not just racism but sexism ― namely, the belief that Asian women are subservient and weak ― that’s played a part in many of these incidents.

“There is an intersectional dynamic going on that others may perceive both Asians and women and Asian women as easier targets,” he said.

The hypersexualization of Asian women plays a huge part in the violence we face.
Christine Liwag Dixon
As the coronavirus worsened, Asian American women have heard taunts of “Chinese coronavirus bitch” or “Where is your corona mask, you Asian bitch?” while running errands or walking down the street. The racist rhetoric surrounding the coronavirus ― fueled by President Donald Trump’s xenophobic tweets and his use of phrases like “China virus” ― coincided with a surge in harassment”.

And if Mr. Johnson wants to call this a ”class struggle” – let’s… agree…?

And I was wrong with:

”As in the 20th century it might have been –
”Faschismus vertritt rechtsextreme, rassistische und fremdenfeindliche Gedanken”.
while in the 21 Century it has become –
”Faschisten vertreten fremdenfeindliche, rassistische und rechtsextreme Gedanken” –
with the ”Fremdenfeindlichkeit” as the main expression of Fascism”.

As already in the 20th century the worlds worst monster had proved that with ”fremdenfeindlichem, rassistischen Gedanken” – one get’s ”the masses” on the side of Fascism – and ”Right-Wing Politics” are just some kind of… of? –

”Extra”?

JQ@68″Are there important examples of movements that satisfy these conditions but can’t properly be called Fascist?”
Well, that depends, movements change so. Consider Sinn Fein/IRA:

Anti-democratic and authoritarian: yes, of course.

Organised around mass political parties: once upon a time, organised around minority parties. Later, not so.

Rightwing: yes, but opportunistically so. Back in the day, organising bombings and shootings in Ireland & Britain in support of traditionally rightwing causes (blood and soil nationalism, subjugate or expel the despised non-national population). Even further back, support for Nazi Germany than which it is hard to get more rightwing: Dublin is still, to its shame, the only European capital with a public statue to a Nazi collaborator. When requesting arms and money from the former Soviet Union, ostentatiously pro-socialism; when doing the same in Boston, no such thing. Nowadays, appeals to discontented underclass in RoI: maybe that makes them left-wing and therefore OK?

Some of the logical and conceptual errors common in this debate (some have already been pointed out by other commenters):

1) The insistence that 21st century fascism must look exactly like its 20th century counterpart, that a contemporary political movement can only be recognized as fascist if it follows exactly the playbook of Hitler and/or Mussolini. (The silliness of this argument is at display in Hidari at 48). ​It never occurs to anybody to apply similar standards to socialism, liberalism, or conservatism. We recognize for example that socialism is a broad category of political ideas/movements that covers considerable diversity and that has evolved over time. Why should this not be true of fascism?

2) Related to 1) the misconception that pointing out historic parallels and using them as arguments in a contemporary political debate must imply an exact identity.

3) Also related to 1) the idea that fascism has an on-off switch, that there must be a total break between fascist and non-fascist politics, as if there weren’t a broad overlap between traditional right-wing politics and fascism. Robin claims that recognizing Trump’s radicalism somehow lets the Republican party off the hook and fails to “understand conservatism more generally, which has always been a far-right and illiberal and anti-liberal form of politics” (https://jewishcurrents.org/almost-the-complete-opposite-of-fascism/). But that was equally true in the Weimar era! Of course Trump hasn’t invented American racism, but as Robin very well knows, the Nazis too didn’t invent antisemitism – all Weimar era right-wing parties shared the Nazis’ antisemitism, illiberalism and contempt for democracy. It was very well possible around 1930 to argue that the Nazis weren’t all that different from the other right-wing parties, and many indeed did make that argument. There is no contradiction between recognizing that Trumpism is in many ways a continuation of standard Republican politics, and also recognizing that Trump has radicalized US right-wing politics to an unprecedented extent.

4) The delusion of hindsight: This is also related to 3). Our view of fascism is of course shaped by our knowledge of the Holocaust and WWII, knowledge that contemporaries in the 1920s and early 30s didn’t have and couldn’t anticipate. It is near impossible for us with the benefit of hindsight to comprehend how badly even many critical contemporaries underestimated and misjudged Hitler. For example, the exiled German Communists interpreted the Röhmputsch (1934) as a sign of weakness and fantasized about the imminent collapse of the Nazi regime. Delusions like that were common. And they could have been right! History might have turned out differently. There certainly was no straight line from the failed Hitler Putsch 1923 – which made Hitler look weak and stupid – to his capturing near absolute power over Europe, to him ending his life, loathed by much of the world, in a bunker in the bombed-out capital of a defeated country, after merely 12 years in power.

5) Conflating authoritarianism with effective leadership: When Robin argues that Trump hasn’t been effective in either implementing his political agenda or changing public opinion, that speaks to Trump’s ineffectivenes as a leader, and crucially to the effectiveness of the resistance against Trump. It does not in any way refute the view that Trump is an authoritarian or even fascist at heart. What is particularly mystifying and I would say self-defeating about this argument is that it completely disregards the possibility that a fascist threat might be overcome through antifascist resistance!

Had people on the left listened to Robin’s insistence that Trump was never a threat, there probably would have been far less resistance. Anyway it’s far too early for final judgment on Trump’s legacy. We have to act in the thicket of the political struggle, not with the benefit of hindsight. Nevertheless given the events of Trump’s final months in office, Robin’s view has been resoundingly refuted and those of us who warned of a grave threat to democracy (a threat that hasn’t gone away!) were proved right.

No pasaran!