One nazi less?

[Provost Harrison]

No. I'm saying that the definitions are useless because the traits they want to use diagnostically can appear in clearly non fascists as well.​



Strong nationalism (wrapping up in the flag, symbols, etc): FDR *constantly* wrapped himself in the flag. How can we claim he showed diagnostically less nationalism than Trump?

Disdain for human rights (willing to torture, abuse, etc): Despite a US population less than 1/3rd of todays, FDR placed a higher percentage and absolute number of us citizens in internment camps than Trump and nearly all of FDR's internees were legal residents interned for overtly and officially ethnic/racial justifications. Trump's deportations remain overwhelmingly dominated by incentivized "self deportees".

Disdain for arts, elites and intellectuals (attacks on academia, defunding): Ill give FDR a full pass on this one, but even here he has the problem that he presided over far more political censorship of the arts than Trump ever has, especially through the Office of War Information (OWI).

Identification of a scapegoat enemy or class (ethnic groups, religious groups, liberals, communists, etc): Have you seen the war time propaganda against the Japanese and the Germans that he enthusiastically supported? Even Dr. Seuss got corrupted by this guy's dark ethnic demonization campaign. Again, how is Trump notably worse?

Exaltation of the military (increased funding of armed forces, glamorization): No comparison at all. There more military parades *during World War 2*, when surely, they represented a questionable use of military assets needed elsewhere, than Trump could achieve at his current rate in peace time for the rest of his term.

Rampant sexism and stereotyping of genders (women in traditional roles, anti-gay agenda, opposition to abortion, etc): No comparison, not only does Trump have far more women in his cabinet and private business selections than FDR ever had but FDR endorsed large campaigns to remind women to plan to surrender their jobs to men when the war would end.

Control of mass media: At least as bad as Trump has been. Fireside chats were intended to bypass the media, and FDR imposed considerably more pressure on media than Trump has even verbally suggested.

Co-opting the dominant religion (used as tool to manipulate public opinion even if the religious teachings are antithetical to the messaging): Nobody would accuse Trump of making more references to God than FDR did.

Co-opting corporate power (mutually symbiotic relationship where corporate powers props up the leaders, and the leaders give 'protection' to the corporations and owners): FDR"s industry boards and NRA codes reach vastly further than anything Trump has proposed. There is no comparison.

Suppressing labour unions and labour bargaining powers: Has Trump ever signed or proposed anything as restrictive as when FDR signed the Smith-Conally act? Trump's constantly actively trying to woo labor unions to his hare-brained movement. We could argue neither was suppressing labour unions or both but not that Trump does and FDR didn't.

Obsession with crime and punishment (law enforcement at a national level with unbridled power and resources, suppression of civil liberties): The FBI was massively expanded under J Edgar Hoover and both used national guard for domestic enforcement, but I don't think FDR ever proposed regular federal troops for such a role, so he gains a point vs Trump here perhaps.

Rampant cronyism (friends, associates of the leadership are put in senior positions, resources are pilfered and appropriated or outright stolen, with no accountability or recourse): The New Deal was rife with cronyism constantly. Trump has big shoes to fill here, and I'll grant that he is trying to do so but FDR massively increased the size of government and that was far more conducive to these opportunities than something like DOGE could ever be. Anyway, I don't think Trump has any real friends.

Fraudulent / sham elections (pretence of elections to give veneer of will of the people): Trump stepped peacefully down from one more lost presidential election than FDR did. Sitting on his hands during his jan 6 fiasco was impeachable surely but it didn't qualify at all as a fraudulent sham election.

Do I think there is the slightest loony shred of doubt that FDR could be a fascist? *NO*! I would characterize FDR as one of history's greatest enemies of fascism. My point is that these fascism definitions don't work. If we really need one I think we could say it was the political ties that led to the axis powers in World War 2. I'd also accept one that defined it as Mussolini's political movement.

There is no way in hell I'd accept that somehow the Trump presidency more closely resembles *any* WW2 axis government more than it resembles FDR's WW2 government. Trump was a terrible choice for president and openly expresses envy for authoritarian government, but it should be glaringly obvious that he's not a fascist unless huge numbers of other governments have all been fascist. These definitions are crap.
​

The US has been consistently guilty of these things you identify and there has been a worrying creep towards fascism. Arguably FDR played with fire that inevitably lead to this exceptionalism and arrogance you see today, especially as it was followed by becoming the world's preeminent power thus reinforcing your belief. And this pride has become your downfall because it has become so ingrained, so natural, that you have reached this point.

You know, the rest of your allies have always found your flagwaving a little bit distasteful for many, many years. I think we underestimated how dangerous it was.

It's a constant theme, here in the UK as well, that leaders have played with populism for expediency. But other aspects have made them fall short of full-blown fascist...I take Boris Johnson as a prime example. For all the populism played, he wasn't one to entertain "deep state" conspiracy theory or resistant to taking advice that fell beyond his "narrative". He was, however, easily led and in many ways a weak character.

What we have here is something else. And not just because of Trump himself, he is the cult of personality, but because of the organs of the state that have been assembled in his wake that are remarkably reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

[Lorizael]

I'm sincerely unsure what you're trying to prove with this. The category "people who call Trump/MAGA fascist" is heavily populated with politically-active Democrats, NeverTrumper Republicans, and the like, while "people who do not call Trump/MAGA fascist" includes most Republicans and people who don't follow politics that closely. It's a very popular slur for right-wingers.

It's still less baffling than that Orwell quote from PH, which just comes across as a plain non sequitur. Sorry, ya lost me.

Nobody I know who doesn't think MAGA is a fascist movement thinks MAGA is as dangerous as people who think MAGA is a fascist movement do.

...is direct empirical evidence against the claim that...

If you're looking for a tool to say, "should this party or faction be regarded as dangerous," evaluating whether it is specifically fascist is not the useful question in the first place

For whatever reason, people who have determined that MAGA is authoritarian but not fascist don't think it's as dangerous as people who think it is fascist. You yourself have repeatedly pointed out how ineffectual Trump is at implementing authoritarian policy in contrast to historical fascists, implying that fascists are somehow better at authoritarianism than simple authoritarians are (and consequently more dangerous).

[Elok]

For whatever reason, people who have determined that MAGA is authoritarian but not fascist don't think it's as dangerous as people who think it is fascist. You yourself have repeatedly pointed out how ineffectual Trump is at implementing authoritarian policy in contrast to historical fascists, implying that fascists are somehow better at authoritarianism than simple authoritarians are (and consequently more dangerous).

No, I would say that fascist is merely a flavor of authoritarian, not much different from the communist variety except insofar as it targets different people. And you can probably make a case that there are other forms of authoritarian government that don't really fit either mold cleanly, but it's not like I've studied the intricacies of all the world's dictatorships and juntas. Totalitarianism is the worse form of authoritarianism, not going to try to get into the distinction now. Trump is ineffectual because he's grossly defective in his character, not because the belief system he evidently doesn't have fits into this box or that. He's quite bad at everything except trolling and bullying.

Going on vacation tomorrow, will be AFK all day and probably much of the subsequent two weeks and change.

[Geronimo]

The more you guys handwring and refuse to acknowledge a dangerous threat, the worse it will be. I'm sure there were a lot of intellectuals in the 1930s who took the same attitude too, but history, too, was not on their side. In fact you become facilitators. Also try and understand a little bit what is happening in the ground with rank-and-file people and how their material suffering and despair is being manipulated. This part is critical in seeing the pattern too.

Rationalising it away becomes tantamount to facilitation. Mark my words.

I at least am saying that calling Trump a fascist will actually undermine opposing the dangerous threat that he represents because it's essentially absurd on its face and bears no resemblance to reality. People have been literally redefining "fascist" to use it as a label against their enemies and that is clearly backfiring and making them look more like chicken littles than Cassandras. Do you understand that the degree of danger in a political movement is in no way 1 to 1 correlated with the degree of alignment to fascism?

[Lorizael]

x-post

Noted.

But my point is about how people think of Trump and his movement. Geronimo is arguing that we shouldn't call Trump fascist because it could make it harder to effectively oppose him. I'm arguing that people who don't think of him or his movement as fascist don't think opposing him is as important. I urge you to look back and see how often you've argued that Trump can't be fascist because fascists succeeded. Maybe that's not what you really believe about fascism per se, but it is what you've said.

[Geronimo]

Really I'm most worried of all about the problem of making a blue wave materialize without the need for a recession. It seems clear to me that the usual blunt tool of deficit spending and or tax cuts could well stave off a recession triggered by all of Trumps economically toxic initiatives and that those blunt stimulus tools could easily postpone the poop hitting the fan until it's too late to help the Dems win in 2026. They don't seem to have learned *anything* from the 2024 outcome and it's making me more frustrated and appalled than ever at this ridiculous undemocratic "first past the post" election system that prevails almost all over the country and the grossly undemocratic and dysfunctional defacto 2 party system that results. Clearly there's no time to get anywhere in getting rid of the two party system so we need to ensure that blue wave materializes or Trump gets to server out his entire term with the US government as a sandbox (well more of a litterbox really) for his dumbarse supersized fustercluck notions and whims. So how will the Dems secure the blue wave in the absence of a recession? what is their plan?

So far it looks like they are all convinced that there's very little wrong with their 2024 platform and intend on approaching 2026 as 2024 2.0 except with even more focus on what a fascist Trump is. How the hell is that supposed to work? It looks like we are screwed.

[Lorizael]

I don't know how to win elections but my experience is that almost everybody who thinks strategy A is bad really means "strategy A wouldn't convince me, if I needed convincing." Like, you're sitting here arguing that because the current definition of fascism used by left-wing academics does not match the historical definition of fascism used to identify interwar authoritarian governments in Europe... Democrats will lose in 2026. I don't have anything more to say to that than lol.

[Geronimo]

This Charlie kirk thing is definitely not helping either. It's classic a martyrdom perverse result. It was definitely a bad look to keep saying "yeah it's bad that he was killed but..." let alone to be saying "here's why I actually think murdering Charlie Kirk was a good thing on various levels" or otherwise seeming to dance on the guys grave. Not only did the size of his organization explode but it feeds into all of the attacks that the Dems enemies level against the entire progressive movement.

[Geronimo]

I don't know how to win elections but my experience is that almost everybody who thinks strategy A is bad really means "strategy A wouldn't convince me, if I needed convincing." Like, you're sitting here arguing that because the current definition of fascism used by left-wing academics does not match the historical definition of fascism used to identify interwar authoritarian governments in Europe... Democrats will lose in 2026. I don't have anything more to say to that than lol.

no. I think people reject it on intuitive levels, not analytically. I'm attacking it on an analytical level because that is how you're trying to defend it. The important thing is to offer full throated opposition to Trump *without* looking like we're just insincerely regurgitating tired discredited hyperbole. After calling every republican presidential nominee a "fascist" at least since George Bush focusing on Trump as "fascist" now is only going to get the message tuned out.

[Lorizael]

I maintain that you just personally find the strategy unappealing--"regurgitating tired discredited hyperbole"--and that you also don't know how to win elections or have real evidence that the strategy is bad. Like, you could say "well Democrats lost 2024, therefore it's bad," but there are also people using the same single data point to argue that "appealing to Republican Never Trumpers" or "not condemning Israel enough" is why Democrats lost.

[Geronimo]

I maintain that you just personally find the strategy unappealing--"regurgitating tired discredited hyperbole"--and that you also don't know how to win elections or have real evidence that the strategy is bad. Like, you could say "well Democrats lost 2024, therefore it's bad," but there are also people using the same single data point to argue that "appealing to Republican Never Trumpers" or "not condemning Israel enough" is why Democrats lost.

Obviously you and the leadership of the Democratic Party agree about the strategy. I guess keep doing what you're doing. one data point doesn't mean anything.

[Lorizael]

I don't know how to win elections...

I don't think we should call MAGA a fascist movement because it will win elections; I think we should do so because it's true.

[Geronimo]

I don't think we should call MAGA a fascist movement because it will win elections; I think we should do so because it's true.

Which definition do you use? I'll take your silence on my critique of eco's 14 pt definition as implying it's not one that you are using. So that leaves the following:

No, only authoritarians brought to power by repressive, reactionary, ultranationalist, militaristic movements.

​

How is Trump more fascist than FDR by that definition either? Do you suggest that FDR could now be regarded as fascist?