One nazi less?

[Elok]

It's useless anyway! Almost all of that checklist could be fairly interpreted to describe George W. Bush who, for all his faults, left office voluntarily after eight years. 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; you should be evaluating whether it is authoritarian. If it's actually communist or some generic strongman dictatorship of some sort, that doesn't really matter so much from the perspective of the governed, except insofar as a different set of people might be getting liquidated. Questions to actually ask: does it have a bunch of paramilitary groups attached to it? Do its members seem deeply hostile to civil liberties? Does it have a history of ignoring democratic norms? Does it try to physically threaten and intimidate (or actually assault) critics and opponents? Etc.

(Yes, a lot of these do apply to MAGA, and MAGA is in fact bad news, even if Trump himself is useless)

[Provost Harrison]

It's useless anyway! Almost all of that checklist could be fairly interpreted to describe George W. Bush who, for all his faults, left office voluntarily after eight years. 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; you should be evaluating whether it is authoritarian. If it's actually communist or some generic strongman dictatorship of some sort, that doesn't really matter so much from the perspective of the governed, except insofar as a different set of people might be getting liquidated. Questions to actually ask: does it have a bunch of paramilitary groups attached to it? Do its members seem deeply hostile to civil liberties? Does it have a history of ignoring democratic norms? Does it try to physically threaten and intimidate (or actually assault) critics and opponents? Etc.

(Yes, a lot of these do apply to MAGA, and MAGA is in fact bad news, even if Trump himself is useless)

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." — George Orwell

​

[Lorizael]

It's useless anyway! Almost all of that checklist could be fairly interpreted to describe George W. Bush who, for all his faults, left office voluntarily after eight years. 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; you should be evaluating whether it is authoritarian. If it's actually communist or some generic strongman dictatorship of some sort, that doesn't really matter so much from the perspective of the governed, except insofar as a different set of people might be getting liquidated. Questions to actually ask: does it have a bunch of paramilitary groups attached to it? Do its members seem deeply hostile to civil liberties? Does it have a history of ignoring democratic norms? Does it try to physically threaten and intimidate (or actually assault) critics and opponents? Etc.

(Yes, a lot of these do apply to MAGA, and MAGA is in fact bad news, even if Trump himself is useless)

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.

[Geronimo]

This is ridiculously disingenuous. This is "lolol so you're saying all vegetarians are Nazis" level argumentation. If X has features A and B, and Y has features A and C, then logically you would have to conclude Y=X. No, buddy, your willingness to insert logical fallacies into my definition doesn't make my definition bad.

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.​

If you really want to go down the path of defining something that has no defined edges consider the following 'characteristics' to be indicative of a fascist regime. It's not necessarily the only one you can use, but these 14 tenets have been documented long enough that it's not 'tailored' to Trump - it just happens that he ticks a lot of boxes or wannabe boxes.

Also, you don't need all of them to be fascistic, and you don't become fascistic just because you have some:

Strong nationalism (wrapping up in the flag, symbols, etc)
Disdain for human rights (willing to torture, abuse, etc)
Disdain for arts, elites and intellectuals (attacks on academia, defunding)
Identification of a scapegoat enemy or class (ethnic groups, religious groups, liberals, communists, etc)
Exaltation of the military (increased funding of armed forces, glamorization)
Rampant sexism and stereotyping of genders (women in traditional roles, anti-gay agenda, opposition to abortion, etc)
Control of mass media
Co-opting the dominant religion (used as tool to manipulate public opinion even if the religious teachings are antithetical to the messaging)
Co-opting corporate power (mutually symbiotic relationship where corporate powers props up the leaders, and the leaders give 'protection' to the corporations and owners)
Suppressing labour unions and labour bargaining powers
Obsession with crime and punishment (law enforcement at a national level with unbridled power and resources, suppression of civil liberties)
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)
Fraudulent / sham elections (pretence of elections to give veneer of will of the people)

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.
​

[Lorizael]

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.​

Conceptual packages are not and never have been defined as a set of independently sufficient conditions. So, again, there's no rule of inference like "X has features A and B, Y has features A and C, therefore Y=X" we have to be careful to avoid running afoul of. That would be a demand that no concept can share features with another concept. And I am absolutely positive you don't believe that, because it would render essentially any definition of anything completely invalid.

[Geronimo]

I'm coming down hard against Trump being described as fascist at least to-date. I'm also alarmed that definitions of fascism being offered to support that conclusion seem apt to fail in the formative inter-war and ww2 environment when textbook fascism reached its zenith as a political movement. I'm not trying to say that labeling Trump as a fascist is unfair or TDS or any of that crap. I *do* recognize that it *does* undermine the credibility of his critics. Maybe we do need new language for it. Language that focuses on the salient flaws of the Trump administration (like Uncle Sparky's proposal that we label it Trumpism) will be the answer, especially if people get busy attaching those flaws in lists to the attributes of Trumpism. I'm no influencer or professor of history though so I recognize that's not going to get further than a discussion, but it will make me feel better to see that acknowledged.

[Lorizael]

I *do* recognize that it *does* undermine the credibility of his critics.

I've yet to make a single untrue factual claim about anything Trump and his administration are actually doing, and I've made multiple correct predictions about what they would do. If you doubt my credibility because you don't understand how conceptual analysis works, that's entirely on you.

[Geronimo]

I need to clarify. When I worry about the credibility of Trump's critics being a problem for me, it's nightmares of a blue wave failing to materialize in 2026. It's not me saying that I think you or the people I'm trying to make understand how Trump is not meaningfully a fascist don't have any credibility to me because they are wrong about this. I'm talking about the credibility of the message of the primary potential opposition to Trump to politically active and engaged "independents" which is a much larger group than most people realize in the US.