On 11/9/2021 at 8:07 PM, Im_Unemployed said:I found a pretty good article that mulls over this issue after the capitol riots. Many pundits don't seem to think that Trump falls into the traditional defenition of the word.
https://www.vox.com/22225472/fascism-definition-trump-fascist-examples
>We should reserve the term “fascism” for leaders or movements that are not merely authoritarian. Fascists were revolutionaries, they aspired to control the state, economy and society (totalitarian vs authoritarian), had large, organized mass movements behind them (which included institutionalized paramilitaries alongside control of the military as well as extensive secret police and intelligence services) and of course came to power after democracy had largely failed. So to my mind Trump (and the Republican party) remain better characterized as pseudo-authoritarian rather than fascist — both because of their particular features/characteristics and because for all its weaknesses and flaws, American democracy (at least thus far) has not deteriorated to the point where constraining institutions no longer operate.
If examine Trump in a border sense then you'll notice that he fits rather snugly into the populist peg. Given that trust in the government is at an all time low, it doesn't take much to explain why people would support an political outsider with radical ideas and common man bluster.
A. All of this still doesn't address the main point, even if Trump wasn't a fascist.
B. Trump is absolutely a fascist.
Ever read "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton?
Because I have, twice in fact, and Trump checks like, every box. It's why I said if Trump isn't a fascist Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco aren't fascist. All of these leaders line up perfectly to the definition.
I COULD go through all the attributes, but I would mostly be copying the book. And if you disagree with Paxton's point that means you think you know fascism better than someone who pays his bills through research about this exact topic.
Unlike Shapiro, the man isn't a propagandist, but a scholar. So also don't claim this book is "leftist propoganda" because then I'll know for sure you aren't interacting in good faith. But instead trying to performanatively "own" me.