Disgusting IMO, but possibly correct

[Timsup2nothin]

What about Trump and his authoritarianism would justify the label "fascist" rather than just garden-variety electoral authoritarianism? I think Trump's just a US version of Putin, Erdogan, Chavez, Orban, Kaczynski, et al. The specific ideologies are different for all of these people, but the general idea - winning elections with a bunch of populist and nationalist rhetoric, and then using the resulting power to chip away at everything that makes a regime democratic - are obviously similar. This is of course extremely worrying: this sort of thing was not supposed to happen in the US, and we're confronted with the fact that liberal democracy is in decline worldwide, being slowly rolled back and replaced with a type of electoral authoritarianism. But I don't known that it has more than superficial similarities to fascism Mussolini-style.

I think that the only thing differentiating it from "fascism Mussolini style" is the word "yet." We look back at the fascist regimes of the 1940s and see these differences. But if you look at the same regimes from a 1920s or 1930s perspective they look a lot different. Yes, Bannon and his populists have not formed a party militia operating under only token control by the state...yet. Yes, they have not discredited all branches of government to the point where the people as a whole will accept consolidation of power into the hands of a single man promising order...yet. But those are definitely the ideals they are striving towards.

And they are wrapped in the same nationalist, state first moral codes they were before. Trump's supporters are ready to sacrifice your liberty to make America great again. They are ready to go into the factories like the greatest generation and build the machines of war to make America strong again, and anyone who isn't a 'real American' can either be conscripted or take their places in the factories as forced labor while they march off to glory themselves. To avoid that fate is simple in their minds, all you have to do is "wake up" and join them 'freely.'

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What about Trump and his authoritarianism would justify the label "fascist" rather than just garden-variety electoral authoritarianism? I think Trump's just a US version of Putin, Erdogan, Chavez, Orban, Kaczynski, et al.

Daughter of Zeus yes!
Glad someone with some perspective pointed out the obvious.

Clears much of what I discussed. Folks I did not argue weather Trump could be mean and bad big time.
But weather he could be a freaking fascist. Big difference.
And honestly - I think compared to fascism, communism is the next big thing, which it is not. Fascism is dead. Our only worry is potential siblings. And differentiation so we even stand a chance to properly understand what is happening.

The specific ideologies are different for all of these people, but the general idea - winning elections with a bunch of populist and nationalist rhetoric, and then using the resulting power to chip away at everything that makes a regime democratic - are obviously similar. This is of course extremely worrying: this sort of thing was not supposed to happen in the US, and we're confronted with the fact that liberal democracy is in decline worldwide, being slowly rolled back and replaced with a type of electoral authoritarianism. But I don't known that it has more than superficial similarities to fascism Mussolini-style.

Basic sensible musing. Nothing to add or distract.

 

[Commodore]

Most conservatives are over fifty, and over-fifties are, almost by definition, not-cool, so that's your first stumbling block.

I noticed how you conveniently left out the part where I said there was a study that shows teens today are the most conservative teens have been since WWII. Seems the up and coming generation is going to be much more conservative than millennials, just as Generation X was more conservative than the Baby Boomers.

 

[timtofly]

What would be more hedonistic than the free thinking of the 60's??

I think that there will have to be a point where we have more money to throw away on a grander scale to return to the "let it all go" attitude. Yes most have it great except for the 50% of the country that complain it is not that great so make it greater. I am not sure which half that is though.

@ thread.

I doubt Trump is taking us into fascism. He fits into the mold of a transnationalist. I suppose that is the neo-socialist view of capitalistic maneuverings. The difference is he wants to seal up the borders and fix a hemorrhaging US, so as to form a better "company" on the national scene. Perhaps the members of his core advisors in the background want something more out of him??? I would be more afraid of him acquiescing to those around him, instead of sticking with his own goals of where he wants to go. Every corporate takeover has it's casualties.

 

[Lexicus]

"A study showed" is far from saying something is definitely the truth, though. Personally I think what you're saying is absurd given that it appears a more are hostile to capitalism than to socialism.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I
Still pondering why there seems such a fascistic-inclining mass hysteria of late.

Because culture is bend on victimization. And agitation equals fascism. It is as it was back in the 30s. The lamentations of socialists and communists lead exactly nowhere, fundamentally. So fascism arose, on the hope that nationalism was the ingredient missing to give momentum.
Just that fascism is dead. But sensationalist nationalism with, depending on the country, a socialist or neo-liberal touch, is ready to go online again. And that is what we call fascism these days.
That is a hyperbole. On the other hand: It is a quit correct reflection of the role et large fascism serves: To bridge the gap between the aspirations of the left and the resentments of the disillusioned.

One thing that I think can be attributed to the rise of the alt-right in Western civilization is our natural tendency to rebel against the establishment. For a long time, the left was considered to be the "counter-culture", and therefore cool, because the right held all the political power.

That is wrong on many levels. In the hard powers - taxation, legal restrictions, unions, the left has been fracked until it bleeds by the right in the previous decades. Only in identity politics and moral politics the left triumphed. A triumph culture and the media has learned to eat up. Exactly because it does not threaten the status of any individual. It is in many ways a faux war. I believe Bernie got it right and others are dumb.
But I also believe you got it right and Traitorfish wrong - in a specific way.
I think what you refer to us the "PC culture". Identity politics a well-meaning left never knew how to properly handle, while the hard politics - wages, taxes, unions, frankly monetary empowerment, fell under the bus and got claimed by the right. There are good reason to rebel against that. Period. But I am sure the alt-right are full of shat reasons.

At last: Regarding fascism. Imagine Trump actually tried to take over. Imagine him actually trying to be a Fascist leader. He would be ousted within a weak. Because even if he replaced a hundred heads. The system is firm and clear in its basic ideology. It won't tolerate a fascist. It will annihilate him in a sec. The CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the local police... they all need a lot more than a loud mouth to tolerate fascism. That should be obvious,
I admit it is worrying that 50 or what % of Americans have no due respect for the law and courts. But they are not the system. The system is the system. And America got a fracktastic system compared to most of the world.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think that the only thing differentiating it from "fascism Mussolini style" is the word "yet." We look back at the fascist regimes of the 1940s and see these differences. But if you look at the same regimes from a 1920s or 1930s perspective they look a lot different. Yes, Bannon and his populists have not formed a party militia operating under only token control by the state...yet. Yes, they have not discredited all branches of government to the point where the people as a whole will accept consolidation of power into the hands of a single man promising order...yet. But those are definitely the ideals they are striving towards.

And they are wrapped in the same nationalist, state first moral codes they were before. Trump's supporters are ready to sacrifice your liberty to make America great again. They are ready to go into the factories like the greatest generation and build the machines of war to make America strong again, and anyone who isn't a 'real American' can either be conscripted or take their places in the factories as forced labor while they march off to glory themselves. To avoid that fate is simple in their minds, all you have to do is "wake up" and join them 'freely.'

Again, though, what they are doing is all very much what electoral authoritarians worldwide have been doing. Somewhere deep in the Trump thread, I claimed that Trump is fascist-lite, and one of the posters with a strong history background - it was either Dachs or Park, I can't remember which - pointed out a really fundamental difference: fascists don't care much about the individual, thinking of them as a cog in a national/racial machine much greater than themselves.

The result is that fascism is a totalitarian ideology, whereas Trumpism is authoritarian but not at all totalitarian. Bannon turns out to be a Strauss-Howe generational theorist thinking that we're fighting a huge battle against radical Islam, globalism, et cetera, while other figures are working to their own ends (Ryan is a Randroid, Pence is a fundie, and so on and so forth). Nationalism is part and parcel of most authoritarian regimes, and Bannon's influence could lead to a higher degree of authoritarianism and/or unnecessary war(s) that help to bring about the big cyclical crisis he thinks we're in. But while right-wing and populist, the labels "fascist" and also "totalitarian" don't fit, with a fairly low probability that they ever really will.

Authoritarianism is really bad, and substantial amounts of liberty will be lost. How much is as yet uncertain: I expect an authoritarian event on the scale of 100-400 milliPutins, but with high uncertainty. Still, what is popping up in the early 21st century is not fascism - it's electoral semi-autocracy where you're mostly free to criticize the government (as long as you don't get much of a following) and your votes are even mostly counted correctly, but where every instrument of power is stacked in such a way as to prevent people from actually doing anything to change the regime or seriously impede its agenda.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again, though, what they are doing is all very much what electoral authoritarians worldwide have been doing. Somewhere deep in the Trump thread, I claimed that Trump is fascist-lite, and one of the posters with a strong history background - it was either Dachs or Park, I can't remember which - pointed out a really fundamental difference: fascists don't care much about the individual, thinking of them as a cog in a national/racial machine much greater than themselves.

You don't think that a crusade against the foes of "western civilization" qualifies as a "national/racial machine much greater than the individual?

You think that these people in Trump's inner circle care at all about the generic "individual"? I grant that they very clearly care about their own individual selves.

You think the people chanting about "make America great again" aren't placing the nation first and are genuinely focused on improving their own lot in life? Because that doesn't seem to fit with the facts that on just about every issue supporting Trump was against the self interests of almost everyone who supports him. We have a new thread on it every time we turn around, and most of it goes by without comment. Farmers in California saying "get rid of my workers." People in the poorest counties in America saying "cancel my health insurance." Who actually voted for Trump from genuine self interest? (actually, I can answer that, since I live in what amounts to a defense contractor company town that inevitably booms when there's a war on, but...)

Yes, all these top Republicans have their own agendas (Ryan is a Randroid! Heh!!!) but as they all pull together towards this "electoral authoritarianism" I don't see how it is all that different from the latter days of the Weimar Republic. All we need is a state of emergency, and do you really think that isn't in the offing?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Frum has a good article in the Atlantic arguing that Trump won't be a Hitler-style fascist, just a pocket-stuffer.

 

[Lexicus]

But Frum is a right-wing ghoul

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Frum has a good article in the Atlantic arguing that Trump won't be a Hitler-style fascist, just a pocket-stuffer.

Is there some rule of fascism that a leader isn't a real fascist if they enrich themselves? That might preclude Trump/Bannon if there were, but I am not aware of this rule.

 

[W|M]

But Frum is a right-wing ghoul

Isn't Frum Vanuatuan Jesus?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Is there some rule of fascism that a leader isn't a real fascist if they enrich themselves? That might preclude Trump/Bannon if there were, but I am not aware of this rule.

No, Frum just argues that it won't advance beyond a mere kleptocracy. I'm pondering his view, but it least gave me some grounds to be a little less wee-weed up (to borrow a phrase from Obama) than I've been about the level of menace Trump poses.

But Frum is a right-wing ghoul

Good article for all that. Give it a read. Some of the sharpest criticism of Trump has come from the right: Sykes, McMullin, Will, Brooks.

 

[Lexicus]

I read it earlier in the week. Didn't find it very reassuring.

 

[Traitorfish]

I noticed how you conveniently left out the part where I said there was a study that shows teens today are the most conservative teens have been since WWII. Seems the up and coming generation is going to be much more conservative than millennials, just as Generation X was more conservative than the Baby Boomers.

That's a different argument altogether. If teens are becoming more conservative, it doesn't follow that conservatism is becoming counter-cultural, or the counter-culture more conservative. It's as plausible, and far more likely, that teens are simply become less counter-cultural.

If you could dig up a summary of this study, I suppose we could look at it in more detail, as it stands, without even the definition of "conservative" that the study employs, it's all just speculation.

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administration-considering-narrower-travel-ban

“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government,” said Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump on immigration issues, appearing on the CBS program Face the Nation.

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”