General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumstom nichols thinks we're over reacting calling it fascism.
im not gonna share his thread, but i will share rachel bitecofers reply and mine.
getting a lot of love for me.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)DENVERPOPS
(8,893 posts)The simplest definition of FASCISM, is the merger of Government and Corporations...
While you are in the Dictionary, look up the definitions of:
Insurrection
Sedition
CABAL
Dogma
Cult
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)DENVERPOPS
(8,893 posts)I will try to find the comment I had intended to send it to!!!!!!!! Sorry, and thx for the heads up......Be well!
How embarrassing..........
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)getting back to me!
no_hypocrisy
(46,311 posts)Irish_Dem
(48,018 posts)mopinko
(70,382 posts)they bought fing scotus.
i think tom should have a long chat w sen whitehouse.
Irish_Dem
(48,018 posts)Illegally installed Trump into the WH.
And appear to have a big chunk of the DOJ and FBI as well.
Congress and the Supreme Court which is now just a corrupt junta.
Hell how much of our intelligence community is on Putin's payroll?
I have been saying this for quite some time and gotten pushback.
Now people are finally paying attention.
keep_left
(1,799 posts)...in 1971 was really the start of the the drive for hegemony on the far right. I first recall seeing the mask slip when Clinton defeated GHW Bush. Immediately following that loss, the neocon faction of the Republican party became utterly enraged, and it was clear that many of them really believed they deserved to rule forever. Not long after that came the rise of Newt Gingrich, who more than anyone is responsible for the rise of what I call the "wreckers": those who make politics a completely zero-sum game, who believe no compromise is possible, and who always seem to leave a trail of destruction in their wake for others to clean up.
Here's a clip from the show.
oasis
(49,489 posts)keep_left
(1,799 posts)mopinko
(70,382 posts)dchill
(38,623 posts)...competence and organization involved." Do tell! Where? When? How likely is that before the ethics-free SCOTUS signs all our rights and freedoms away, trading them for yacht trips?
GuppyGal
(1,748 posts)mopinko
(70,382 posts)yeah, i dunno.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)That actual scholarly experts on the subject use the term "small-f fascism" to describe the current usage meaning "anyone who I don't like".
Words have meanings.
99% of the time, the word you're looking for is...
Authoritarian. Sometimes Totalitarian.
Example: "The authoritarian governor of Florida".
mopinko
(70,382 posts)WarGamer
(12,511 posts)Post WW1, an Italian political philosopher came up with the term "Fascism"... I forgot his name off the top of my head. This guy influenced Mussolini and even was the ghost writer for Mussolini in his Book about fascism.
Mussolini styled his form and philosophy of government around this concept. Fascism is... Mussolini.
It's like Nazism. If you don't have an NDSAP party ID number issued pre-1945, you're not a Nazi.
Fascism, as defined by Mussolini... is (to summarize)
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, fascism interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and tending to express itself in the conscience and will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing as one conscience and one will, along the self-same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, or a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality...."
Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but many conclude that fascism eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. This is even more complicated when discussing Nazism, which as a socio-political movement began as a form of National Socialism, but altered its character once Hitler was handed state power in Germany. See: Fascism and ideology. A minority of scholars and political commentators argue that fascism is a form of corporatist socialism similar to that in other countries with extensive state regulation of the economy. See Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism.
And please note... when it is noted that Fascism is "Anti-Liberal" that isn't the 21st Century of Liberalism. The classic definition of liberalism is limited gov't, religious freedom and respect for the free market.
Just because someone is anti-Democracy doesn't mean they're fascist. EVERY single form of Authoritarian philosophy is anti-Democratic.
plimsoll
(1,672 posts)when it is noted that Fascism is "Anti-Liberal" that isn't the 21st Century of Liberalism. The classic definition of liberalism is limited gov't, religious freedom and respect for the free market.
Is more a 18th Century definition, sure "progressive" may have been more current for what a 21st century person would recognize as liberal, but it's often the ultra conservatives who use that definition of liberal in Europe today and did in the 1930s.
Both Mussolini and Hitler were not only rabidly anti-communist, but anti-trade union, anti-democratic socialism virtually every left adjacent economic philosophy. They used the language of socialism publicly, but the meetings for the faithful and their own writings always told a very different story.
Fascism doesn't have the impact we would like, but Authoritarian has no impact and a significant portion of the right has openly expressed disdain for democracy.
It's really time to stop playing Godwins law games and find a phrase that explains the behavior. Behaviorally the Freedom caucus, MAGA folks and particularly the Christian Dominionists are so close to fascism, that saying they aren't starts looking intellectually dishonest.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)Even though words mean things... just come up with the most powerful adjective available to label the political opponent?
And your last paragraph...
Is wrong.
Fascists wouldn't approve of any religious observance, 2A rights or private property rights. And fascism certainly doesn't like a free market.
I mean... I don't really care. Call them space aliens. Or call them Whigs.
But the reality is... people call their opponents fascists, nazis and commies because they're seeking the most inflammatory term to paint their opponent.
It's shallow and lazy debate.
Words have meaning.
plimsoll
(1,672 posts)But the Christian Dominionists meet most academics definition of Fascist, however painful that is for us to admit.
The 20th century Fascists did approve of religion, the Italian Fascists and Falangists in Spain were both overtly and openly Pro Catholic. There was a Protestant minister who tried to meld his denomination into the Nazi movement. That failed primarily because much of the early Nazi support came from Bavaria which was heavily Catholic. If you want to say they don't allow diversity of religion that may be true, but again the Christian Dominionists don't seem particularly keen on other peoples religions either.
I'm not saying we should be lazy, and for years I advocated cautious use of rhetoric. But as early as 2003 the Christian Dominionists were saying and doing alarming things. the intervening 2 decades has done nothing to tone down their vitriol or the threats they are prepared to make. I don't care what you want to call them, but sadly the fascist label is as close as you'll get to something that conveys the threat and danger to a civil society that they pose.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)Authoritarian is more accurate.
And Fascism certainly wouldn't be in favor of a 1st or 2nd Amendment or private property ownership, free market or capitalism as the right currently embraces.
Fascism bottom line, individual rights are secondary to the power of the State.
plimsoll
(1,672 posts)1st amendment youre right.
2nd amendment is trickier. The ownership and practice with firearms was encouraged, for non-Jews.
As you said the Nazis in particular were a bundle of weird. The one unifying principal you could point to was a subjugation ( you could say domination) of out groups.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)The Russian revolution was actually the primary factor shaping the history of the 20th Century.
The Bolsheviks started a societal tsunami that swept across Europe. Fascism and Nazism were BOTH reactionary movements to Bolshevism and later Communism.
So, of course they were anti-Communist. They were opposing movements.
Both ended up being authoritarian movements that were responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th Century.
I'm happy both are relegated to the trash heap of history.
plimsoll
(1,672 posts)hadEnuf
(2,224 posts)Why are we so worried about using exact definitions when it comes to them?
They are Fascists. Repeat it often.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)use whatever words you want.
They might not be accurate, but knock yourself out.
Poiuyt
(18,135 posts)now calls it fascism:
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
So does Ruth Ben-Ghiat
https://lucid.substack.com/p/what-is-fascism
And Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them
So we're - we've seen his election campaign focus on Black Lives Matter, on a minority social justice movement. We've seen him promise patriotic education in a second term - all sorts of tactics that we ideologically associate with far-right ultranationalism, i.e., fascism.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/21/937638178/-how-fascism-works-author-on-trump-s-attempts-to-overturn-election-results
Now, what's happening with the GOP here in America may not be exactly like what happened in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. Call it American Fascism or neo-fascism if you'd like. But there's more going on than just authoritarianism.
LiberalFighter
(51,376 posts)Cha
(298,049 posts)I thought TN was smarter.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Important words have important, powerful meanings that need to be protected so they can be used to help people understand threats and solutions and take the right stands.
These days eager mudslingers on both right and left grab the word "fascism" to hurl at each other, like rock, mud, rotten melon rind, whatever it actually is doesn't matter as long as it's available and sounds bad.
There are different kinds of RW authoritarianism, of various degrees of extremism, and fascism is only one of them, albeit one of the very worst.
Our RW opponents here are not all fascists, and that's a mercy.
tRump's probably a sorta wannabe fascist because he loves the idea of people having to adore him as embodiment of "the state" they pledge to serve. His MAGAs are generally authoritarian personalities and ready to obey and worship, less so others who vote for him. I took a look at Tom's entries, and agree with the poster who thinks he may be too "lazy" to commit to what it would take to impose on others, though. Also too cowardly to try.
I think there's virtually no chance McConnell and most of his wing are the slightest bit interested in making the giant investments of wealth and attention to impose and maintain fascist control on society, to change culture to serving the state over individual rights.
Even the most greedy RWers, authoritarian and otherwise, in other nations are typically happy to let people live mostly free and get along as they choose, just coming down on those who cross them and dissidents who threaten their control.
It's of course necessary to know who your enemies and your potential allies are, and who theirs are also.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,617 posts)I would like to take issue with this statement:
Even the most greedy RW authoritarians are usually happy to let people live mostly free and get along as they choose, just punishing and persecuting those who cross them and dissidents who threaten their control.
I would rather it say:
"Even the most greedy RW authoritarians are usually happy let people live to serve them with little or no pay, no healthcare, no labor laws, no bodily rights, no civil rights, no dissent, and no path to justice"
I could have added more but just wanted to point out your over-simplification.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)In actual practice they actually find it most profitable, and by far easiest, to keep workers working and not force people to revolt, allowing a functional stability. After all, really unhappy workers have a way of not showing up for work and eventually burning the factory down instead. They also more often than not maintain a weak voting system that doesn't threaten their control.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,617 posts)But the rest of them will push everything to the limit until there has to be bloodshed to change things. Then the cycle repeats. Social media has added a new twist though as it keeps people very stupid - that and RW media but that too has a shelf life.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)Fascism, by definition, runs counter to modern conservative philosophy including limited gov't, religious freedom, private property rights and individual freedoms including the 2A.
Like I said in my other post... 99% of the time, when people say fascist... they should have used the word authoritarian.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)mopinko
(70,382 posts)WarGamer
(12,511 posts)True Fascism, let's call if "Capital F" Fascism... the OG Mussolini version
1) Wouldn't recognize individual rights as those in the Constitution. No 1A or 2A.
2) No freedom of religion
3) No free financial markets.
4) No capitalism except for the most wealthy.
Fascism means State control over all aspects of society.
So the belief that a fascist would approve of the US Constitution or the US economy or US financial system is pretty silly.
Fascist equals total state control.
mopinko
(70,382 posts)and have only given them lip service in my lifetime.
of course they dont approve, theyve been chipping away at it for my whole life.
and if controlling what you read, what your kids learn, and what you do w your own body isnt enough, and rich ppl who own most of the govt and the damn scotus, what are you waiting for? what do you need to see?
mopinko
(70,382 posts)but its a threat to american democracy. the only question is how high the body count will be.
when the vast majority want something done about guns, but instead govts move in the opposite direction, while blood runs in the street, it isnt democracy.
whatever the hell it is, it must be stopped.
cuz there rly could be a day when its too late.
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)GOTV
Nasruddin
(756 posts)Anyway, there may be diffs that will get you an A in your Poli Sci or Hist Mod Europe class, but as far
as political action goes, what are the differences that make a difference? How would one act differently
when one has realized one unpleasant social movement is authoritarian, monarchist, fascist, or whatever else
undesired system?
hunter
(38,353 posts)... and something worse for anyone not white or not the right flavor of "white."
It's become something more complicated these days now that previously favored flavors of white people, those who always appreciated the light hand of their masters upon the reigns, begin to understand they are no longer considered all that "special" by their fascist masters in this twenty first century world economy.
The entire white suburban automobile-centric nuclear family lifestyle was created by a fascist state to maximize profits and minimize political resistance. The "freedoms" of this culture were an illusion, as most any non-white person always knew, and many white political dissidents soon discovered.
This U.S.A. facism may have preferable to more heavy-handed political ideologies practiced elsewhere around the world in the twentieth century, but it was never the "good old days," or even a path to better days, whatever Walter Cronkite was claiming on the television news machine.
My mom and dad are white beatnik artists and pacifists who never rocked the boat too much (although they did at times get a little close) who retired on my dad's day-job union pension. My dad marvels at his pension sometimes. He knows my mom worked harder, fought harder, and raised her children to be fierce, yet her social security check are not their primary income.
Had my parents been "angry black people" or angry LGBTQ people, or angry Communist people, or merely uppity independent women, they'd have been shit out of luck. When the baby souls were being sorted out in heaven my dad drew the nice straight white guy born in California card. Like winning the lottery.
In the city I grew up in an eccentric white couple with too many kids might buy a house in a bankrupt housing development, but that simply wasn't in the cards for anyone who wasn't white with a secure union job like my dad's, or white with cash in hand.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Disrupting and dismantling a highly organized system like, I dunno...a functional government...only requires the will to do so. That's how so-called social contracts work, something that both our CIA and Russia's KGB knew all too well. Oh, hey - Valimir Putin was in the KGB, wasn't he? What a funny coincidence!
Anyway, it's far easier, cheaper and faster to throw chaos into an organized system and break it than it is to build something functional to replace it. But that's the part Tom seems to be missing. Fascism doesn't have to be functional as a government, it only has to be able to terrorize people to hang on to power.
onecaliberal
(32,998 posts)flashman13
(687 posts)of rich and very intelligent people behind it all. I refer you to Senator Whitehouse's series, The Scheme. The right has been working toward this SCOTUS for the last 50 years. Don't be distracted by the useful idiots like Jordon, Graham, Cruz, et. al. They are just creators of chaos as a distraction. There really are many capable, though bent, people behind the curtain. Many of them are clearly Fascists.
UTUSN
(70,791 posts)Marius25
(3,213 posts)I'm Jewish. Not only is what Republicans are doing fascism, it's straight out of the Nazi Germany playbook.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)There WILL NOT be a repeat of Nazi Germany in this country if I have anything to do with it.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)Take that to the bank, folks.
That position would be a death sentence.
Enuff said.
liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)It's still fascism
WarGamer
(12,511 posts)bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)4dog
(505 posts)"t is unclear how best to describe the United States in the Jim Crow era, when a quasi-fascist polity was embedded within a putative democracy. Some scholars, drawing on the example of South Africa in the time of apartheid, use the term Herrenvolk democracy to describe a situation in which parts of the population enjoy full democratic rights while others are entirely excluded."
Review by Eric Foner of By Hands Now Known: Jim Crows Legal Executioners
by Margaret A. Burnham in New York Review of Books. Sorry, paywall not easily evaded.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Don't wear out the ability of your fellow citizens to hear that word and be alarmed. (That's already happening. It's like "woke," it's becoming meaningless.)
The day may come - and soon - when we'll *need* that word. Conserve it.
NOW: Just WHO need that warning misunderstood, denigrated, and ignored while they spend billions teaching people it means "Democrat"?
His warning is given BECAUSE of the surge in fascistic leaders and sympathies. Among SOME on the right.