Ian Baruma explores in today's Observer whether the Tangerine Tyrant is a fascist (and the US is becoming a fascist state).
He concludes that (as always) its difficult to finally & firmly define racism, but if not fascistic then the difference is only really a matter of degree....
[The Observer are claiming the whole article is free to read (in front of their paywall) so you can access it here:
https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/the-age-of-american-fascism ]
If not fascist, why fascist shape?
to get all academic about it.
its a sort of Q. from Wittgenstein about meaning; in the late-Wittgenstein he makes an argument about definitions being sorts of clusters (his example is defining the word 'game'), and so defining fascist is difficult because its been used for so many, at least partly dissimilar regimes & political leaders.... so defining it at anything other than a relatively high level of abstraction can be difficult; but this is not to say the word is meanginess!
I didn't agree with his definition of fascism (for example it entirely misses the fact that it arises in reaction to the reality or fear of the left winning elections) - but it is interesting that this is still a question to be discussed in UK mainstream media - while Mastodon came to the same conclusion about Trump literally years ago.
Yes, although as I noted in a reply defining Fascism is not so easy.... but yes, Baruma *does* seem late to the game in relation to discussions here
Any politicised term is likely to be a site of conflicting interpretations. If the concept ‘table’ was political people would be engaged in endless arguments over whether or not legs are essential. But terms are conflicted in interesting ways. Definitions of fascism that enumerate its ideological and cultural characteristics suit those thinking inside a ‘liberal democracy’ framework, in which politics is experienced as a perpetual ‘battle of ideas’ in a public sphere imagined as something like an Oxbridge debating chamber, an abstraction stripped of economic exploitation, power, and historical change, in which it would be bad manners to ask ‘who is paying you to say this ?’
Think instead of politics as the expression of conflicting economic interests and the historical context in which fascism actually arises moves to centre stage. In Spain in the 1930s and Chile in the 1970s it was the actual election of radical socialist governments; in 1920s-30s Italy, Germany, Austria, etc, it was the fear that capitalism was collapsing and the left about to take over, as it just had done in Russia.
What are the policy implications of understanding the current rise of fascism from the perpetual ‘battle of ideas’ perspective ? Not many, I would argue – even in education, learning the lessons of history seems pointless if fascism is always lurking somewhere in an abstract a-historical realm of ideas; may as well carry on as we are, into the holocaust... But understanding it in historical context makes the best policy choices clear: if fascism is a reaction to the actual or feared disintegration of capitalism, and imminent fundamental economic change (in the past to socialism, now eco-socialism), then policies that minimise the inevitable social disruption of that change, protect the vulnerable, and positively manage the change become obvious choices.
interesting point(s); I would of course always agree with inserting the economic into the discussion....
But, I do wonder whether all political positions are not about the concern for the end of the current economic settlement - politics being about power, and power be always articulated in one way or the other in the economic realm, would seem to indicate that even if we look at the origins of (modern) democracy it was about the maintenance of political economic elite power?
@ChrisMayLA6 ‘Brecht on Fascism not being merely barbarism for its own sake:’ https://www.kmjn.org/snippets/brecht35_fascism.html
No Nation is free from becoming a fascist state. None should doubt, that fascism is the barbaric ideology of celebrity cults dependent on corporate sovereignty; the monopolies of industrial tech., so Trump is 100% fascist. Without the collaboration of the ultra rich investor financiers receiving the tax and policy benefits of deregulated capital markets, he would not have the power to circumvent The Constitution, stack the judiciary, the legislature and gain the bias favour of the media to secure the ascendancy to his dictatorship and become the Emperor he clearly desires to be. Corporate sovereignty and its totalitarian world order is a negative-sum game playing one party against another to get the finance and media attention one party needs to win elections, so antitrust corporate interests can protect their business with dictators to steal or destroy other Nations resources. How else could they preserve their Empire’s programme of ecocide? As such it is diametrically opposed to the democratic rights of diverse interests, so it is the antithesis of Republic Sovereignty. A Federation of Republics can defeat its cruel and diabolical reign of corruption and violence. #Fascism #Barbarism #DiabolicalViolence #CorporateSovereignty #Empire #Freedom #RepublicSovereignty #TheFederation
If he walks, talks and acts like a fascist, he is a fascist.
Disregarding the co-equal branches that define the US gov, using masked paramilitaries on US citizens/residents, constant propaganda of division and lies, aggressively expansionist. How is this even a question?
Well, this is where the academic in me & the political poster part company - the latter agrees with you completely, the former is a bit, 'well, now lets be clear about our terms'.... apologies for the other half of me 😉
Understood.
To me, I square the circle by framing the question as "what type of fascist is he?". As your screenshot said, even in the 30s, each fascist leader had a different style.
Emeritus Prof Christopher May
Wulfy—Speaker to the machines
GeofCox
Andy Dearden
AM💙🏴
Paul Healey
TC Won't Give In To Lies