In my line of work, we would call this kind of classification “rule-in or rule-out.” Fascism isn’t defined by rule-outs - aspects that, with a single negative result would rule out the classification. Fascism is a rule-in classification. Just in the last week, T**** exhibited a major rule-in behavior, namely creating an out-group to demonize for just being who they are regardless of the risk of violence against that group and their community, in order to gain power. If T**** was an otherwise normal Republican politician, that action would be enough on its own to justify the label “fascist.”
11 Likes
I do. This kind of academic, detached think piece is a major part of the problem. This utter insistence on some academic “textbook” definition of something like fascism isn’t particularly helpful in dealing with what’s happening in the real world. Of course Trump doesn’t look exactly like Hitler, because he’s not. It also seems like the argument here is in part, “well, it’s ONLY a fascism if it’s successful”… which… like… LOLL!!! Seriously!
But also I’m a bit tired of people like hiding behind their academic expertise to take themselves out of the flow of history, and act as if they’re just impartial adjudicators of everything else happening. As if they are not part of events… Enough of that nonsense! That’s part of the reason why academic has become such an easy target from the far right, because people publish shit like this, which dances around real issues to appear impartial. None of us are, which I know you know. We can do our best to get to the truth of things (and more often than not, fail), but to pretend like we somehow exist out of time does none of us any favors. We are embedded in the world, and we should do our level best to remember that… this guy utterly failed.
Part of why definitions of fascism (or other political ideologies) were developed was not to fit everything into a slot perfectly, but to act as an early warning system, so that we don’t have another mass genocide. We keep failing at that, in part because people with power and privilege keep insisting on this perfect comparison that will never hold, because of context.
Well, but we know, as people working in history fields, that change over time is the name of the game. Are we really to accept his thesis here that the label can ONLY be applied to successfully installed fascists, so it ONLY applies to Hitler and Mussolini? How is that remotely helpful. This isn’t the interwar period, so of course it’s not going to look exactly like Hitler and Mussolini.
But as you note, you think he’s a fascist, so I guess I’m unsure where your… sort of agreement… comes with the article?
Why not, though? If we agree he’s enough of a fascist to call him such… we should tell the truth about that, rather than playing down the threat he poses, to whoever our audience is.
Exactly my point.
I think @chenille’s joke nails it…
Yeah…
10 Likes
More War of the Roses Murdochs
Rupert wants to change an irrevocable trust, to give his chosen son control, which is probably iffy. There’s discussion about the unfairness of rigged stock classes that let the family control the empire, while owning a much smaller amount than seemingly needed. That’s not going to change.
“It’s the only game in town”
9 Likes
12 Likes
“you knew i was a snake when you took me in.”
13 Likes
There are two points on the article that I agree with that make Trump different from classic fascists. One is that he doesn’t have a coherent ideology he adheres to (basically, one way you could tell the original fascists were fascists was that they would tell you they were fascists). The other one is that he doesn’t have a party or a party-aligned paramilitary force. Instead, he wears the skin of the hollowed-out republican party and his paramilitaries are ad-hoc and stochastic.
That said, as you noted, I do consider him a fascist because, like you, I can see what he has done, what those around him have done and what everyone is saying they want to and will do. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is a fascist agenda. That it doesn’t quite fit all the points above is a discussion for the history books but since the outcome is the same it doesn’t make much difference for those of us living through it and fighting against it. That’s why I said I agree on an academic level. Whether or not we should have these academic discussions right now is another question. And of course this isn’t my area of academia, so when I say “academic discussion” I mean it in the sense of a meta discussion, not in the sense of discussion in an academic setting, because that is out of my bailiwick.
I do believe there is value in tactics. If something like that would alienate people out of reflex it is OK to avoid the label in the beginning to establish a dialogue. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk though, because it can quickly tip into “taking seriously their economic concerns” and avoiding calling people who absolutely deserve it deplorables.
3 Likes
12 Likes
Not enough & it took too long.
11 Likes
8 Likes
Sheriff’s office hires disgraced former lawmaker
The Sheriff’s Office is a shambles these days. Unable to perform its basic functions. The money from property sales seems to attract grifters.
8 Likes
I guess he told us!
10 Likes
…that his goals in any conversation aren’t compatible with facts. It’s been apparent for a long time, but great that he laid it out simply enough for even his fans to understand.
12 Likes
A sadly common attitude among a certain red-hat-wearing demographic. “Facts have a well-known liberal bias” and all, so they make up their own and expect us to accept them. Stupid assholes.
15 Likes
Whew! Spared that horrible experience.
13 Likes
Huh. Scott Adams finally said something funny.
19 Likes
You think a cartoonist could be more concise. Just put the period after the word ‘conversation.’
7 Likes
No, see, it’s the details that sell it. Notice for instance they follow the rule of three – each example more over the top than the last.
6 Likes
I always find it amusing when certain folks will rail against science and how it’s all nonsense… as they type on their cutting edge phone, on internet that is being beamed off a satellite and back to earth, etc. If they hate science so much they should try living without modern amenities.
11 Likes
