Lay it out for us. I want to hear your argument.

Lay it out for us. I want to hear your argument. — Tom Storm

He seems more interested in low quality posts and then trolling. Why cajole someone who can't seem to do that themselves?

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

I can't see a single aspect of the USA that could lead to fascism. Im not really making an argument - I remained unconvinced it's a live issue.

Though, Schops 'slow build' idea could be a problem i;m ignorant to. But i've watch the USA develop across thirty years with interest and its just toddlers swatting at each other in a paddling pool.

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection.

Your quickness to impugn when someone disagrees with you is quite clear to me. I've not done this for you. I've said it looks like you're not thinking.

Your assertion that most people who own guns are Trump supporters is an extremely low frequency take.

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently?

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection. — AmadeusD

Here's the course of events. You said:

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard. — AmadeusD

Feel free to thnk what you think my friend :) — AmadeusD

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection. — AmadeusD

This is provoking and then trolling throughout to me.. Sorry but it is. You might want to have NOT started with "This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard". How is that not a provocation? If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking.

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's likely under Trump either, though. We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism.

Jan 6 was a complete failure and resulted in no effect on the electoral or judicial system because it was utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. And apparently still does

Edit WAY after the fact: This was wrong. The electoral system seems to be very, very marginally changing in a way that helps to defeat Trump, giving more support to my position above.

I'm not seeing any reason to think it would be different - In fact, i think its WAY more likely a civil war ensues given that the 'other side' is now aware to the fact that Trump supporters are able to become actively, and dangerously unhinged at large.

Just to add, Fascism is against "individual self-defense" and "class self-defense". Defense was the sole job of the state, which is a common idea nowadays.

"The Fascist doctrine, enacting justice among the classes in compliance with a fundamental necessity of modern life, does away with class self-defense, which, like individual self-defense in the days of barbarism, is a source of disorder and of civil war." (Alfredo Rocco - The Political Doctrine of Fascism).

I suppose that's why they enacted some pretty harsh gun controls.

If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking. — schopenhauer1

It wasn't one, so i'm just going to ignore you in this thread now.

You've quadrupled your post. But the three extensions are of the first.

No. It isn't. You are free to think whatever you want about me. I simply don't care. That's up to you to think, not me to defend or encourage(would a smiley emoji have changed it's valence? No my circus). Nor is it my issue that expressing my interpretation, as an appearance to me of shallow thinking, hurt your feelings. Just walk on if you disagree.

Interesting . Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism.

We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism. — AmadeusD

I wish I could share this view. I tend to agree with this:

Trump/MAGA is unashamedly fascist. He’s openly boasted that he thinks the constitution should be suspended, the public service purged, and his enemies subjected to prosecution. He has a strong movement if polling data is to be believed. Many are saying that he will win the election, and although I don’t believe that he will, the acceptance of his threats of fascism and the escalation of violent threats against the judiciary and other institutions is alarming in the extreme. — Wayfarer

Out of interest, if an American leader did have fascist inclinations what would you expect to see?

Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism. — Tom Storm

I think it's also the more terrifying possibility, so my alert level is still quite high, in terms of geopolitical implications of this year/18 months going forward. Given that Republicans are likely to win that way, but a fairly overwhelming margin, I reserve judgement on any long-term outcome as i'm essentially a-political between lump labels like that.

I would expect to see them actually meet criteria to be considered fascist - ethnic supremacy, a rejection of democracy (see Belarus currently for an example that you'd be a complete fool to compare Trump to (and Nth Korea)) military governance (again, examples can be given here that would be entirely wrong to liken Trump to), totalitarian ambition (while i recognise Trump is likely megalomaniacal he is ineffectual in this respect - his own party rejects his more wild actions) and finally, for a country which purports to the be the worlds greatest, most powerful nation I would expect, with no sense of flexibility, that there were an imperial ambition.

I don't think we see any of these. Some other overlapping elements like economic conservatism or (possibly - though, this is definitely a live debate to my mind) social/cultural illiberalism exist in the MAGA/Trump crowd for sure, so i see it would be very easy, on a shallow reading, to lump all this stuff together as just go "Duhhhhh fascism!". Japan appears to be closer to Fascism than does the USA.

@Tom Storm
So most of these "definitional" threads are going to be about how it's defined obviously. If we want to look at Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, or Imperialist Japan, we can see a very top-down, militarized society, beholden to a strong leader. That is not necessarily Trumpism.

However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. That being said, Trump's stated goals, are very much about pursuing his enemies. That isn't necessarily fascism. It's more mafioso mentality. Get in power in Machiavellian fashion, no matter what methods available, and exact revenge on your political opponents. The use of loyal crowds to promote your cause and cause light chaos when needed, like your own personal army, again, is adjacent to the trappings of fascism. Also for him is to ensure he doesn't end up in jail, and if so, it would be house arrest at Margo Lago. So he would simply make it extremely hard for people to put him in a position where he could be detained for all or any of this.

I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. — schopenhauer1

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me.

We can go round and round about what fascism is and who is or is not a fascist. What should be clear is that there is a good chance that Trump will be elected. That he thinks that as president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. That he supports the unitary executive theory, and intends to implement it. That he demands fealty to himself and not the office. That a significant portion of Congress will not oppose him. That he has engaged in an effective campaign against truth and facts, aided by a mainstream propaganda machine. That he uses the judiciary as his instrument and attacks it as his enemy. That he has in place both plans and henchmen to consolidate power in a way he was not able to the first time around. That he is riding the wave of the rise of autocratic leaders around the world, and that he has cozy upped to them.

That's an interesting read of it.

I guess what I see is nascent fascism. The pointers are there, in his words and deeds but he needs another term to consolidate the work - join the dots - so that his nascent fascistic tendencies can come to completion.

However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think this is probably the key.

It's more mafioso mentality. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity.

I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course.

seeks to consolidate a dictatorship — Tom Storm

I do not think this is in the realm of a reasonable expectation, though.

There are some really, really wild leaps being made between his toddler-like behaviour and some kind of Machiavellian genius consolidating power. I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular.

I agree.

The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity. — Tom Storm

I think that's the problem here. It's like you know you've seen this playbook before, but it's so low level compared to say the rantings of a Hitler, and the much more militarized ambitions that there is a difference. Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics.

I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course. — Tom Storm

This is an interesting question. Oddly, most of the bottom rank military I think supports him, despite his horrible remarks on dead soldiers. Boggles my mind actually.

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me. — AmadeusD

Cool. Maybe this is what we agree on.

I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular. — AmadeusD

Fair enough. I guess it's just down to how one interprets the phenomenon. I tend to think he's wanting absolute power and to destroy enemies and there may be people crazy enough in key roles to assist him in this project.

Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics. — schopenhauer1

Totally agree.

That he thinks that as president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. That he supports the unitary executive theory, and intends to implement it. That he demands fealty to himself and not the office. That a significant portion of Congress will not oppose him. That he has engaged in an effective campaign against truth and facts, aided by a mainstream propaganda machine. That he uses the judiciary as his instrument and attacks it as his enemy. That he has in place both plans and henchmen to consolidate power in a way he was not able to the first time around. That he is riding the wave of the rise of autocratic leaders around the world, and that he has cozy upped to them. — Fooloso4

All this sounds ominous enough and it seems to match my understanding of the situation. I would not think it would take a genius to imagine what could come next. Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc.

@Tom Storm
@schopenhauer1

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/596313fa-4545-4735-8a75-299c5b91fe8a

"Thus, active-duty enlisted personnel who identify with a political party are about twice as likely to identify with the Republican Party as are civilians. However, active-duty enlisted personnel are nearly four times as likely as civilians to report being Independent, and are substantially less likely than civilians to identify with the Democratic Party. "

Not directly related to Trump, but the only data i can find on that specific connection is from 2020 and is about military leaders, rather than Enlisted personnel.

Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc. — Tom Storm

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s?

Once they had control, yes. However, on their rise to power the Nazis were very active in the sort of street fighting that characterized political life in the Wiemar Republic. Their anthem comes from the party's origins as street brawlers defending their turf (they were no way unique in having a paramilitary/brawling organization, many parties had this). You see a similar thing with the reactionary Black Hundreds in Russia prior to WWI.

I would say there is a similar element in the American right, but in general the focus on self-defense is more private, less communal. The Nazis were more focused on collective self defense, and you see this in thing like the Hitler Youth. American sensibilities are far more individualistic.

That said, support for the right to bear arms is conditional. A number GOP strongholds have stripped 1/4th or more of all African American males of the right to bear arms for life, sometimes over trivial offenses like "felony vandalism." There has been no push to undo this (unlike disenfranchisement), quite the contrary.

This alone makes the movement different from the Nazis. It is less about a national people being unified, but about a select people controlling the state.

The left similarly focuses on particular groups quite a bit; no wonder there is such disunity. But in the left it manifests in different ways.

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

According to a 2020 Gallop Poll, 32% of Americans say they own guns. So, 68% do not. Gun ownership is not a normal distribution across demographics.

Republicans (50%), rural residents (48%), men (45%), self-identified conservatives (45%) and Southerners (40%) are the most likely subgroups to say they personally own a gun.

Liberals (15%), Democrats (18%), non-White Americans (18%), women (19%) and Eastern residents (21%) are the least likely to report personal gun ownership.

According to figures quoted by the NRA, Americans own nearly 25 million AR and AK platform firearms. (NSSF[5])

AR-15s are the most commonly used rifles in marksmanship competitions, training, and home defense.

According to Pew, "About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%)." Hitmen would need a gun, I guess.

There is, not surprisingly, a difference between Democrats and Republicans about whether gun violence is a problem. Why don't more Republicans and Republican-leaning people think gun violence is a problem?

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s? — AmadeusD

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. It just needs the right ingredients. Dealing with dissidents or enemies through imprisonment and murder is an eternal favorite, forget the 1940's. Guantanamo Bay?

I'm not saying this will happen like it currently happens in Russia, but I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric.

Why don't more Republicans and Republican-leaning people think gun violence is a problem? — BC

Is it because they generally think that gun violence is a way to deal with social problems?

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. — Tom Storm

I do not think that either, but I do not think we are seeing anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. Back to the 'slow build' theory.. Which i also don't take tbh lol, but is more tenable to me.

I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric. — Tom Storm

I would highly doubt it. I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. I think it assumes a level of co-ordination and power that simply doesn't exist within US politics..

Guantanamo Bay? — Tom Storm

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation.

This alone makes the movement different from the Nazis. It is less about a national people, but about a select people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

Fascism may be more easily defined by the way fascism operates than a set of beliefs it follows. That isn't to say it has no beliefs.

American fascism, should it emerge full force, will probably not look like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. We do not have the Freikorps and Communists who engaged in heavy street fighting. We don't have the SA (Sturmabteilung) Brown Shirts marching around singing the Horst-Wessel song and beating up people who didn't "sieg heil" with sufficient enthusiasm.

Our fascism will probably feature what Universeness calls "evanhellicals". White Christian Nationalists, gospel of prosperity preachers, KKK types, misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration Proud Boys, Boogaloo, QAnon, white supremacy groups, demented fundamentalists, etc.

If violence is deployed, it will probably be directed at racial minorities, the left-wing professoriat, prominent liberals, civilian officials, sexual minorities, and might be organized as scattered gang / vigilante / terrorist executions. This kind of violence would not need state sanction.

misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration . — BC

These seem to be hard-to-define, usually-incorrectly-attributed, subjective and naive things to consider... (minus the underlined).

Am I noticing a somewhat socially left-leaning element to this forum?

it seems most readily employ words like "transphobic" to label ideas without compunction - which, in my real-world experience is utterly preposterous and the source of the perceived conflict is actually this imprecise and partisan usage to smear the opponent. An ironic twist, i'd think.

but I do not think we are saying anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. — AmadeusD

And this is simply a difference in how we read the events and personalities, I would say.

I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. — AmadeusD

Same as above. However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship. I would think it might help in motivation.

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation. — AmadeusD

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined.

Yes, one thing the Conservative Incorporated likes to forget that Reagan implemented harsh and targeted gun control, especially in California, where he did it to arguably stop the Black Panther party from policing their own communities. The racist beginnings of American gun control are well-enough known, but it’s surprising to see it implemented in almost the same fashion today, not so much on racial terms, but to defend the established order.

Fascism is undoubtedly conservative, as is gun control. But i would argue that the "American left", if there was such a group, is as conservative as the right when it comes to its culture and institutions. Liberalism and freedom and individual rights are are nothing but rhetorical play-things for all of them.

And this is simply a differnce in how we read the events and personalities, I would say. — Tom Storm

Of course. Im just unconvinced of the reasonableness of reading it in a way that gets to worrying about impending totalitarianism/dictatorship/fascism.

However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship — Tom Storm

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas...

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined. — Tom Storm

No argument; but I can't see the relevance to the current situation. I'd still need to see something to indicate it might happen, rather htan is possible.

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas... — AmadeusD

The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. These folk generally lack the capacity to see that who they choose as advisors and who they invite into the sphere of influence can be dangerous and destructive. I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper.