When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

[Muizer]

IMHO people like Bolsonaro and Trump are, before anything else, demagogues. I do not see them as dogmatic politicians spearheading a resurgence of 20th century ideologies. There are parallels in that they attract people who feel they have no hope of gaining control over their own destiny by presenting a surrogate: the release of frustation and perhaps the vicarious pride of following a champion. Key ingredient to become one is to offer simple, convenient and satisfying reactions to problems people experience. Something that more often than not requires discrediting governmental, scientific, and intellectual authority. To draw meaningful parallel (i.e. with any predictive value, not just sticking a label on people to discredit them) I'd need to be convinced of an 'ideological masterplan' behind it all. I mostly see narcissistic individuals behaving opportunistically.

[Love Mountain]

IMHO people like Bolsonaro and Trump are, before anything else, demagogues. I do not see them as dogmatic politicians spearheading a resurgence of 20th century ideologies. There are parallels in that they attract people who feel they have no hope of gaining control over their own destiny by presenting a surrogate: the release of frustation and perhaps the vicarious pride of following a champion. Key ingredient to become one is to offer simple, convenient and satisfying reactions to problems people experience. Something that more often than not requires discrediting governmental, scientific, and intellectual authority. To draw meaningful parallel (i.e. with any predictive value, not just sticking a label on people to discredit them) I'd need to be convinced of an 'ideological masterplan' behind it all. I mostly see narcissistic individuals behaving opportunistically.

Agreed. There is a very clear difference between 20th century authoritarians and this latest crop. Especially actual fascists who had very specific ideas they wanted to push. In contrast Trump and Bolsonaro come across as incoherent. However, there are certain parallels between populist authoritarians and this new generation of right-wing populists. While it's premature to say that they will lead to extreme ends, they have certainly turned national discussions into a negative direction.

[The spartan]

I think there are plenty of parallels to draw between current politics and 20th century drives for Fascism. Fascism only became popular as a reaction to contemporary cultural trends, it didn't come from nowhere. Fascists gained popularity by appealing to anti-left, anti-egalitarian, and anti-liberal sentiments which it had blamed the "moral degradation" of 1920s Europe on. There is, of course, the concerns regarding the importance of racial and ethnic categorization and reactions to modern cultural trends; the Nazis labeling Jazz as "degenerate" African music and so on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Very big on the idea of different ethnic groups being incompatible and should be separate.

[Muizer]

Not denying that, but a strategy of using demagoguery to corral people into ideologically themed organizations as a way to cement authoritarian power is something I don't recognize in western populism. Putin's party is much more 'in character' in that sense. I don't think it's helpful to associate the term fascist to populist leaders and followers, because they rightly won't recognize themselves in that image. They believe, and for now are, free of the straightjackets of ideological themed organizations. They don't think they are giving up their individual freedoms to some higher cause. They believe they are asserting their free will in the only way available to them ..... by supporting a champion for their cause.

Recently here in Holland we got a demonstration of how that might work. For over a decade, Geert Wilders was the undisputed leader of the populist right but he has been superseded largely by Thierry Baudet, seemingly on no other grounds than that voters preferred his tone of haughty condescension towards the establishment over Wilders' anger. Point being that Wilders failed miserably at being a 'fascist', because he continued to rely on his message and failed to convert his willingly given support into leadership of a proper cult.

[Heathen Hammer]

I find it quite amusing that for supporters of "let them eat cake" liberal left, that has renounced population interests in favor of virtue signalling years ago, any candidate that actually seeks to represent the majority of population is automatically labeled as "demagogue", his followers as simpletons ("What idiots, isn't it dumb how they prefer someone who's policies they'd benefit from instead of a politician I like that would be against their interests!"). It seems that this line of thinking ultimately comes down to liberal left's mainstream media's propaganda-induced "realization" that individual freedom and democracy are "problematic" since other people actually chose to not commit fiscal or social suicide by electing liberal left politicians. At that point, in the mind of an average liberal-left cultist everything becomes clear: any opposition to globalist utopia is "rise of fascism", funded by Russia/Iran. Liberal left has cognitive dissonance with reality, where objective facts themselves are declared to be "hate facts" if they contradict desired ideology.

[The spartan]

@HH
Off-topic posts, ftw.
Also, you should really learn the distinction between Leftists and Liberalism. Actual Leftists (you know, socialists/commies) don't give a crap about Liberalism and would gladly tell you as much. The fact you think they are the same thing reveals a lot.

Not denying that, but a strategy of using demagoguery to corral people into ideologically themed organizations as a way to cement authoritarian power is something I don't recognize in western populism. Putin's party is much more 'in character' in that sense. I don't think it's helpful to associate the term fascist to populist leaders and followers, because they rightly won't recognize themselves in that image. They believe, and for now are, free of the straightjackets of ideological themed organizations. They don't think they are giving up their individual freedoms to some higher cause. They believe they are asserting their free will in the only way available to them ..... by supporting a champion for their cause.

I am confused as to the distinction you are trying to form here. Trump certainly could be considered a demagogue, and I am pretty sure his supporters would approve of anti-democratic maneuvers (going around congress for funding for a border wall, for instance); Americans right now have very little enthusiasm for democracy or liberalism, they would gladly do away with freedoms if it meant "crushing" their opposition. So what is the distinction you are trying to make here?

This is an important point, I think, in following the recent history of the American Right. For a long time, the assumption was that they were mostly conservative in their ideology, but ever since the Tea Party came about, that theory was blown out of the water. The Right doesn't give two about American institutions, and are willing to cause long-term institutional change for the sake of short-term political gain; kind of the opposite of Conservatism. I don't think Trump himself is a devout fascist, he is just a guy who likes support and will say anything he thinks will energize his base, but his base seems to hold a lot of fascist platforms. All the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms fit in well with fascist ideology.

As to whether it is useful to refer to people as fascists: I wouldn't recommend just accusing people to their face of being evil fascists. That probably wouldn't accomplish much. But I think it is fair game to compare platforms similar to fascism to actual fascism, otherwise what is the purpose of having the word? If anything, the obnoxious part to me is the stigma around the term causes people who would otherwise being very enthusiastic about supporting the ideology to deny any connection to the ideology and just list the singular (similar) platforms a la carte. It would be easier to engage with them that way, but they are aware of historical baggage that comes with the term.

Recently here in Holland we got a demonstration of how that might work. For over a decade, Geert Wilders was the undisputed leader of the populist right but he has been superseded largely by Thierry Baudet, seemingly on no other grounds than that voters preferred his tone of haughty condescension towards the establishment over Wilders' anger. Point being that Wilders failed miserably at being a 'fascist', because he continued to rely on his message and failed to convert his willingly given support into leadership of a proper cult.

I don't think "populist Right" is synonymous with "fascist", though there is some overlap. We, fortunately, know the platforms of fascism and those are what should be used to measure how "fascist" an individual is in their ideology.

[Cope]

@HH
Off-topic posts, ftw.
Also, you should really learn the distinction between Leftists and Liberalism. Actual Leftists (you know, socialists/commies) don't give a crap about Liberalism and would gladly tell you as much. The fact you think they are the same thing reveals a lot.


I am confused as to the distinction you are trying to form here. Trump certainly could be considered a demagogue, and I am pretty sure his supporters would approve of anti-democratic maneuvers (going around congress for funding for a border wall, for instance); Americans right now have very little enthusiasm for democracy or liberalism, they would gladly do away with freedoms if it meant "crushing" their opposition. So what is the distinction you are trying to make here?

This is an important point, I think, in following the recent history of the American Right. For a long time, the assumption was that they were mostly conservative in their ideology, but ever since the Tea Party came about, that theory was blown out of the water. The Right doesn't give two about American institutions, and are willing to cause long-term institutional change for the sake of short-term political gain; kind of the opposite of Conservatism. I don't think Trump himself is a devout fascist, he is just a guy who likes support and will say anything he thinks will energize his base, but his base seems to hold a lot of fascist platforms. All the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms fit in well with fascist ideology.

As to whether it is useful to refer to people as fascists: I wouldn't recommend just accusing people to their face of being evil fascists. That probably wouldn't accomplish much. But I think it is fair game to compare platforms similar to fascism to actual fascism, otherwise what is the purpose of having the word? If anything, the obnoxious part to me is the stigma around the term causes people who would otherwise being very enthusiastic about supporting the ideology to deny any connection to the ideology and just list the singular (similar) platforms a la carte. It would be easier to engage with them that way, but they are aware of historical baggage that comes with the term.

I don't think "populist Right" is synonymous with "fascist", though there is some overlap. We, fortunately, know the platforms of fascism and those are what should be used to measure how "fascist" an individual is in their ideology.

Let's just agree that you don't know what a fascist is.

[The spartan]

Let's just agree that you don't know what a fascist is.

No? If you want to list what platforms of fascism I am incorrect about, feel free to chime in, I am not afraid of being wrong. I guess you can just be passive aggressive, too, if you really want.

[Cope]

Your attempts to associate the "American right" with fascism demonstrate that you don't really understand it. I actually laughed when I read the accusation that the "economic platforms" which are "preferred" by the Trump base fit in "well with fascist ideology". Now I know you think the comparison is justified on the basis of vague notions relating to "autarky", but a centrally planned, hyper militaristic strategy for resource domination combined with an exclusion of international financing really isn't comparable with the president engaging in bog standard protectionism and lowering taxes.

[Love Mountain]

Your attempts to associate the "American right" with fascism demonstrate that you don't really understand it. I actually laughed when I read the accusation that the "economic platforms" which are "preferred" by the Trump base fit in "well with fascist ideology". Now I know you think the comparison is justified on the basis of vague notions relating to "autarky", but a centrally planned, hyper militaristic strategy for resource domination combined with an exclusion of international financing really isn't comparable with the president engaging in bog standard protectionism and lowering taxes.

Drawing parallels between the American right and fascism doesn't mean we are equating the two in totality. So let's drop that strawman before you get too excited.

[The spartan]

Your attempts to associate the "American right" with fascism demonstrate that you don't really understand it. I actually laughed when I read the accusation that the "economic platforms" which are "preferred" by the Trump base fit in "well with fascist ideology". Now I know you think the comparison is justified on the basis of vague notions relating to "autarky", but a centrally planned, hyper militaristic strategy for resource domination combined with an exclusion of international financing really isn't comparable with the president engaging in bog standard protectionism and lowering taxes.

We can talk about that if you want to do more repeatedly state I don't understand fascism. And you realize that, at least from my point of view, that I am not trying to slander the American Right by just inappropriately calling them fascists, right? This isn't some bad faith take-down I am trying to do here, I genuinely think there has been new interest in fascist platforms that go well beyond the borders of the US. And, as I have said previously, just because someone may support certain platforms fascists are known for doesn't mean they are automatically a fascist. No need to get sour over perceived pejoratives.

But to your economic point: I don't know why you put "autarky" in quotes, it's a real economic characteristic that people place different value on. Autarky also doesn't necessarily refer to a militarized, centrally planned economy; that would be a war economy. Autarkic principles do allow for for more military considerations, however, because the priority on national self-sufficiency lines up with supplying a national military (obviously). Technically speaking, fascists support a mixed economy with an emphasis on protectionism for the sake of national self-sufficiency and autonomy, which would contrast them with free market liberals or centrally planned communists. That's just what it is. Don't be fooled by the fact that the fascist governments of yore had centralized war economies for many years, that was simply because they were at war for that time. They obviously wouldn't have maintained it once they weren't at war anymore.

[Cope]

We can talk about that if you want to do more repeatedly state I don't understand fascism.

You don't understand it though.

And you realize that, at least from my point of view, that I am not trying to slander the American Right by just inappropriately calling them fascists, right? This isn't some bad faith take-down I am trying to do here, I genuinely think there has been new interest in fascist platforms that go well beyond the borders of the US.

I didn't claim that you were trying to "slander the American right": I said that your "attempts to associate the American right with fascism demonstrate that you don't really understand it".

And, as I have said previously, just because someone may support certain platforms fascists are known for doesn't mean they are automatically a fascist. No need to get sour over perceived pejoratives.

You haven't listed a single "platform" which the "American right" supports which "fascists are known for". You've just attempted to draw an association on the basis of vague references to positions which can be applied to a wide variety of political perspectives. It's nothing more than a variation on the old reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

But to your economic point: I don't know why you put "autarky" in quotes, it's a real economic characteristic that people place different value on.

I "put 'autarky' in quotes" because I was citing your own descriptor.

Autarky also doesn't necessarily refer to a militarized, centrally planned economy; that would be a war economy. Autarkic principles do allow for for more military considerations, however, because the priority on national self-sufficiency lines up with supplying a national military (obviously).

I didn't say that all autarkic solutions were hyper militaristic: I said fascist interpretations of autarky were hyper militaristic. Citing the war economy serves only to prove my point that the fascist strategy for attaining self sufficiency was predicated on militarism.

Technically speaking, fascists support a mixed economy with an emphasis on protectionism for the sake of national self-sufficiency and autonomy, which would contrast them with free market liberals or centrally planned communists. That's just what it is.

"Technically" virtually every economy which has ever existed is "mixed", so this is an irrelevant point.

Don't be fooled by the fact that the fascist governments of yore had centralized war economies for many years, that was simply because they were at war for that time. They obviously wouldn't have maintained it once they weren't at war anymore.

Fascist economies existed in the context of authoritarianism and nationalism: they were simply bent to whatever use was required by the state. Comparing this to the low tax, low regulation economic models favored by most people on the right is absurd.

[Cope]

Drawing parallels between the American right and fascism doesn't mean we are equating the two in totality. So let's drop that strawman before you get too excited.

I explicitly stated that The spartan was attempting to "associate" the American right with fascism, not that he was "equating the two in totality". So let's drop that straw man before you get too excited.

[Love Mountain]

I explicitly stated that The spartan was attempting to "associate" the American right with fascism, not that he was "equating the two in totality". So let's drop that straw man before you get too excited.

He says while comparing minutia of economic policy over what was a broad comparison. Your argumentation is simple intellectual pedantry. Absolutely nothing of value is disputed or learned here.

[Cope]

He says while comparing minutia of economic policy over what was a broad comparison. Your argumentation is simple intellectual pedantry. Absolutely nothing of value is disputed or learned here.

Yeah, WWII is only really the "minutia" of fascist economic policy; what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do.

[Love Mountain]

Yeah obviously that’s wrong, because as we all know, any comparison between the Tea Party and Fascism is wrong. Because all facets of their political beliefs and actions can be traced to a multitude of different ideologies. So no Trump isnt Fascist or anything remotely close to that. He isnt a Socialist a communist a liberal a conservative. No Trump is very uniquely Trumpist and comparing him to anything else should make us all laugh at how ignorant and stupid it makes us look.

Haha. Lol

[Diocle]

In my opinion, you guys are misinterpreting the role played by gents like Trump and/or Salvini. In my opinion, the new right-wing movements, which are winning, election after election, in USA and Europe, are there with their leaders just to prevent the birth of real neo-Fascist movements.

Trump's policies are emptying of all contents the Alt Right and everything may come out from the bubbling universe of the extreme right in the USA. The Gilet Jaunes are there because of Macron! This is the French mistake! If they, instead of organizing the political putsch which gave birth to the fake Macron party, would have let the French people elect Marine Le Pen as natural evolution of the French political situation, then, today, we would not have an explosive situation in France. In Italy, Matteo Salvini, with his 35% of support among the people, is there to prevent the growth of real Far-Right movements like Casa Pund and/or Forza Nuova, of real and actual neo-Fascist traditions.

What I'm saying it's that saying that Trump and Salvini are Fascist, it's like watching the finger instead of the moon that the finger is indicating!
It's, in other words, a tragic misconception, due to mass media propaganda and intellectual myopia that is its consequence.

I say: play the game using your own intellect, don't be played by the game.

[95thrifleman]

Drawing parallels between the American right and fascism doesn't mean we are equating the two in totality. So let's drop that strawman before you get too excited.

Too late, when epicfail gets himself a strawman, he never lets it go.

[The spartan]

You don't understand it though.

Yeah? Which platform of fascism have I incorrectly described, mr. fascist expert?

I didn't claim that you were trying to "slander the American right": I said that your "attempts to associate the American right with fascism demonstrate that you don't really understand it".

As Sukiyama said, some serious pedantry. The point that you think I am unfairly comparing the American Right to fascism is clear, however you want to word it.

You haven't listed a single "platform" which the "American right" supports which "fascists are known for". You've just attempted to draw an association on the basis of vague references to positions which can be applied to a wide variety of political perspectives. It's nothing more than a variation on the old reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

Wait, vague? I guess you just aren't reading my posts, I am pretty clear about the platforms and their distinctions with other ideologies. You may want to check out post 50 and 44. I list several fascist platforms and note that any particular one is not proof of fascist ideology, but rather the sum of many of the platforms. Nor have I accused any individual or even group of being fascists; what I said was that many fascist platforms were becoming popular again. I never claimed wanting national economic self-sufficiency meant one was a fascist or that only fascist wanted it either, you would be inaccurate to depict me as claiming otherwise. Reductio ad Hitlerum my ass. Hitler wasn't the end all be all of fascism, nor did I even mention him in his thread.

I "put 'autarky' in quotes" because I was citing your own descriptor.

You an econ expert now too? If you think I am inaccurately describing autarkic principles, feel free to point out how. I much prefer that to vague disagreement.

I didn't say that all autarkic solutions were hyper militaristic: I said fascist interpretations of autarky were hyper militaristic. Citing the war economy serves only to prove my point that the fascist strategy for attaining self sufficiency was predicated on militarism.

Wait, so you think that if the fascists governments made it through the war, they would have abandoned autarkic principles? I don't think I have ever heard that before. This seems like more pedantry, though, it is pretty clear that fascists supported national economic self-sufficiency. Whether you think they had a specific purpose for it is kind of besides the point.

"Technically" virtually every economy which has ever existed is "mixed", so this is an irrelevant point.

Uhuh, and a mixed economy with autarkic principles of protectionism are what fascists pushed for. Not very definitive by itself, now is it? Thank god I never claimed as much.

Fascist economies existed in the context of authoritarianism and nationalism: they were simply bent to whatever use was required by the state. Comparing this to the low tax, low regulation economic models favored by most people on the right is absurd.

The current Right in the US is far more protectionist than they are Laissez-faire. Indeed, fascists did not have a set goal for tax or regulation, it was all in service of economic self-sufficiency for the nation. When did I ever say otherwise?

what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do.

Literally nobody in this thread said or even implied as much. I even made a point of distancing myself from this kind of accusation. You seem adamant on making it seem like I was.

[Knight of Heaven]

Very big on the idea of different ethnic groups being incompatible and should be separate.

It is a complex issue. And historically isn't always the right wing to have such ideas.

Regardless our own history tell us about those incompatibilities, as well success cases.

It isn't that ethnic groups should be separate or not. (in lots of cases they do separate themselves naturally), The problem is those processes are seldom pacific.