Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Idris2002]

the trains will run on time.

They just won't go anywhere.

 

[ska invita]

Paul Verhoeven Slams ‘Starship Troopers’ Remake, Says It’ll Be a Fascist Update Perfect for a Trump Presidency

Did anyone really miss the satire in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers? Were they just utterly stupid? I remember watching it in the cinema and people were laughing all the way through.

Lots of people missed it, yes. I think the lack of any irony in simliar films made people switch off to expecting any in this. And like Verhoeven says in the interview, it was only through good fortune of Sony being in disarray and not paying attention that the film got passed - which highlights how improbable a film like this coming out of Hollywood is.

BTW at the end of the interview PV references a book called Friendly Fascism which Ive heard getting mentioned three times now this week, written in the 80s and setting out a model for a contemporary version of US fascism - fans of the book feel Gross predicted post 9-11 Bush and now Trump to a tee. Sounds interesting - out of print at the moment I think, but I expect with all this talk it'll be getting republished before too long. Sounds like it would be of use in the conversations going on about 'is Trump a fascist or not'. There are some quite thorough reviews of it out there that cover the general gist.

 

[Dandred]

Circle Jerking.....

 

[redsquirrel]

no but it'll become more evident as we see what he does

OK, so which previous fascist movements were not evidently fascist by the time they had a significant presence in government?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[Brainaddict]

Deeply racist of course and possibly Bannon might be a fascist himself, but that no more makes the Trump faction of the Republican party fascist than Griffins fascism made the BNP a fascist party. I think this is a case where talking about individuals is useless (and I know I've done it myself previously on this thread), it's better to look at the party/movement.

The Trump faction is pretty obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, deeply authoritarian etc but I don't see it as fascist. It is not revolutionary in ideology, but rather conservative - "Make America Great Again". Yes fascist regimes/movements often harked back to some former greatness but the future they wished to build was new, radical, a transformed society - driving your Volkswagan from Germany into the Russian steepe along the autobahn. Trump, UKIP, the BNP (when they were riding high), and most of these groups have no such similar vision for the future. Rather their ideology is closer to a more stupid, racist version of Major's 'traditional England', a wish to turn the clock back. There are other important elements missing too, the lack of a strong street fighting presence for example (yes I know there are armed Trump nutters but they aren't an organised force).

I'm not sure why you'd want to set such a high bar for calling someone fascist though. If the test is always 'Is X doing exactly what Hitler did?' or even 'Is X action as fascist as Nazi Germany?' then the answer will usually be no. But Trump and friends are quite fascist, don't you think? They are quite a long way along the spectrum. I don't see the merit in holding back on using the term until someone is clearly as bad as Hitler. We can see the tendencies now, we can see some historical parallels. Why not name those tendencies?

As for a street fighting presence - it's low key atm but I think it could emerge quite easily after that election campaign A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events

 

[two sheds]

OK, so which previous fascist movements were not evidently fascist by the time they had a significant presence in government?

I give in which previous fascist movements were not evidently fascist by the time they had a significant presence in government?

But he's not actually president so he's go no presence in government at all yet has he?

I'm just wondering whether we've so far only seen the cuddly vote-winning side of trump. And the people he turns things over may turn out to be a lot more like fascists than he is.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

What possible benefit can there ever be in telling people who say Trump is a fascist that they're wrong because he doesn't fulfil criteria X Y or Z?

 

[Brainaddict]

Trump and his fellow gangmembers are certainly"fascistic" - ultra nationalist, romantic, bullying, populist, xenophobic/racist, militaristic, contemptuous of the basic tenants of democratic liberalism and happy to wink at political violence and intimidation carried out by their own side.
They are constrained by the US constitution from full blown autocracy - but im sure they'll do their best.

Perhaps that's a better way of putting it. But I suppose in the final assessment, it feels pretty important not to have a muted 'let's wait and see' response to a man who has said and done the things he's done both before and during running for office, then immediately appointed a white supremacist as one of his most senior staff. No, I do not need to wait and see before naming his tendencies.

 

[inva]

I'm not sure why you'd want to set such a high bar for calling someone fascist though. If the test is always 'Is X doing exactly what Hitler did?' or even 'Is X action as fascist as Nazi Germany?' then the answer will usually be no. But Trump and friends are quite fascist, don't you think? They are quite a long way along the spectrum. I don't see the merit in holding back on using the term until someone is clearly as bad as Hitler. We can see the tendencies now, we can see some historical parallels. Why not name those tendencies?

As for a street fighting presence - it's low key atm but I think it could emerge quite easily after that election campaign A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events

US history has a pretty good example of a state that was far more brutally racist and authoritarian than Trump and co without being fascist.

 

[two sheds]

Like Idris said, it's direction as well as political position that's important. And anyone who wants to take USA policy as it is now further to the right surely has to be fascistic if we use that as a better term.

 

[Brainaddict]

US history has a pretty good example of a state that was far more brutally racist and authoritarian than Trump and co without being fascist.

But is Trump *just* racist and authoritarian? Isn't he also promising a program of national economic renewal (including military renewal) partly based on ethnic exclusion (illegal immigrants, muslims)? And despite some of his rhetoric he's appointing people who believe American empire is a good idea. He's a populist leader with adoring hordes, and he seems happy to use that to incite racial hatred on the streets. I don't think I use the word fascist lightly, but I think some are at risk of giving it so much weight that you can never use it at all.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm not sure why you'd want to set such a high bar for calling someone fascist though. If the test is always 'Is X doing exactly what Hitler did?' or even 'Is X action as fascist as Nazi Germany?' then the answer will usually be no.

I deliberately referred to fascist movements precisely because I didn't want the comparisons to be limited to the regimes in Germany and Italy. The revolutionary nature of fascism is something that goes well beyond those two regimes, to make it a very important feature of fascism. The lack of it in "Trumpism" while not definitive is highly important.

But Trump and friends are quite fascist, don't you think? They are quite a long way along the spectrum. I don't see the merit in holding back on using the term until someone is clearly as bad as Hitler. We can see the tendencies now, we can see some historical parallels. Why not name those tendencies?

What fascistic tendencies, as opposed to simply authoritarian tendencies, are there in "Trumpism"? I don't see any. Yes he's authoritarian, yes he's racist/sexist/homophobic but if those are fascistic tendencies then how many governments don't have fascistic tendencies, not many.

And while he's undoubtably a racism, and nationalist, the racism is cultural rather than biological (yes I know Duke and KKK supported him but they're a tiny part of electorate), there's not really a blood and soil element present.

There are at least as many things that aren't parallels as there are. So why ignore these anti-parallels?

As for a street fighting presence - it's low key atm but I think it could emerge quite easily after that election campaign A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events

But, as I said in the post you quoted, it's largely independent nutters it's not organised by the "party".

 

[inva]

But is Trump *just* racist and authoritarian? Isn't he also promising a program of national economic renewal (including military renewal) partly based on ethnic exclusion (illegal immigrants, muslims)? And despite some of his rhetoric he's appointing people who believe American empire is a good idea. He's a populist leader with adoring hordes, and he seems happy to use that to incite racial hatred on the streets. I don't think I use the word fascist lightly, but I think some are at risk of giving it so much weight that you can never use it at all.

Doesn't that pretty much describe FDR?

 

[bluescreen]

So it's got to be Blut und Boden to count as fascist, then?

 

[sihhi]

I deliberately referred to fascist movements precisely because I didn't want the comparisons to be limited to the regimes in Germany and Italy. The revolutionary nature of fascism is something that goes well beyond those two regimes, to make it a very important feature of fascism. The lack of it in "Trumpism" while not definitive is highly important.

What fascistic tendencies, as opposed to simply authoritarian tendencies, are there in "Trumpism"? I don't see any. Yes he's authoritarian, yes he's racist/sexist/homophobic but if those are fascistic tendencies then how many governments don't have fascistic tendencies, not many.

And while he's undoubtably a racism, and nationalist, the racism is cultural rather than biological (yes I know Duke and KKK supported him but they're a tiny part of electorate), there's not really a blood and soil element present.

There are at least as many things that aren't parallels as there are. So why ignore these anti-parallels?

But, as I said in the post you quoted, it's largely independent nutters it's not organised by the "party".

This article puts things into context

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

 

[chilango]

Let's say (hypothetically ) that we get a clear answer as to whether the Trump regime is Fascist or not.

What changes?

 

[sihhi]

I'm not sure why you'd want to set such a high bar for calling someone fascist though. If the test is always 'Is X doing exactly what Hitler did?' or even 'Is X action as fascist as Nazi Germany?' then the answer will usually be no. But Trump and friends are quite fascist, don't you think? They are quite a long way along the spectrum. I don't see the merit in holding back on using the term until someone is clearly as bad as Hitler. We can see the tendencies now, we can see some historical parallels. Why not name those tendencies?

As for a street fighting presence - it's low key atm but I think it could emerge quite easily after that election campaign A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events

Because the truth is what matters. Some fascists support him, he is not a fascist.

 

[bluescreen]

This article puts things into context

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

That article is wrong in so many ways.

 

[redsquirrel]

I give in which previous fascist movements were not evidently fascist by the time they had a significant presence in government?

None that I know off, but I'll admit there's people with a far better knowledge of such things then myself on U75.

I'm just wondering whether we've so far only seen the cuddly vote-winning side of trump. And the people he turns things over may turn out to be a lot more like fascists than he is.

But you're unable to cite any fascist movements that obtained a significant government presence and then became evidently fascist, don't you think that the fact that you can't draw any parallels again indicate that fascism might not be the best way to describe this hard right populism?

What possible benefit can there ever be in telling people who say Trump is a fascist that they're wrong because he doesn't fulfil criteria X Y or Z?

Who's making any such argument? Not me, for a start I specifically said that it's pretty useless to talk about Trump rather than Trumpism (god I fucking hate that word there has to be a better alternative). Second, I've not laid down any criteria for fascism, but rather said that I think Trumpism is missing a number of features that are characteristic if fascist movements.

As for the benefits of arguing whether Trumpism is fascist or not, well on one level it's a bit of an academic argument (like whether or not Franciosm was fascist), but IMO identifying Trumpism as fascism is problematic as it misunderstands what Trumpism is and thus what the best response to it is. And on the tactical level I think sending meme's round talking about fascism are stupid and counter-productive, they just emphasis the huge gap between the sender and those voting for Trump, it really does make the sender look like US equivalent of Rik from the Young Ones.

 

[bluescreen]

I mean, it's right about details like the minuscule relevance of KKK. But whoa. It's setting the bar way too low. Trump *should* have called out the racists. His painting of Mexican immigrants was appalling. He just basks in that white supremacist warm bath of his town halls.

 

[Brainaddict]

sihhi I don't think this:

All this stuff about how he’s [...] “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up.

looks very good when Trump immediately chose the head of a far right (fuck this alt right nonsense) media organisation as his chief strategist. Is that made up? Is the appointment made up? Are Bannon's views, which are all over the internet, made up? What's made up? As for Trump trying to court African-American votes on the campaign trail, he knew he had to do that to win, and he can just pick a different group to treat like shit instead. Or he might turn on African-Americans. We know what his real views are. He's told us.

Here is Bannon in 'more palatable' mode, after he was chosen to work for Trump, for those thinking Trump doesn't have some kind of revolution in mind:

Bannon also said he wanted to scrap the establishment Republican Party and start anew with Trump's movement.
"Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he said. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

 

[redsquirrel]

Like Idris said, it's direction as well as political position that's important. And anyone who wants to take USA policy as it is now further to the right surely has to be fascistic if we use that as a better term.

Sorry but that really is cobblers. Within living memory African-americans were being lynched, homosexuality was illegal, people were imprisoned and had their lives destroyed because of their political opinions. For all Trumps racism/sexism/homophobia it is simply rubbish to claim that the US is going to be more right wing on social issues than it was in the lifetime of people sill alive.

This is precisely why calling Trump a fascist is stupid and counter productive, it just makes you divorced from reality.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Who's making any such argument? Not me

No, you (though not just you). You say this in the middle of a post that accuses others of not being able to give proper citations to prove fascism. You even then say "Trumpism is missing a number of features that are characteristic if (sic) fascist movements" so definitely you. These are all valid points of view, in the proper liberal spirit of intellectual argument, but what possible benefit is there in them?

 

[bluescreen]

"As exciting as the 1930s"
yeah, right.

 

[redsquirrel]

That article is wrong in so many ways.

How?

 

[redsquirrel]

No, you (though not just you). You say this in the middle of a post that accuses others of not being able to give proper citations to prove fascism. You even then say "Trumpism is missing a number of features that are characteristic if fascist movements" so definitely you.

Absoute crap.

In the last two days I've been quite clear that I've being talking about whether Trumpism is fascism not whether Trump is a fascist or not.

And I've not made any of these characteristic features a necessary criteria for fascism, I can accept that there could be fascist movements that don't have X, Y or Z. But when a movement is missing X and Y and Z (and U, V, W...) then I think it's worth considering whether fascism is a very good description.

So to claim I've said this

What possible benefit can there ever be in telling people who say Trump is a fascist that they're wrong because he doesn't fulfil criteria X Y or Z?

is simply bullshit. (my emphasis)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

 

[bluescreen]

How?

See above.
Yes, I get that we're all lefty hystericals and should all calm down. He isn't President yet and he hasn't done anything except appoint a few people to his cabinet. But arguing about whether he's an actual fascist or will just lock up Muslims who may be terrorists, waterboard people who look well dodge, or do any of the other hefty macho things he's talked about - well, it seems a bit like mediaeval disputations. Maybe he will be a regular politician who never fulfils any of his promises.
What has he actually got to do before you would call him a fascist?

 

[mojo pixy]

Isn't whether or not DJT personally holds beliefs that could be called fascism (or whether he himself would accept to call them fascism) which is the issue, isn't it how the government behaves that will denote whether it's actual fascism or not? To be fair, with those named in it so far it certainly has the makings of fascism. Not that it has far to go, the US state is quite made for fascism (come on, an eagle? Fasces on the currency??)

Maybe it's just the pretence that's over.