Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

US election 2020 thread

Fascists do ride in on a wave of populism, but so can others. There are also things about Trump where you can draw some parallels, but I think we are devaluing the term if we apply it whenever some element or other matches up.

Taking some of Trump's screwed up reign of mischief, there are some important distinctions that can be made:

There is no centrally-sustaining ideology with Trump. There was no assassination of political opponents. There was no idolisation of the nation state as the manifestation of virtue that the individual was redeemed by their complete submission to. There was no rounding up and murdering of minorities. There was so subsumption of capitalism by the State. There was no abjection of individuality in favour of the collective. There was, if anything, a reduction in Pax Americana's military aggression (militarism being a very central thread to fascism). Wages were not forcibly reduced in favour of rewarding workers with pride in the Nation. Dissembling, diversion and information warfare reigned, but there was no more in the way of naked power politics than is usual for the States. Masculinity and strength were not revered above all other ideals but the Nation. Very importantly (and this is something that Trump whined about continuously, the mass media was not rigidly controlled.

And finally* (and this really stuck in his craw), elections were not faked.

* Not finally, really, there are posters on here who could come up with much more than me
I think this is an unnecessarily benevolent view of the saga and needs to confront a few things: (1) it remains an unfinished project, (2) it was grossly incompetent but incompetence does not undo the nature of something, and (3) what the leadership itself does is only a component and you need to also consider the aspirations of all those in their orbit. I think if you take all that into account your idea is a lot less convincing and reassuring. That's without picking at detail like the complicit contemporary state of the establishment and the police, for example, but we would be here all day. I don't know enough about formal definition to call it fascism or not myself, but I think it's much more complex than your sort of ticky box list.

Your first sentence is important though, there is no centrally sustaining ideology - there is no central idea at all, just individual ideas competing adhoc. Really the great bit of fortune is that the emperor was such a petulant inconsistency of a man that no one of those more serious schemes was ever afforded enough time to grow before he got bored of its architect and had them dispatched. Bannon and friends could have been so much more of a threat and sustained this whole thing but they all fell victim to him.
 
I think this is an unnecessarily benevolent view of the saga and needs to confront a few things: (1) it remains an unfinished project, (2) it was grossly incompetent but incompetence does not undo the nature of something, and (3) what the leadership itself does is only a component and you need to also consider the aspirations of all those in their orbit. I think if you take all that into account your idea is a lot less convincing and reassuring.

It's not supposed to be reassuring. It's not even to say that a second term couldn't have led to some nasty (nastier) places. Something can be very dark and troubling without being fascism and a leader can be a total nightmare without being a fascist. I'm just picking up the things commonly used to delineate fascism from a right-wing populist Government.
 
It's not supposed to be reassuring. It's not even to say that a second term couldn't have led to some nasty (nastier) places. Something can be very dark and troubling without being fascism and a leader can be a total nightmare without being a fascist. I'm just picking up the things commonly used to delineate fascism from a right-wing populist Government.
Right. But a second term that made things worse wouldn't have in itself been more fascist, other than through its consequences like more elements falling into the vortex. A shit attempt at a riot and a failed, bonkers attempt to undermine an election is still just as fash (if indeed it is) as a well executed operation or a more elaborate fraud. The nature is in the intent and aspiration.
 
I don't know enough about formal definition to call it fascism or not myself, but I think it's much more complex than your sort of ticky box list.

Each of those could be expanded upon, there are things I'm sure I've missed too.
Without a degree of day to day political violence that was not there, or wide acceptance of total submission to a leader who is the epitome of the State (I missed that one, though dictators of other stripes have enjoyed that too), I think it's not accurate or worthwhile to say this was fascism.

Your first sentence is important though, there is no centrally sustaining ideology - there is no central idea at all, just individual ideas competing adhoc. Really the great bit of fortune is that the emperor was such a petulant inconsistency of a man that no one of those more serious schemes was ever afforded enough time to grow before he got bored of its architect and had them dispatched. Bannon and friends could have been so much more of a threat and sustained this whole thing but they all fell victim to him.

Yes, I think his incompetence was a mercy, and a Mike Pence presidency might have turned out much worse imo.
 
I feel he's not a facist because it does require an ideology beyond the 'charismatic leader', and Trump's only ideology is the glory of Donald Trump. He said whatever he thought would make people revere him (Build the wall lock her up America First we've done too much for the world and got nothing back Drain the swamp Uhm I suppose I don't like abortion, God Jesus and stuff etc etc ad infinitum) There's nothing he wanted from America other than to get to be President and feel important and he probably assumed he could get stuff done but the impression I get from insider accounts was that he was constantly thwarted in that by, you know, actually having to get people to agree to stuff.

But I do think he has set a worrying precedent and emboldened a retrogressive agenda. My husband has always said that one of the most telling things Trump has said about himself is 'I'm a 1950s kind of guy' - an idea that spoke to people who want a world where, for example, women and black people 'know their place'.

He is a president who has thrived off politicising things that shouldn't be a matter of political affiliation - eg climate change, the existence and threat of a pandemic that's killed over 300,000 Americans and so forth - and even further embedded the idea of American exceptionalism.
 
Sicknick is a damn fine name for a rozzer!
"What do you think of my police station, I'm pretty proud of what we've done with it recently?" "Yeah, it's a proper sick nick, that!"



On a more serious note, and quite relevant to the ongoing discussion in this thread, just had one of my housemates - a lovely bloke, and totally fine 90% of the time, also very intelligent in his way - walk in while I was doing the washing up and start explaining how the whole thing was orchestrated by Biden, Antifa and Soros, and Trump's twitter got taken away because he was going to use it to calm the situation down and they wanted to prevent that happening. I did try asking a few questions but eventually decided it would be better to just stay quiet until I finished doing the washing up and could quietly retreat. There was a surreal interlude when one of my other housemates walked in and it briefly switched to a conversation about "which people in the house go to the toilet at which times" before it went back to the Biden/Soros track.
 
Well, yeah but isn’t the trick to spot the fascist before all of those things happen not after?

exactly
those who have been using the F word in relation to Trump aren't saying the US is now a fascist state, but are broadly in agreement that there's a fascist creep going on, Trump is openly aligning with open fascists, and there is a clear direction of travel, and empowering of fascistic forces, both in the US and internationally.
 
Among them is the case announced against Alabama resident Lonnie Coffman. Federal officials say they found 11 Molotov cocktails filled with gasoline and homemade napalm inside Coffman's red pickup truck near the Capitol grounds Wednesday, in addition to a cache of firearms including an automatic weapon.

Several Arrested After Capitol Riot, Including Man Accused of Having 11 Molotov Cocktails in Truck

Sorry if already posted, but this is pretty batshit crazy! Wonder what he was expecting for the day...
 
Right. But a second term that made things worse wouldn't have in itself been more fascist, other than through its consequences like more elements falling into the vortex. A shit attempt at a riot and a failed, bonkers attempt to undermine an election is still just as fash (if indeed it is) as a well executed operation or a more elaborate fraud. The nature is in the intent and aspiration.

No, I don't think a second term of Trump would have led to something historians would put on a shelf aside Mussolini or Hitler either.
And the fantasist coup attempt really was just that. I'd love to know what was going on in Trump's head as he was whipping the crowd up.
 
exactly
those who have been using the F word in relation to Trump aren't saying the US is now a fascist state, but are broadly in agreement that there's a fascist creep going on, Trump is openly aligning with open fascists, and there is a clear direction of travel, and empowering of fascistic forces, both in the US and internationally.

I wouldn't disagree with the broad direction of travel, but it's a poor Fuhrer who gets voted out.
 
He is a president who has thrived off politicising things that shouldn't be a matter of political affiliation - eg climate change, the existence and threat of a pandemic that's killed over 300,000 Americans and so forth - and even further embedded the idea of American exceptionalism.

Although to some of the world I think he has trashed that last idea.
 
If anyone wants more of that sort of analysis of the US far right - that looks at the development of anti-system far right - i recommend they have a look at Matthew N Lyon's (from Three Way Fight) book Insurgent Supremacists: The U.S. Far Right’s Challenge to State and Empire. It might surprise a lot of posters. Certainly would a lot of late arriving journalists. Lot of stuff on his site too.
Cheers, the interview he did before the election is interesting and prescient.
 
No, I don't think a second term of Trump would have led to something historians would put on a shelf aside Mussolini or Hitler either.

He doesn't have to be in power to continue the direction of travel. He doesn't need the mainstream media onside either...the base is there.

Again...there are archetypes and traditional tools but that doesn't mean we are not seeing examples of and roads to even if we don't know where they'll ultimately lead.
 
I'd hope for a Soviet Union-style collapse - that is, at least the 1st couple of years: Largely peaceful, although awesomely ridden with Robber Baronage.

I suspect that what the US will get, will be zones akin to those Snake Pliskin was sent into: Walled penal colonies, where the headline predator is ruler, plus incidental insurrection & Quantrill's Raiders-type guerrilla activity out in the wider country.
The neoliberal capitalist world order will collapse from its centre, as the communist block did. Replaced by a worker-owned, community-funded economy and bottom-up democracy.

Perhaps...

Gotta have some optimistic thoughts sometimes. :)
 
Fascists do ride in on a wave of populism, but so can others. There are also things about Trump where you can draw some parallels, but I think we are devaluing the term if we apply it whenever some element or other matches up.

Taking some of Trump's screwed up reign of mischief, there are some important distinctions that can be made:

There is no centrally-sustaining ideology with Trump. There was no assassination of political opponents. There was no idolisation of the nation state as the manifestation of virtue that the individual was redeemed by their complete submission to. There was no rounding up and murdering of minorities. There was so subsumption of capitalism by the State. There was no abjection of individuality in favour of the collective. There was, if anything, a reduction in Pax Americana's military aggression (militarism being a very central thread to fascism). Wages were not forcibly reduced in favour of rewarding workers with pride in the Nation. Dissembling, diversion and information warfare reigned, but there was no more in the way of naked power politics than is usual for the States. Masculinity and strength were not revered above all other ideals but the Nation. Very importantly (and this is something that Trump whined about continuously, the mass media was not rigidly controlled.

And finally* (and this really stuck in his craw), elections were not faked.

* Not finally, really, there are posters on here who could come up with much more than me

Does fascism need a self sustaining ideology? Fascism has never been ideologically coherent in the same way as Marxist Leninism or Liberalism. Mussolini was Monarchist one day and Republican the next, devout Catholic on Tuesday and iconoclastic atheist on Wednesday. Fascism is a word to describe whatever it was that Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and others had in common, it isn't particularly well defined, but I think a movement against liberal democracy led by a supposedly messianic individual portrayed as near godlike is fair game to refer to as a fascist movement.

America under Trump was clearly not a fascist state, because the institutions were much stronger than those of 1930s Europe and were able to put a check on Trump's ambitions. However, just because Trump did not lead a fascist state, doesn't mean that he led, or at least was the figurehead of, a fascist movement. It is very different to normal American conservatism, which I believe did genuinely respect liberal democracy, and the worship of a leader as a godlike figure who should declare martial law and save the country by enacting a "storm" against a vast conspiracy is novel in American right wing and populist politics. The mysticism and New age stylings of Qanon also strikes me as similar to Nazi interest in the occult.

I don't have any problem referring to it as a nascent fascist movement. Certainly if his supporters do split from the Republicans and form a "Patriot Party" or something, then it would be easier to talk about it in those terms, as the Republican Party by itself is certainly not fascist, even if Trump's core supporters represent a fascist current within the party.

If we don't want to use the word fascism, then we certainly need a specific term to describe this kind of movement against liberal democracy which populism and authoritarianism doesn't quite cover. Fascism is the most fitting term I can conceive of, and if we can't call Qanon a fascist movement then we shouldn't call any movement fascist but Mussolini's National Fascist Party.
 
Cheers, the interview he did before the election is interesting and prescient.
This one is also pretty prescient - he maps out very clearly what Trump's strategy has been (and how it may have succeeded had things been a little different)

 
He doesn't have to be in power to continue the direction of travel. He doesn't need the mainstream media onside either...the base is there.

Again...there are archetypes and traditional tools but that doesn't mean we are not seeing examples of and roads to even if we don't know where they lead.

I really just don't think the f word (unless we mean fuckwit) is strictly applicable here.
It's not meant as any kind of defence of anything. I just think the word is best used to mean something much more specific.

There was nothing there that isn't covered by 'right-wing populist cuntsock' in my opinion. I'm open to counter-arguments.
 
I don't want to spam Three-Way Fight too much, but there is a lot of good stuff on there, including this: ON FASCISM

I suppose I would call Trumpism like an uneasy coalition of forces including fascists as well as forces closer to traditional conservatism, which may well now be in the process of splitting apart?
 
I suppose another way of looking at it is, what do we gain by using the fascist label? Like, what is it that describing something as fascist enables us to do that using other terms doesn't? Obviously, the language of fascism/antifascism can be a powerful motivating tool, as with all that nazi-punching stuff around Richard Spencer and so on, but I think you can still justify punching an authoritarian nationalist populist or whatever, it's just a bit more of a mouthful.
 
This one is also pretty prescient - he maps out very clearly what Trump's strategy has been (and how it may have succeeded had things been a little different)

Yeah, the interview covers a lot of the same ground as that piece. Key to all his analysis is the (absolutely correct) recognition that it really is a three way fight!
 
Does fascism need a self sustaining ideology? Fascism has never been ideologically coherent in the same way as Marxist Leninism or Liberalism. Mussolini was Monarchist one day and Republican the next, devout Catholic on Tuesday and iconoclastic atheist on Wednesday. Fascism is a word to describe whatever it was that Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and others had in common, it isn't particularly well defined, but I think a movement against liberal democracy led by a supposedly messianic individual portrayed as near godlike is fair game to refer to as a fascist movement.

I don't think that was there, even. I've spoken to a few Trumpers and they all have a problem with him on one level or another. They mostly saw him as a vehicle to getting what they wanted (whether that be a more traditionally 'conservative' America, or dealing with 'Big Government' etc. but the 'cult of personality' had a lot of chinks in it. There was plenty of leeway for people to project their own wants onto the image.

If we don't want to use the word fascism, then we certainly need a specific term to describe this kind of movement against liberal democracy which populism and authoritarianism doesn't quite cover. Fascism is the most fitting term I can conceive of, and if we can't call Qanon a fascist movement then we shouldn't call any movement fascist but Mussolini's National Fascist Party.

Yeah, I don't know what we'll end up calling it. QAnon is a different question. I don't think you can apply the term to a leaderless international group of conspiranoids.
 
Digging through older Lyons stuff, found this from 2015, which I think is useful:
Given the danger Trump poses, some people have asked: does it really matter whether he fits somebody’s definition of fascist or not? Is this question useful, or is it just an abstract intellectual debate? I think it does matter, because it can help us understand the danger more clearly: not just his politics but also his relationship with — and capacity to mobilize — organized white nationalist far rightists. Saying it doesn’t matter whether Trump is a right-wing populist or a fascist is like saying it doesn’t matter whether Bernie Sanders is a social democrat or a communist. I think we should apply the same kind of intelligent analysis to the right as we do to the left, because it’s just as important for us to understand our enemies as it is to understand our (would-be) allies.

Radicals facing major candidates, left and right
Let’s stay with the Bernie Sanders analogy for a moment. In this presidential race, U.S. radicals — people who advocate a fundamental transformation of the socio-economic order — are faced with a major party candidate who breaks a serious political taboo by calling himself a socialist, says some of the things we think are important, and is generating new interest in socialist politics. On the other hand, a lot of us have serious problems with some of his positions, he works within the existing system, and he has a long history that shows he’s really not a radical. What should we do? Some people who consider themselves radicals support him, others reject him as an apologist for U.S. capitalism and empire, and others are conflicted. People may say it’s pointless to get behind him because he couldn’t make meaningful change as president even if he wanted to, or they may say his campaign is raising important issues and could be a stepping stone to genuinely radical initiatives.

If somebody said, “Sanders says a lot of the things communists say, so he must be a communist,” or “he may not be a full-blown communist now, but his kind of politics inherently leads to communism,” most leftists would not take this very seriously. Whether we support Sanders or not, we would recognize this as sloppy analysis, if not McCarthyite smear-mongering...

The Sanders analogy doesn’t prove anything one way or another about Donald Trump and fascism, but I hope it offers a useful perspective on the question and how we think about it. While Trump is not Sanders’s mirror image, some of the issues he poses for far rightists are similar. A lot of white nationalist far rightists — who believe that racial renewal demands a radical break with the established social and political order, and who draw on traditions of both homegrown white supremacy and European fascism — are very interested in Trump’s candidacy, because he’s defying the political establishment, saying a lot of the things they believe, and generating new interest in their politics. But they’re also clear that he’s not one of them, they disagree with some of what he says and some of what he’s done, and they’re skeptical about how much they can trust him. So they have to decide how they want to respond. Some of them reject his campaign while many others have welcomed it. They generally don’t think he’s going to bring the kind of far-reaching change they want, but many of them see him as raising important issues and as a possible bridge toward more radical initiatives.
 
I wouldn't disagree with the broad direction of travel, but it's a poor Fuhrer who gets voted out.
Trump is not Hitler. (Hes a very naughty boy Monty Python joke there)
Its not just about Trump - the US far-alt-right is pretty broad and deep and seems to have some serious money to play with, and theres some intellectuals with visions in the mix too. And its not just about the US.
There are some huge crisis up the road, climate change and careering capitalism the two big ones, Covid far from done, plus who knows what else...There'll be a US war along before too long. Moments of extreme crisis throw up extreme political outcomes.
Arguing about is it fascism-now is to potentially miss the direction of travel, and on that score i think theres every reason to be very wary if not outright worried about how things are shaping up.

Hitmouse asks what does it serve to use the word now? I think it helps to focus minds on potential destinations. And when there are self-identifying open fascists involved and welcomed in the mix, i dont think its that big a jump. If you are actively enabling fascists, that makes you a fascist in my book.
 
disgusting little pigs


They took a dump on American democracy — literally.

Some of the unhinged pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday defecated inside the historic building and “tracked” their feces in several hallways, the Daily News has learned.

A source close to Sen. Chuck Schumer said staffers to the New York Democrat found out about the fecal fiasco on Thursday.

The vile attackers, whose violent invasion of the Capitol left five people dead, apparently went No. 2 in a bathroom and then smeared their extremist excrement around the building, leaving behind brownish “foot-prints,” the source said.
“It looked like they tracked it around,” said the person.
 
Back
Top Bottom