[1/3]
Progressive broadcaster and author Thom Hartmann↱ suggests:
History shows that most democratic nations don't realize how serious their fascism problem is until it overtakes them altogether. We saw it in the 1930s in Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan; today it's happened in Hungary, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, The Philippines and Brazil, and is well underway in Poland, India and multiple smaller countries.
Here in America, the GOP today has a serious fascism problem, and it's endangering all of us. It's closer than most of us realize.
Fascism isn't just about the merger of oligarch and state interests; it also requires a repudiation of the rule of law and the institutions of democracy itself.
This is exactly what is happening deep within the Republican Party at this very moment. Trumpism was always about fascism.
Here in America, the GOP today has a serious fascism problem, and it's endangering all of us. It's closer than most of us realize.
Fascism isn't just about the merger of oligarch and state interests; it also requires a repudiation of the rule of law and the institutions of democracy itself.
This is exactly what is happening deep within the Republican Party at this very moment. Trumpism was always about fascism.
Fascism been a complicated question throughout its existence, and, much akin to the custom of Godwin's Law about Nazis, becomes especially complex when actual fascists are involved in the discussion. In that aspect, perhaps we might consider what fascism actually is or means. Hartmann's narrative, for instance, moves on to two paragraphs of narrative transition, leading to a political argument that is not uncommon:
Republicans who voted to impeach and convict Donald Trump are finding their local and state parties repudiating them, fueled by the rage of people who've bought into false beliefs of a Jewish- or Black-controlled “deep state” that's working against their savior, Donald Trump.
We've seen this movie before, and, tragically, history tells us most countries only recognize their fascism problem in the rear-view mirror after it's consumed their democracy.
This is very much how Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany a decade after he was arrested and imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government of Bavaria in 1923. It took his movement and his political colleagues ten more years to worm their way into power in 1933.
We've seen this movie before, and, tragically, history tells us most countries only recognize their fascism problem in the rear-view mirror after it's consumed their democracy.
This is very much how Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany a decade after he was arrested and imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government of Bavaria in 1923. It took his movement and his political colleagues ten more years to worm their way into power in 1933.
Sentence by sentence: It's true Republicans who did not support Donald Trump are finding repudiation; the degree to which racism fuels rage is certainly a question of its own, but supremacism is unquestionably vital to the conservative populism driving what Hartmann descries as fascism. And it is also true that we have seen this happen before, in the world, and the later narrative concedes that hindsight makes it clear; there is a tacit point to be considered about the question of whether and what people learn from history. And even if it did take Hitler ten more years after a failed putsch, it is also true we've heard many times, over the years, how this or that is very much how Nazis rose to power.
Sometimes it's actually true, and the historical question becomes how far a given moment, process, or movement, actually went, and what it achieved. But as the custom of Godwin's Law once reminded, certain accusations are extraordinary.
†
As it happens, four years ago Jessie Szalay↱ considered the question of "What Is Fascism?"
Fascism is a complex ideology. There are many definitions of fascism; some people describe it as a type or set of political actions, a political philosophy or a mass movement. Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate ....
.... Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."
Other definitions, Paxton said, rely too heavily on documents that Mussolini, Hitler and others produced before they came to power. Once in power, fascists did not always keep their early promises. As the American Historical Association put it, speaking of fascism in Italy, "The proclaimed aims and principles of the fascist movement are perhaps of little consequence now. It promised almost everything, from extreme radicalism in 1919 to extreme conservatism in 1922."
Lachlan Montague, a Melbourne, Australia-based writer and researcher of fascism, economic history and the interwar years, told Live Science, "Fascism is definitely revolutionary and dynamic." He said that some definitions of fascism, such as Zeev Sternhell's description of it as a "form of extreme nationalism" in "Neither Right Nor Left" (Princeton, 1995), are too broad to be useful.
.... Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."
Other definitions, Paxton said, rely too heavily on documents that Mussolini, Hitler and others produced before they came to power. Once in power, fascists did not always keep their early promises. As the American Historical Association put it, speaking of fascism in Italy, "The proclaimed aims and principles of the fascist movement are perhaps of little consequence now. It promised almost everything, from extreme radicalism in 1919 to extreme conservatism in 1922."
Lachlan Montague, a Melbourne, Australia-based writer and researcher of fascism, economic history and the interwar years, told Live Science, "Fascism is definitely revolutionary and dynamic." He said that some definitions of fascism, such as Zeev Sternhell's description of it as a "form of extreme nationalism" in "Neither Right Nor Left" (Princeton, 1995), are too broad to be useful.
Perhaps it is an unwieldy definition; nonetheless, Szalay suggests, "all fascist movements share some core beliefs and actions".
†
One thing we must bear in mind is a question of which, or perhaps whose, definitions are in use. There are, for instance, many ways to consider the idea of basic allegiance; Szalay observes:
Fascism requires some basic allegiances, such as to the nation, to national grandeur, and to a master race or group. The core principle — what Paxton defined as fascism's only definition of morality — is to make the nation stronger, more powerful, larger and more successful. Since fascists see national strength as the only thing that makes a nation "good," fascists will use any means necessary to achieve that goal.
And there are equivocating arguments that would expect, either implicitly or explicitly, that such criteria can be applied to both sides, all sides, or nearly anyone. There are, however differences. Montague observes that if fascists nationalize assets in order to increase national strength, this might seem to resemble Marxism, but there is a difference. "If Marxism was meant to become a magnitude of countries sharing assets in an economic idea," he explained, "fascists tried to do the same thing within a country."
This is an important difference, both of scale and orientation. Differing scale of cooperation and competition can produce vastly different priorities within diverse schemes. More directly: Marxism would call for workers of the world to unite as international body politic; fascism would call for workers of the nation to unite as national body politic in competition against the rest of the world.
Moreover, Szalay notes Paxton's seven mobilizing passions of fascist regimes:
• The primacy of the group — Prioritizing group, deprioritizing individual or universal rights.
• Believing that one's group is a victim — Victimization narrative justifies attitude regarding enemies.
• The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group — That one is pretty straightforward.
• A strong sense of community or brotherhood — "Unity and purity" built through common cause or, if necessary, "exclusionary violence".
• Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group — One's worth is measured according to group sense.
• Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male — The masculinity probably isn't absolutely necessary, but is obvious according to the customary value of traditional belief influencing the shape of emerging mythopoeia.
• "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle" — It seems a cryptic phrase, but we know approximately what it means, from art at the very least. As Szalay summarizes, "idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism".
• Believing that one's group is a victim — Victimization narrative justifies attitude regarding enemies.
• The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group — That one is pretty straightforward.
• A strong sense of community or brotherhood — "Unity and purity" built through common cause or, if necessary, "exclusionary violence".
• Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group — One's worth is measured according to group sense.
• Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male — The masculinity probably isn't absolutely necessary, but is obvious according to the customary value of traditional belief influencing the shape of emerging mythopoeia.
• "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle" — It seems a cryptic phrase, but we know approximately what it means, from art at the very least. As Szalay summarizes, "idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism".
Still, if fascism empowered "suppressed individual liberties, imprisoned opponents, forbade strikes, authorized unlimited police power in the name of national unity and revival, and committed military aggression", it is also true these aspects are not exclusive to fascism.
[(cont.)]
