The two uncontested paradigms of fascism are Mussolini's Fascists and the Nazis. Mussolini may have come to power in a coup - though it was facilitated by the King who acted within his constitutional power; the Nazis certainly came to power using the mechanisms of the German constitution. I wouldn't say either were revolutionary.
Both dismantled the democratic machinery of the state once in power, but they did so using the mechanisms they were dismantling rather than just abolishing them by fiat.
Tldr; they're not revolutionaries, therefore they're no fascists would be a dangerous inference to draw.
I would add Franco's Spain to the list of canonically fascist governments.
Hmm. That’s massively arguable. It’s as possible - to the extent that entire books by mainstream historians* have dealt with it - that he was a nationalist authoritarian reactionary who used the Falange as necessary to help him into power then drew their fangs when he achieved the top job and no longer needed them.
Seriously, ‘was Franco’s Spain fascist?’ is the sort of thing doctorates still get written about. I nearly did!
Potentially on safer ground with Salazar’s Portugal, but even that wasn’t quite the same as Italy and Germany.
*interesting fact that a lot of the best 20th century Spanish history was written by English academics - largely because well into the 1990s very few Spanish academics would (understandably) touch it with a bargepole.
I believe Franco's government is often distinguished from Fascism.
Given that only Mussolini's party have ever self-defined as Fascist the definition is a bit dependent on the purposes of the person using the term.
Franco showed no inclination that I'm aware of towards ill-judged foreign military adventures as a way of achieving national glory which has been taken as one mark of Fascism. I doubt any distinction was of much importance to the political prisoners his regime killed though.
The two uncontested paradigms of fascism are Mussolini's Fascists and the Nazis. Mussolini may have come to power in a coup - though it was facilitated by the King who acted within his constitutional power; the Nazis certainly came to power using the mechanisms of the German constitution. I wouldn't say either were revolutionary.
Both dismantled the democratic machinery of the state once in power, but they did so using the mechanisms they were dismantling rather than just abolishing them by fiat.
Tldr; they're not revolutionaries, therefore they're no fascists would be a dangerous inference to draw.
I'm not a historian. But I was reading a while ago about the antecedents of the Nazi party.
For example it is said that the Nazis grew out of the Freikorps paramilitaries.
Does that make make them revolutionaries?
It seems to me that pretty much the only classical sign of fascism is the ideology of power and violence.
Unless they are explicitly saying that they are going to bring in their political ends with violence, it's tough to describe them as fascist.
I think Black Americans will argue with the statement Americans have not experienced fascism. The families of holocaust survivors who relocated to America will argue with that. I have tasted some of it when I was stationed in Mississippi. A local church is very Fascist in nature. Don't make such blanket statements, especially when you have never lived here. That's like saying all French are socialists.
It seems to me that pretty much the only classical sign of fascism is the ideology of power and violence.
Unless they are explicitly saying that they are going to bring in their political ends with violence, it's tough to describe them as fascist.
I would add an ideology of the popular will - that is, fascists represent themselves as the embodiment of the will of the people (with a strong helping of No True Scotsman - those who don't support the fascists aren't part of the people). And of course opposition to liberalism, egalitarianism, and genuine democratic processes.
I think I'd say that a revolutionary wants to abolish the political structures that exist and replace them. Fascists have generally operated within existing structures and subverted them. I agree that fascists aren't fascists unless they're into violence; but their rhetoric tends to punch down and, in so far as they punch up before taking power, they aim at the specific people in charge or at nebulous elites, not at systems or structures.
I would hope Biden's withdrawal from the campaign gives people some hope. This fight is only beginning. While Trump has been openning his spread against Biden, he is only two points ahead of Harris--a statistical dead heat.
I often return to Umberto Eco's primer of sorts when the topic turns to Fascism. IMO it is a term that's bandied about a little too casually, and a little too generically here in the US.
It seems to me that pretty much the only classical sign of fascism is the ideology of power and violence.
Unless they are explicitly saying that they are going to bring in their political ends with violence, it's tough to describe them as fascist.
I would add an ideology of the popular will - that is, fascists represent themselves as the embodiment of the will of the people (with a strong helping of No True Scotsman - those who don't support the fascists aren't part of the people). And of course opposition to liberalism, egalitarianism, and genuine democratic processes.
I think I'd say that a revolutionary wants to abolish the political structures that exist and replace them. Fascists have generally operated within existing structures and subverted them. I agree that fascists aren't fascists unless they're into violence; but their rhetoric tends to punch down and, in so far as they punch up before taking power, they aim at the specific people in charge or at nebulous elites, not at systems or structures.
Ok I think I see what you are saying now.
I think the difference between a Revolutionary Marxist and a Fascist might not be immediately obvious. However in the main, the Marxist is smitten by the inevitability of revolution because of the strength of the philosophy. So exactly how the tables are tilted, the structures are upended and the new order brought largely doesn't matter. If it can be done without violence, so much to the good.
The fascist is a different beast where violence is the point. We win because we are strongest, we rule because we are fittest, we destroy all other weakness with an iron fist.
It’s not really the fine detail people are getting at when they call Trump a facist - the fear is that enabled by social conservatives, venture capitalists, libertarians, instinctive authoritarians and white supremacists, he will win an election and then use a stacked court system to dismantle democratic protections to establish himself as a dictator. As a dictator we would expect him to be an oppressively vindictive to those he considers disloyal or offensive whilst allowing the toxic coalition supporting him to further their various agendas to the extent they don’t undermine him personally.
Whether you call this facist or not is largely a moot point.
Oh for sure. I guess it is just that Trump can be disgustingly far-right without actually tipping over into fascism.
Whatever you call Trump, he has - at the very least - defended his supporters after they tried to interfere with democratic processes using violence, after he gave a speech which stopped just short of explicitly telling them to do.
Easier said than done when feelings are running high and fear is such a factor.
If the advertised policies of one of the candidates do large-scale and significant harm to you, and to people like you, then I don't think dismissing your real concerns as "fear" and "feelings" is even slightly appropriate.
We've had any number of glib comments over the years about how if you vote for the "Leopards Eating People's Faces" party, then you shouldn't be surprised when your face gets eaten. And when it's completely obvious to you that one candidate is a face-eating leopard, and you are a person with a face, it's hard not to take your neighbors voting for your face to be eaten a bit personally.
Sure, I get that. And yes, the leopards could potentially eat a lot of faces. I'm not minimising that.
FWIW, I think the kind of personal strategies @Ruth advocates - self-care, avoiding alcohol to whatever extent people feel is appropriate, lobbying, debating, encouraging people to vote and to vote sensibly to avoid Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces, is the way to go.
It's an imperfect analogy but the farher of one of my brother's friends was on the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk. He was a conscript and when the German dive-bombers hurtled down to bomb and strafe the beaches and shipping, he and his mates would run and throw themselves into the dunes for cover.
An older guy, a regular soldier, a Guardsman, would stand squarely in the middle of the beach and take careful, calculated aim at the swooping aircraft. He never hit any but he did it time and time again.
When asked why he did so, he sucked on his cigarette stub and replied, 'Well, from the cockpit of an aircraft I present a less visible target than you do lying prone in the dunes. Also, I know my chances of hitting one of the pilots and bringing down a plane are pretty slim, but it gives me something to do and the concentration calms my nerves.'
Now, I hasten to add that I am not advocating pot-shots but the calm and calculated concentration on any strategies that a) help prevent Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces and b) gives people the balance and equilibrium they need to do so.
I think part of the issue with fear is that a lot of people live in places where their vote won't actually make a difference. In 2020, Biden got 6 million more votes than Trump, but the election was decided by a little more than 10,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
There are a dozen states that are potentially in play in this year's election. 70% of the US population are in a position where there is essentially nothing they can do to affect the outcome.
I think part of the issue with fear is that a lot of people live in places where their vote won't actually make a difference. In 2020, Biden got 6 million more votes than Trump, but the election was decided by a little more than 10,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
There are a dozen states that are potentially in play in this year's election. 70% of the US population are in a position where there is essentially nothing they can do to affect the outcome.
But there’s still that chance, as well as state and local races. I’m in red Florida, but I’m proud we turned my tiny little area of it blue last time.
The problem with stoking up fear is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Democrats have already been blamed for stoking things up to the extent that someone's taken pot shots at the Republican candidate.
I think @Lamb Chopped raises an important question and one which is clearly of the utmost importance in a highly polarised and volatile USA as well as applicable in broad terms elsewhere.
It'd be glib to say that the answer is to show love, compassion and concern to everyone, irrespective of their political or ideological persuasion, but that's the ideal.
Not stoking things up online would be a good place to start. As well as the usual day to day things like showing courtesy and respect to those around us.
Easier said than done when feelings are running high and fear is such a factor.
I'm intrigued by the reference to non-US Shipmates in this context. What's envisaged here? That non-US Shipmates desist from commenting on US politics? Or if they do, that they should do so in a different way to how they do it currently?
Or that they should try to cheer up and jolly along their US counterparts?
I'm not sure what non-US Shipmates can do to lessen the fear or lighten the load, as it were, other than to listen and not comment other than to show empathy. Easier said than done.
Is there anything that could be done or said by non-US Shipmates that is likely to alleviate fears or stoke up concerns and foreboding that isn't there already?
If we said, 'Don't worry USA. It'll all be fine,' then that would be platitudinous.
If we all sounded like Private Fraser out of the classic 1970s BBC sit-com, 'Dad's Army' - "We're doomed! Doomed!' - we'd be Job's Comforters.
Something needs to be done to dampen down fear and tension as the US Presidential elections loom. Other than a million and one Sermon on The Mount style actions by all involved, I'm not sure what the answer is.
Say what you believe. Even though speech can be many bad things, I value truth right up there with love - and that means I have to learn to stomach truths which are unpalatabe.
Different truths are unpalatable to different people.
Does this mean I’m a “free-speech absolutist”? Certainly I’m closer to it than the opposite. [/quote]
Whatever else we disagree about, on this I can wholeheartedly agree with you. ❤️
Easier said than done when feelings are running high and fear is such a factor.
If the advertised policies of one of the candidates do large-scale and significant harm to you, and to people like you, then I don't think dismissing your real concerns as "fear" and "feelings" is even slightly appropriate.
We've had any number of glib comments over the years about how if you vote for the "Leopards Eating People's Faces" party, then you shouldn't be surprised when your face gets eaten. And when it's completely obvious to you that one candidate is a face-eating leopard, and you are a person with a face, it's hard not to take your neighbors voting for your face to be eaten a bit personally.
Sure, I get that. And yes, the leopards could potentially eat a lot of faces. I'm not minimising that.
FWIW, I think the kind of personal strategies @Ruth advocates - self-care, avoiding alcohol to whatever extent people feel is appropriate, lobbying, debating, encouraging people to vote and to vote sensibly to avoid Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces, is the way to go.
It's an imperfect analogy but the farher of one of my brother's friends was on the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk. He was a conscript and when the German dive-bombers hurtled down to bomb and strafe the beaches and shipping, he and his mates would run and throw themselves into the dunes for cover.
An older guy, a regular soldier, a Guardsman, would stand squarely in the middle of the beach and take careful, calculated aim at the swooping aircraft. He never hit any but he did it time and time again.
When asked why he did so, he sucked on his cigarette stub and replied, 'Well, from the cockpit of an aircraft I present a less visible target than you do lying prone in the dunes. Also, I know my chances of hitting one of the pilots and bringing down a plane are pretty slim, but it gives me something to do and the concentration calms my nerves.'
Now, I hasten to add that I am not advocating pot-shots but the calm and calculated concentration on any strategies that a) help prevent Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces and b) gives people the balance and equilibrium they need to do so.
Or in some cases having more alcohol. I think it might be good for me, since I hardly ever have any at all…
I think part of the issue with fear is that a lot of people live in places where their vote won't actually make a difference. In 2020, Biden got 6 million more votes than Trump, but the election was decided by a little more than 10,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
There are a dozen states that are potentially in play in this year's election. 70% of the US population are in a position where there is essentially nothing they can do to affect the outcome.
But there’s still that chance, as well as state and local races. I’m in red Florida, but I’m proud we turned my tiny little area of it blue last time.
This is the first post-Dobbs presidential election. This has pushed a lot of states in the direction of the Democratic party in the mid-terms, especially states with an abortion-related referendum on the ballot. Florida is one of six states with such a referendum on its 2024 ballot. I don't know how much that would shift the vote, but in the 2020 presidential election the Republican margin of victory in Florida was 3.4 percentage points, or about 372,000 votes. I'm not saying it'll be easy or a sure thing, but I can reasonably see a referendum like that flipping 186,000 votes from Republican to Democrat, or adding 372,000 new Democratic voters to the electorate, or some combination thereof.
Truthfully, even if you live in a state you're convinced your vote will make no difference to, it just might. Because we have swing states now that used to be solid red or blue,and vice versa. You might be the beginning of a change. There's also the unpalatable fact that the media reports on certain states way too early, in a speculative way, and if you're in one of those and manage to shift things just the tiniest way, it might inspire someone in a late-reporting state to get off their butt and go vote.
I think part of the issue with fear is that a lot of people live in places where their vote won't actually make a difference. In 2020, Biden got 6 million more votes than Trump, but the election was decided by a little more than 10,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
There are a dozen states that are potentially in play in this year's election. 70% of the US population are in a position where there is essentially nothing they can do to affect the outcome.
But there’s still that chance, as well as state and local races. I’m in red Florida, but I’m proud we turned my tiny little area of it blue last time.
FWIW, Florida is one of the dozen states that I was calling potentially in play.
(I'd say there is at least potential for the result to go either way in GA, AZ, WI, PA, NC, NV, MI, FL, MN, NH, CO, and Maine's second district. YMMV.)
I do sometimes wonder why I bother. California will go for Harris, Schiff will be our next Senator, and Robert Garcia will be returned to the House in the district I live in. On the other hand, if we all sat at home, this wouldn't all be the case.
I do sometimes wonder why I bother. California will go for Harris, Schiff will be our next Senator, and Robert Garcia will be returned to the House in the district I live in. On the other hand, if we all sat at home, this wouldn't all be the case.
Here in Mississippi, the opposite is true. MS will overwhelmingly go for Tr*mp, both MS Senators will be/remain Republicans, and only one of four US Representatives will be a Democrat (as well as African-American) despite MS having the largest A-A population by % in the country (save the District of Columbia, which isn't a State). *sigh*
When I was in grad school in Orange County, CA, I'd go with my roommates to vote and the poll workers would say, "Oh, YOU'RE the Democrats." Never once voted for a Congressional winner there. But now OC is purple. Katie Porter, the one who takes down Republicans with facts on a whiteboard, is there.
Comments
Both dismantled the democratic machinery of the state once in power, but they did so using the mechanisms they were dismantling rather than just abolishing them by fiat.
Tldr; they're not revolutionaries, therefore they're no fascists would be a dangerous inference to draw.
Hmm. That’s massively arguable. It’s as possible - to the extent that entire books by mainstream historians* have dealt with it - that he was a nationalist authoritarian reactionary who used the Falange as necessary to help him into power then drew their fangs when he achieved the top job and no longer needed them.
Seriously, ‘was Franco’s Spain fascist?’ is the sort of thing doctorates still get written about. I nearly did!
Potentially on safer ground with Salazar’s Portugal, but even that wasn’t quite the same as Italy and Germany.
*interesting fact that a lot of the best 20th century Spanish history was written by English academics - largely because well into the 1990s very few Spanish academics would (understandably) touch it with a bargepole.
Given that only Mussolini's party have ever self-defined as Fascist the definition is a bit dependent on the purposes of the person using the term.
Franco showed no inclination that I'm aware of towards ill-judged foreign military adventures as a way of achieving national glory which has been taken as one mark of Fascism. I doubt any distinction was of much importance to the political prisoners his regime killed though.
X-posted with betjemaniac.
I'm not a historian. But I was reading a while ago about the antecedents of the Nazi party.
For example it is said that the Nazis grew out of the Freikorps paramilitaries.
Does that make make them revolutionaries?
It seems to me that pretty much the only classical sign of fascism is the ideology of power and violence.
Unless they are explicitly saying that they are going to bring in their political ends with violence, it's tough to describe them as fascist.
I think I'd say that a revolutionary wants to abolish the political structures that exist and replace them. Fascists have generally operated within existing structures and subverted them. I agree that fascists aren't fascists unless they're into violence; but their rhetoric tends to punch down and, in so far as they punch up before taking power, they aim at the specific people in charge or at nebulous elites, not at systems or structures.
Ok I think I see what you are saying now.
I think the difference between a Revolutionary Marxist and a Fascist might not be immediately obvious. However in the main, the Marxist is smitten by the inevitability of revolution because of the strength of the philosophy. So exactly how the tables are tilted, the structures are upended and the new order brought largely doesn't matter. If it can be done without violence, so much to the good.
The fascist is a different beast where violence is the point. We win because we are strongest, we rule because we are fittest, we destroy all other weakness with an iron fist.
Whether you call this facist or not is largely a moot point.
He doesn't actually have to be modelling himself after authoritarian, murderous leaders of the 20th century to be disgusting.
Sure, I get that. And yes, the leopards could potentially eat a lot of faces. I'm not minimising that.
FWIW, I think the kind of personal strategies @Ruth advocates - self-care, avoiding alcohol to whatever extent people feel is appropriate, lobbying, debating, encouraging people to vote and to vote sensibly to avoid Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces, is the way to go.
It's an imperfect analogy but the farher of one of my brother's friends was on the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk. He was a conscript and when the German dive-bombers hurtled down to bomb and strafe the beaches and shipping, he and his mates would run and throw themselves into the dunes for cover.
An older guy, a regular soldier, a Guardsman, would stand squarely in the middle of the beach and take careful, calculated aim at the swooping aircraft. He never hit any but he did it time and time again.
When asked why he did so, he sucked on his cigarette stub and replied, 'Well, from the cockpit of an aircraft I present a less visible target than you do lying prone in the dunes. Also, I know my chances of hitting one of the pilots and bringing down a plane are pretty slim, but it gives me something to do and the concentration calms my nerves.'
Now, I hasten to add that I am not advocating pot-shots but the calm and calculated concentration on any strategies that a) help prevent Face Eating Leopards from eating people's faces and b) gives people the balance and equilibrium they need to do so.
There are a dozen states that are potentially in play in this year's election. 70% of the US population are in a position where there is essentially nothing they can do to affect the outcome.
And don't forget about Congress. We can all vote in House races. Many can vote in Senate races.
But there’s still that chance, as well as state and local races. I’m in red Florida, but I’m proud we turned my tiny little area of it blue last time.
Say what you believe. Even though speech can be many bad things, I value truth right up there with love - and that means I have to learn to stomach truths which are unpalatabe.
Different truths are unpalatable to different people.
Does this mean I’m a “free-speech absolutist”? Certainly I’m closer to it than the opposite. [/quote]
Whatever else we disagree about, on this I can wholeheartedly agree with you. ❤️
Or in some cases having more alcohol. I think it might be good for me, since I hardly ever have any at all…
FWIW, Florida is one of the dozen states that I was calling potentially in play.
(I'd say there is at least potential for the result to go either way in GA, AZ, WI, PA, NC, NV, MI, FL, MN, NH, CO, and Maine's second district. YMMV.)
Here in Mississippi, the opposite is true. MS will overwhelmingly go for Tr*mp, both MS Senators will be/remain Republicans, and only one of four US Representatives will be a Democrat (as well as African-American) despite MS having the largest A-A population by % in the country (save the District of Columbia, which isn't a State). *sigh*