So: more than once you've said Trump is on his way to fascism (in this case "Time will tell") but that he isn't quite yet. Could you elaborate on what characteristics or benchmarks of fascism you're looking for from his admin / milieu that he hasn't checked off already?
Sure, of course. First, you have to accept a few basic ground rules when it comes to fascism:
(a) Trump may *personally* be a fascist -- though i think he's too lazy and weak for that -- or people in his *cabinet* maybe be fascist -- and of this I have no doubt -- but that doesn't *necessarily* mean that his is a fascist administration.
(b) Fascism is for domestic use only; it's inherently nationalistic (which the Trump admin definitely is), and that means it can't be exported intact. So Trump might not be fascist-qua-fascist, but is rather riding a wave of authoritarian nationalism that exists in the current political climate. This can seem like splitting hairs, admittedly.
(c) There can be no ambiguity in fascism. Gradual as the transition may be, you don't wake up in the morning and wonder if you're living in a fascist state; you are or you aren't, and there's no doubt about it. While there are steps, both halting and ambitious, to do away with a lot of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy, most are still completely in place: we have free(-ish) elections, relatively broad freedom of speech, institutions that operate outside the influence of the state, freedom of movement (within a capitalist framework), no control of political parties, and so on. As much as we might think we're moving there, we're not there yet.
So! Given all that, what other reasons do I have for using uncertain language in this regard?
(1) Fascism is never the same everywhere. This is a huge mistake by a lot of scholars and why I prefer Robert Paxton's much clearer picture, despite all its caveats and exceptions; he recognizes that there were specific reasons fascism looked the way it looked and arose when it did in Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy, etc.; why it looked different in each of those places; and why it looked just as different in other countries where it arose but did not become successful (France, the UK, the US, India, etc.).
(2) Violence -- both sanctioned paramilitary violence internally and against a national enemy externally -- is not just a potentiality under fascism; it's an absolute necessity. Fascism isn't really a political theory or ideology; it's more of a philosophy, and it thrives on and demands an environment of constant action and unending violence. We're seeing bits and pieces of this puzzle being assembled, partly with right-wing street gangs and partly with the militarization of the police, but we're not there yet. We almost have to be actually at war, openly planning war, or in a period of *much more* widespread domestic repression to qualify as 'authentic' fascism; I'd say right now we're still within the American framework of soft authoritarianism. The fact that we're very lazy and privileged might work in our *favor* here.
(3) This may be the most crucial one: Fascism has to achieve a degree of societal radicalization, an abandonment of traditional norms of governance and a general if not total embrace of the fascist leadership by the population to the exclusion of everything else. Paxton described this as "integration of the community into a brotherhood whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction if possible or exclusionary violence if necessary". While we may arrive there, and we're seeing signs of Trump followers forsaking capitalism for nationalism as a mode of understanding the world, we're still way off from this. Trump doesn't have his own party; the party to which he belongs is not under his complete control; he cannot count on the cooperation of the military; there is no exclusionary social, political, or economic advantage to belonging to the Republican Party, and there is no punishment, bias, or genuine threat to belonging to the Democratic Party (or any other party, really); and, though there is just as great a gulf between fascism and totalitarianism as there is between authoritarianism and fascism, Trumpism lacks full dominance over any sector of society or the economy that he would be able to leverage into demanding compliance with his dictates.
This was way, WAY too long of an answer, but this is my present thinking about whether it's correct to call the Trump government "fascist". It's somewhat of a moot point, because it's certainly authoritarian and terrible in other ways, but it's always good to think clearly about these things.
So: more than once you've said Trump is on his way to fascism (in this case "Time will tell") but that he isn't quite yet. Could you elaborate on what characteristics or benchmarks of fascism you're looking for from his admin / milieu that he hasn't checked off already?
Sure, of course. First, you have to accept a few basic ground rules when it comes to fascism:
(a) Trump may *personally* be a fascist -- though i think he's too lazy and weak for that -- or people in his *cabinet* maybe be fascist -- and of this I have no doubt -- but that doesn't *necessarily* mean that his is a fascist administration.
(b) Fascism is for domestic use only; it's inherently nationalistic (which the Trump admin definitely is), and that means it can't be exported intact. So Trump might not be fascist-qua-fascist, but is rather riding a wave of authoritarian nationalism that exists in the current political climate. This can seem like splitting hairs, admittedly.
(c) There can be no ambiguity in fascism. Gradual as the transition may be, you don't wake up in the morning and wonder if you're living in a fascist state; you are or you aren't, and there's no doubt about it. While there are steps, both halting and ambitious, to do away with a lot of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy, most are still completely in place: we have free(-ish) elections, relatively broad freedom of speech, institutions that operate outside the influence of the state, freedom of movement (within a capitalist framework), no control of political parties, and so on. As much as we might think we're moving there, we're not there yet.
So! Given all that, what other reasons do I have for using uncertain language in this regard?
(1) Fascism is never the same everywhere. This is a huge mistake by a lot of scholars and why I prefer Robert Paxton's much clearer picture, despite all its caveats and exceptions; he recognizes that there were specific reasons fascism looked the way it looked and arose when it did in Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy, etc.; why it looked different in each of those places; and why it looked just as different in other countries where it arose but did not become successful (France, the UK, the US, India, etc.).
(2) Violence -- both sanctioned paramilitary violence internally and against a national enemy externally -- is not just a potentiality under fascism; it's an absolute necessity. Fascism isn't really a political theory or ideology; it's more of a philosophy, and it thrives on and demands an environment of constant action and unending violence. We're seeing bits and pieces of this puzzle being assembled, partly with right-wing street gangs and partly with the militarization of the police, but we're not there yet. We almost have to be actually at war, openly planning war, or in a period of *much more* widespread domestic repression to qualify as 'authentic' fascism; I'd say right now we're still within the American framework of soft authoritarianism. The fact that we're very lazy and privileged might work in our *favor* here.
(3) This may be the most crucial one: Fascism has to achieve a degree of societal radicalization, an abandonment of traditional norms of governance and a general if not total embrace of the fascist leadership by the population to the exclusion of everything else. Paxton described this as "integration of the community into a brotherhood whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction if possible or exclusionary violence if necessary". While we may arrive there, and we're seeing signs of Trump followers forsaking capitalism for nationalism as a mode of understanding the world, we're still way off from this. Trump doesn't have his own party; the party to which he belongs is not under his complete control; he cannot count on the cooperation of the military; there is no exclusionary social, political, or economic advantage to belonging to the Republican Party, and there is no punishment, bias, or genuine threat to belonging to the Democratic Party (or any other party, really); and, though there is just as great a gulf between fascism and totalitarianism as there is between authoritarianism and fascism, Trumpism lacks full dominance over any sector of society or the economy that he would be able to leverage into demanding compliance with his dictates.
This was way, WAY too long of an answer, but this is my present thinking about whether it's correct to call the Trump government "fascist". It's somewhat of a moot point, because it's certainly authoritarian and terrible in other ways, but it's always good to think clearly about these things.