What is the crowd's opinion of
The Anatomy of Fascism?
From 3.5 billion comments
56 reviews of this product found across the web:
I would not call Trump himself an outright fascist—but he's certainly a nativist anti-intellectual demagogue, with strong authoritarian tendencies, who's fanning and manipulating ethno-nationalist resentment.
I'd call Trumpism is a proto-fascist movement.
Here's Robert Paxton's definition from The Anatomy of Fascism—the best I've come across:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
The best one I've seen so far is Robert Paxton's definition from The Anatomy of Fascism:
>"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
For reference, here's Prof. Robert Paxton's excellent definition from The Anatomy of Fascism:
>"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
We're not there yet, but this thing is blossoming.
Excessive restrictions on free speech are the domain of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, not specifically fascists.
To 'act like fascists' one would have to be obsessed with the idea that the country is weak or declining in status, embrace a highly hierarchical view of society, view inequality as natural and desirable, and rabidly hate the left. Fascism is fundamentally a right wing reactionary movement against intellectualism and the left.
Robert Paxton's book 'The Anatomy of Fascism' is a great book to read if you want to understand what defines fascism specifically.
Bud, I'm not condoning smashing up buildings I'm just saying you don't understand what fascism is if you're going to make that false equivalency.
If you genuinely want to educate yourself I suggest this book as a starting point.
If you're content just shitposting, then by all means stay the course.
Had this exact same argument with some guy on r/UK
This is what I said to him:
>Brexit isn't fascism for fucks sake.
Educate yourself
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1400033918/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_FW0NRM0GDRHVGRKDS1HV
Read that book and gain an actual understanding of what fascism actually is.
Fascists don't allow millions of foreign migrants into the country in the last twelve years most of them not white.
Fascists don't spend tens of billions on welfare payments to the sick and disabled.
Fascists don't allow a vote of no confidence to take place against their leader from within the party.
Fascists in Pinochet's Chile taught their Alsatian dogs to rape women to terrify the population into submission.
Fascists from Mussolini's Italy took part in the Spanish civil war on Franco's side they murdered 1,300 men women and children in a saturation bombing campaign of Barcelona.
Fascists in Franco's Spain insitututed the white terror campaign where they gathered Republicans in front of crowds and shot 4,000 of them to death.
That's what fascism regimes actually do when in power. The Tories have been in for 12 years. They don't come close to being fascists And you should thank.God they don't, because believe me you'd know if you lived under an actual fascist regime.
Brexit isn't fascism for fucks sake.
Educate yourself
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1400033918/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_FW0NRM0GDRHVGRKDS1HV
Read that book and gain an actual understanding of what fascism actually is.
Fascists don't allow millions of foreign migrants into the country in the last twelve years most of them not white.
Fascists don't spend tens of billions on welfare payments to the sick and disabled.
Fascists don't allow a vote of no confidence to take place against their leader from within the party.
Fascists in Pinochet's Chile taught their Alsatian dogs to rape women to terrify the population into submission.
Fascists from Mussolini's Italy took part in the Spanish civil war on Franco's side they murdered 1,300 men women and children in a saturation bombing campaign of Barcelona.
Fascists in Franco's Spain insitututed the white terror campaign where they gathered Republicans in front of crowds and shot 4,000 of them to death.
That's what fascism regimes actually do when in power. The Tories have been in for 12 years. They don't come close to being fascists And you should thank.God they don't, because believe me you'd know if you lived under a fascist regime.
>Eco's is pretty good, it catches the rather complicated and contradictory ideology.
It captures fascist Italy and not much else. The definitions can be applied to a lot of regimes that aren't fascist. The Taliban would probably fulfill almost every property as well.
>Which definitions do you prefer?
I am not qualified enough to give this the answer it deserves, but I think The Anatomy of Fascism does a stellar job in dissecting the ideology to figure out where it does/does not apply.
>How similar should a regime be to Mussolini's in the 20s and early 30s to be declared fascist?
Trying to find regimes that are similar is the wrong way to go about it, especially since there are many different 'flavours' of fascism, the vast majority of which failed aside from Germany and regimes propped up by the two nations during World War II.
Franco loved to wrap himself in the trappings of fascism when the Third Reich controlled most of Europe but in truth he saw the Falangists as nothing more than a means to an end to create the conservative monarchist paradise that barely survived his death. His regime and Mussolini's had a lot of similarities but that does not make it fascist.
The various dictatorships that rose up in South America during the Cold War definitely took a page or two out of the fascist playbook but I wouldn't be comfortable labeling them as fascist either.
It’s nine pages dude
Nine
Please, just read it.
There hasn’t been 7 fascist governments
When the Republicans start promising free healthcare, free college, worker’s insurance, public work programs and the abolition of charging interest and speculative capitalism, then we should worry.
And I bet you read that and thought “that sounds nothing like fascism”
You should read something from an actual political scientist or historian
If you're looking for some good reading on the topic I'd highly recommend "The Anatomy of Fascism".
On the 'left' you'd theoretically have to worry about a hyper centralized authoritarian regime. Understanding and resisting extremist viewpoints is one of the few things everyone can be on the same page about while not conceding political points.
The Anatomy of Fascism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400033918/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_R2EABWS95CXDG0VANX38
The entire platform was built on murdering socialism and communism. They considered communism to be a Jewish plot and their entire ideology revolves around the eventual invasion of Russia.
Nazis invented the word privatization.
Are you an actual moron that took the Nazis word at face value? You think Hitler was telling the truth about the Jewish population too?
That’s their literal platform to lie, to manipulate, and use propaganda. It’s literally common place for right-wingers it’s to co-opt other ideologies, hence the “the third way”.
The fact that you think Hitler was telling the truth in any capacity speaks to your intelligence.
Lemme guess you think Kim Jong Un is also the democratically elected leader because he says so?
Read a book moron, https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
Also the literal link you posted disproves your moronic view, learn to read your own postings.
“According to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the 25-point program "remained the party's official statement of goals, though in later years many points were ignored."
“phrased like slogans; they lent themselves to the concise sensational dissemination of the 'anti' position on which the party thrived. ... Ideologically speaking, [the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking...”
The entire platform was built on murdering socialism and communism. They considered communism to be a Jewish plot and their entire ideology revolves around invasion of Russia.
Nazis invented the word privatization.
Are you an actual moron that took the Nazis word at face value?
That’s their literal platform to lie, to manipulate, and use propaganda. It’s literally common place for gas it’s to co-opt other ideologies, hence the “the third way”.
The fact that you think Hitler was telling the truth in any capacity speaks to your intelligence.
Lemme guess you think Kim Jong Un is also the democratically elected leader because he says so?
Read a book moron, https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
There is a book by Robert Paxton called The Anatomy of Fascism that I highly, highly recommend before you comment further on fascism. This book ought to be required reading in all high school curriculums.
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
I dare you to read anything pertaining pre-WWI history of France, Germans and Italy, the Interwar Period or any speech & writing by Mussolini himself. Paxton's description is much better suited, if you want to actually getting started.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton. Amazon link
I think going into this it would be wise to get a good picture of what was happening in Europe leading up the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. I recently read The Guns of August, which is a great book about the lead up and early days of WW1. You can see that the major European were focused on expansion into Africa. The tactics they employed to control the population, particularly by the English, (notably concentration camps) were then adopted by the Nazis.
So many roots of fascist ideology are grounded in settler colonialism. With that in mind a good read for more background would be Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.
Have you read Paxton? I'm asking because I'm convicend by the others comments that it would be the best option for me (since I don't have too much time for it).
Thank you very much for your attention!
This is pretty easily debunked. I would recommend y'all read The Anatomy of Fascism. It's good stuff.
If you want to know what drives the fascist worldview, and exactly why people are like this, I'd suggest: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
The third reich trilogy is also fantastic and lays out the entire context and explains exactly why Nazis had so much appeal.
Wow, hot take. Fascists like evading labels, but it's generally:
made up of nationalists or religious fundamentalists; this may change to adapt to local patriotic values
sense of crisis beyond the capability of traditional measures
power derived from sheer number and distress of its members
personification of society as a biological entity
obsessed with perceived humiliation and decline due to foreign influence or internal class conflicts
scapegoat that decline onto minority groups, which they seek to remove (or segregate or enslave)
focus on restoring economic prosperity and a mythologized version of traditional values
corporatist
promotion of social identity and loyalism to state/leader
attempts to fix its issues through authoritarian force
imperialist and militaristic
I get that its meaning has been watered down by 1990's teenage anarcho-punks calling authority figures fascists and whatnot, but it does still have a technical definition. I recommend The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton.
Just a nitpick - "Dr" Lawrence Britt doesn't really exist. This is a chain email that was popularized during the Bush administration. Robert Paxton's <em>Anatomy of Fascism</em> is a much better definition.
Anyway, yes, he's a fascist, fascism is inherently populist.
They didn't underestimate his support, they tried to co-opt the nazi movement.
There's a fantastic book called the anatomy of fascism that goes into detail on this and talks about exactly what is required for actual fascists to come into power:
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
Holy shit this is bad. Please read this book to get a more accurate understanding of what Fascism actually is.
I posted this in another thread, but going to post it again here since it's relevant.
I feel like we should be mailing textbooks/memoirs on fascism/authoritarianism to our representatives...
I thought about organizing a gofundme to send the same book to all Republican representatives (senate and congress) from Amazon, but I think it would be more effective if it was sent from individual constituents in the rep's districts. I personally feel powerless since all my representatives are democrat, but I think it would send a really powerful message if people in red districts sent copies of books directly from Amazon. It would only cost around $10 to do that, and you can include a gift message with your address and why you're sending it.
People smarter than me probably have better suggestions, and could even point out passages that should be highlighted and bookmarked, but here are a few suggestions off the top of my head:
- The Anatomy of Fascism
- It Can't Happen Here
- Or just go all out and send Inside the Third Reich (though this may come across a tad hyperbolic, even though there are some fair comparisons)
EDIT: Adding 1984 by Orwell to the list for obvious reasons.
I mean... if you're actually interested in this stuff, I'd recommend reading up on it, considering the answer to your first question isn't exactly a "reddit comment" length response. What stage of fascism we're in is a good question, it's just not a simple one to answer. Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is a really good read on the subject.
Rather than pull the move of just recommending a 300+ page book, though, I'd say we're somewhere between the "arrival to power" and the "exercise of power". The fascist movement has already rooted itself within the Republican party, and has power, but we seem to be at a point where that movement was heavily defeated in the election.
We're definitely not at the point where Trump has/could shut down the independent media, but he's definitely made steps to try. He's repeatedly urged/incited violence against members of the press. He's directed the use of chemical weapons against reporters. He used the power of his office to try and financially punish media companies that write bad things about him. And he's labeled mainstream media "fake news" and called them the enemy of the people.
I feel like we should be mailing textbooks/memoirs on fascism to our representatives...
EDIT: To elaborate a bit on this idea...
I thought about organizing a gofundme to send the same book to all Republican representatives (senate and congress) from Amazon, but I think it would be more effective if it was sent from individual constituents in the rep's districts. I personally feel powerless since all my representatives are democrat, but I think it would send a really powerful message if people in red districts sent copies of books directly from Amazon. It would only cost around $10 to do that, and you can include a gift message with your address and why you're sending it.
People smarter than me probably have better suggestions, and could even point out passages that should be highlighted and bookmarked, but here are a few suggestions off the top of my head:
- The Anatomy of Fascism
- It Can't Happen Here
- Or just go all out and send Inside the Third Reich (though this may come across a tad hyperbolic, even though there are some fair comparisons)
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson are not nazi's themselves (Molyneux & Southern are further down the white nationalist/supremacist rabbit hole). They lay the ideological ground work. You can't go directly from "normal middle-class white kid" to open fascist to right-wing terrorist directly. You have to lay out ground work, one piece at a time. And the ground work for fascism is exactly what Peterson, Shapiro, Kirk, Owens, and Rubin preach and platform.
Go read The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton and Eternal Fascism by Umberto Eco. Then line up the characteristics and ideology of fascism with what Peterson/Shaprio et all preach.
> So we should wage war against everyone who has bad ideas?
If that bad idea involves the systematic murder of 6 million Jews, then yes, I'd say we should try and stop them, forcefully if necessary
> And how would one tell the difference between nazis and non-nazis?
You just need to know the signs to look for. If you want to learn more about them, I'd suggest reading Anatomy of Fascism or The Origins of Totalitarianism, both of which give you a good understanding of how to identify actual fascism. Also, while I'm linking to Amazon, I'd also like to recommend It Can't Happen Here, which is a novel written in the 1930s about how the rise in Fascism would look in America
Boebert and her ilk are fascists.
Now, a lot of people use the word "fascist" lazily: as a general synonym for for authoritarianism (or what they perceive to be authoritarianism). Or, even more broadly: as a slur for anyone whose politics they dislike.
That's not how I'm using the word. I'm using it quite literally: I'm talking about:
- a far-right, radical nationalist movement
- which promises to restore the nation to some mythical past golden era
- and embraces a cult of grievance – they see themselves as victims
- so they scapegoat internal enemies for (what they see as) the nation's decadence and decline (racial minorities, LGBT folks, liberals and academics, etc.)
- and embrace conspiracy theories about the vile acts that are allegedly committed by those out-groups
- and seek to legitimize violence as a way to punish the out-groups and restore glory to the nation.
Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is a great primer on the subject – he's one of the leading scholars on 20th-century European fascism. If you have a hard time with the idea that the GOP in 2022 has been compromised by fascism, then I highly recommend reading it. It's only 336 pages, and he doesn't have a dog in the fight (the book was written in 2004).
American fascists in 2022 don't always, or even frequently, call themselves or even think of themselves as fascists. People understood this even in the original heyday of fascism:
"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'" —Halford E. Luccock, 1938
Or, as another quote puts it (this one's original provenance is unclear):
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
So: anyone who attended Boebert's little rally brought shame upon themselves. Vigliotti simply pointed to something that's already in plain view.
That shame is only magnified if the attendee is an elected official. They have a duty to uphold the rights and dignity of the people of Brunswick – all of the people of Brunswick, not just straight white Christians – and they presumably hold some amount of power, however petty.
They therefore have an even greater obligation than an ordinary citizen to reject the anti-American, anti-democratic demagoguery of people like Boebert. It's one thing for some powerless redneck uncle to fall for this stuff. It's quite another when fascists start getting their hands on the reins of power.
Clearly, you disagree – you don't think there's anything shameful about attending the rally of a fascist like Lauren Boebert.
Consider what that says about you.
Both Emily and Monke need to read a fucking book.
Not without doxxing myself, lol. I will say the book The Anatomy of Fascism, is a book that is actually a super interesting and engaging read on the subject and his examination of the KKK as proto-fascist is awesome.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
Ok, I'll take the bait. Here's what everyone has a problem with that you said:
> Fascism isn’t necessarily about racial superiority and annihilating everyone else. It’s been used that way but it’s supposed to be the someone gaining control of the government to benefit the people, and then giving it back. Like a weird governmental repair program.
None of this statement is true. Fascism is hard to pin down because unlike communism, it's not really a political theory/doctrine like communism or socialism, but a political phenomenon. I think the best definition (and refutation to what you've said) comes from historian and political scientist Robert Paxton's book, The Anatomy of Fascism:
> Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Even if you take the out-of-date (and in my incorrect) perspective that Fascism, because it's so hard to define, can only be looked at through the views of it's practitioners (as in Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, then you're faced with the reality that Fascism has always resulted in the death and destruction of the other as a core part of the system.
In short, Fascism is either a useless political ideology that is inherently bad or it is always a failure in practice. In either case, it's something to be completely rejected, not reconsidered or reclaimed. (Unless of course you take the naive approach that "all systems of government would work if people were morally perfect".)
You changed changed subject dirt bag. You changed the subject like smug prick because you wanted to lecture me on how I was wrong. You're blocked scum. Read some Ian Kershaw and Robert O. Paxton
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
https://www.amazon.com/Ian-Kershaw/e/B001ITX4WI%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
The Anatomy of Fascism https://www.amazon.de/dp/1400033918/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apan_glt_i_VXVRRBAR40ZPF6PK70HC
Whether knowingly or not, he greatly facilitated the rise of fascism in the US.
Now I'm not just some random person throwing that term around. I studied Sociology in college with a heavy focus on the evolution of societies. I've read countless books on the subject specifically in Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power and written numerous published briefs on how those societies became fascist. I know about the evolution of fascism in those societies (and Spain under Franco to a lesser degree).
Trump was not the first American president to be a terrible warmonger. He wasn't the first to marginalize vast swathes of the American public. He wasn't the first to lack the intelligence or charisma to lead.
However he was the first to drastically push us towards a fascist society. Looking at Robert Paxton's 5 Stages of Facism (From his exceptional book The Anatomy of Fascism) Trump took us from stage 1 to the beginnings of stage 3. By legitimizing fascist elements (holding nazi like rallies, legitimizing "alternative facts," moving away from logical discourse, promoting strength above all, etc.) he has, more than any other president, moved us towards a fascist society.
The dangers of us moving from stage 1 to the beginning of stage 3 will not fully be felt for years. Pandora's box has now been opened and we have tens of millions of America that have rallied behind an illogical cult of personality and these people would happily tear down the foundation of representative democracy just so "their side" attains power. Where president's of the past entertained their opposition at best and dismissed them at worst Trump actively encouraged violence towards the left and painted them as enemies of the state. There is a high liklihood this has a snowball effect into our country moving through the stages of a fascist society.
>Right wing xenophobic paleonationalism
Wrong. Fascism is Revolutionary Rebirth of a Nation in Palingenesis.
>Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin.[1][2] The key element of this theory is the belief that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of revolution in order to achieve a "national rebirth"—palingenesis
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830
https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Biography-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393337618
Enjoyed it too. Would definitely recommend Robert Paxton if you want to read more about fascism from one of the premier experts in the world on the topic.
If podcasts are more your style, The History of the Second World War Podcast has a good 4 (#7-#10) episode mini-series on the rise of Mussolini and 19 (#15-#33) episode mini-series on the rise of the Nazis that is very thorough and well sourced.
Then you are politically ignorant and need to read a few books, my big brained centrist friend.
I'd suggest starting here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400033918/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_t1_BIN.FbXC3V0GF
See, this is also gotta be a cop out man. You're effectively strictly locking "Fascism" into 19th century Europe and other hyper-nationalistic, authoritarian populist anti-marxist, anti-liberal movements aren't "technically" fascism? Do we call it neo-fascism? diet fascism?
Also, Trump has definitely used verbage that he would do exactly that! Make companies bring outsourced jobs back home under the pretext of benefitting the American worker. Also, outside of the nationalization of industries influenced by the Jewish population where did fascists actually do this?
In his book The Anatomy of Fascism (2003) American Historian and Political Scientist Robert Paxton defines fascism as
>[Fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
In his article The Palingenetic Core of Fascist Ideology (2003) British Historian and Political Scientist Roger Griffin offers his definition
>Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic (rebirth) form of populist ultra-nationalism
Examples:
- Trump claims 'When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total'
- Trump praises Xi, jokes about becoming President for life
- Trump blocks firsthand witnesses from testifying in impeachment hearings
- Trump accuses Media coverage of being 'Near Treasonous'
- Trump accuses James Comey, John McCain, Lisa Paige, and Peter Strzok of Treason
- Trump accuses Adam Schiff of Treason
- Trump accuses BLM 'leaders' of Treason
- Trump accuses Obama Administration of Treason
- Trump accuses Ukraine Whistleblower's lawyer of Treason
- Trump suggests an anonymous Op-Ed could be 'Treasonous'
- Trump's 'We Will Make America Great Again' speech - 2016
- Trump hints Federal Officers may be coming to more cities than Portland
- Trump confirms he is a Nationalist
- Trump claims 'our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that were villains', 'We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth', and 'We believe that our children should be taught to love their country, honor our history, and respect our great American flag'
- Trump accused of pushing Nationalistic rhetoric at United Nations
- AP fact checks claim Donald Trump downplays White Nationalist Violence and appear to support that he is downplaying the growing threat of white supremacist violence
- Trump thanks Populist Author Steve Hilton for endorsement specifiically calling on populists
- 2016 Politico Article listing 6 Populist Positions Trump was Running on
- Federal officers arrest protesters in Portland under suspicion of being 'ANTIFA' and are detained in unmarked vehicles
- Trump activates Insurrection Act, allowing the use of the Military against civillians
- Trump claims 75yr old protester shoved to the group by police <em>could be</em> ANTIFA provocateur
- Trump clears protesters with Tear Gas to clear way for Photo at St. John’s Episcopal Church
- Trump calls on supporters to 'Liberate Virginia' during Coronavirus lockdown and the 2nd Amendment is 'under siege'
- Trump says he 'will have to see' when asked if he will accept the results of the election (2020)
Fascist is actually really well-defined.
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what fascism is. Fascism isn't just the weight of public opinion that does something you don't like. It isn't "cancel culture."
Fascism is far-right nationalism. It was invented by far-right Italians and adopted by far-right Germans. Their prime enemy in both cases were the socialists.
There are a lot of more thorough pieces on this like Robert O. Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism but a shorter and more accessible piece is Italian author Umberto Ecco's essay on Ur-Fascism (pdf warning). He grew up in fascist Italy so he knows what he's talking about.
Trump is a textbook fascist who is trying to flout the constitution so he can be a dictator.
>physical violence against their political opponents, fervent nationalism, imperialism, and expansionism
I recommend The Anatomy of Fascism.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Maybe read. Your JAQing off is annoying.
> They use the same dogma but replace class struggle with national unity. They oppose the socialists...
So they do things differently... and oppose them... but are them...
> Capitalism is not fascist by any historical context (Wrong) particularly considering fascists have been historically hostile towards capitalism. (Wrong) Protectionism is the closest capitalism comes to fascism.(Somewhat) Fascism requires jingoism. (Correct) It requires hypernationalism, because hypernationalism is what holds the society together. The powerful state creates order and discipline for a national unity. (Correct) There is no room for self-interested internationalist businessmen who would sooner ship all of their factories overseas if it meant they could save a buck. (Wrong)
You have an anarchic 19th century view on things. How would you describe Trumpism today? Fascism...? Protectionist, Jingoist, Hyper-Nationalist, Order and ICE... hmm.
> The ideology is a reaction to the perceived failures of capitalism and liberal democracy.
Correct! However it does not abolish Capitalism, it simply reorganizes it to the Jingoist, Racist, and Fascist power structures. It remains Capitalism (remember it's Totalitarian) while dropping the Democratic State that puts a pretty face on. That is why many of the regimes you list are Totalitarian. ^^Capitalist...
I think you could benefit from reading Anatomy of Fascism or Antifa: Anti-Fascist Handbook for some updated views with easy reading.
Fascism doesn't care what economic structure runs underneath, it just wants control. Capitalism is Totalitarian which makes it a nice fit for Fascism but not the only shoe. Authoritarian control like Mussolini et all, is another shoe. I object to both Totalitarian and Authoritarian control, that means Capitalism and State respectively.
Here's the best definition of fascism I've seen—from Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism:
>"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
Paxton also talks about fascism's mobilizing passions:
>These “mobilizing passions,” mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism’s foundations:
>• a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
>• the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it;
>• the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies,
both internal and external;
>• dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
>• the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
>• the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny;
>• the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;
>• the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
>• the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Nazism is a particularly virulent variant of this that combined with these basic elements conspiratorial (and murderous) anti-Semitic scapegoating, pseudo-scientific racism and eugenics as official policy, and a fabricated mythology of an Aryan race destined for dominance.
Sure do. There's even a book you can read on the subject.
Like others have mentioned, the Hindu Caste system is closer to a traditional land-based feudalism seen in Medieval Europe and pre-Imperial Japan.
It's important to emphasize that fascism is very different from feudalism/the Hindu Caste system, because it involves the mass participation in politics. While defining fascism has been very difficult, Columbia Univ. WWII historian Robert Paxton has defined it as:
>a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline ... and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence ... [the] goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
You can read more about fascism in Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism.
The Cleanest Race is very much a fringe view, and itself has been highly criticized for (among other things) not recognizing the range of variation and character in totalitarian ideologies. It glosses over the rather fine-grained spectrum from communism through nationalist fascism, concluding that just because North Korea is definitely not communist in the traditional sense (which few would challenge), it much be some type of fascist state. But that dichotomy is a false one.
North Korean juche ideology does certainly share some similarities with fascism, particularly in its ultra-nationalism. But that is not enough to qualify it as fascist (at least in any way which preserves the meaning of the term, importantly distinct from other flavours of authoritarianism and totalitarianism), and there are some important areas in which it seriously diverges from fascism. As just a snippet, there is the "collaboration with traditional elites" that Paxton emphasizes; the maintenance of market-based economic structures (albeit with serious state intervention in labour and production markets in the form of fascist corporatism); and the important rhetoric in popular opposition to socialism that Griffin emphasizes (sorry; don't have a digital source for that).
But again, all of this is largely beside the point: the focus on the "fascism vs. communism" spectrum kind of bypasses the most important ideological components of North Korea. Rather, its most significant ideological characteristic is that of totalitarianism; you can take a look at Hannah Arendt's key work on totalitarianism to see how this perspective is the overriding one when it comes to understanding the nature of serious state oppression.
I would recommend this. In particular, chapters two and three go into detail about the onset of Fascism and Nazism in Europe. It's a very in-depth read.
<em>The Anatomy of Fascism</em> by Robert Paxton
Give it a read. It's a pretty interesting book about what fascism is,what is isn't, and how fascist governments come to power.
>>Antifa is an organized group of people with a singular common purpose. Sure, they may claim that "they aren't an organization," but they literally are. They are a loosely governed organization, but still an organization, regardless.
>Local antifa groups might be organized, but antifa as a whole is not. There is no consistent "antifa policy" on how to approach things like violence, protests, etc because antifa is not an organization. You could have a group of people calling themselves antifa in City A who do nothing but tear down fascist posters, and a group of people calling themselves antifa in City B who do nothing but milkshake fascists, and that isn't a contradiction because the groups are not part of any organized movement in any more specific sense than ideologically (people who dislike fascism and want to do something about it) and probably don't even talk to each other other than in the very vague sense that they may both use social media.
They are still operating under the name of Antifa and so they are a part of Antifa. Also, Antifa groups usually tend to be radical so I highly doubt that most of them are just "milkshake and posters" Antifa protestors.
>What are all of these "authoritarian" and "dictatorial" things that antifa does which are so horrible?
Destroying public property, assaulting people who haven't actually committed any violence against anyone (not all the people they attack, but good amount), forcibly censoring people that dont share their opinions and making threats to people that they consider their enemies.
There's literally footage of them doing this shit on the internet. They basically behave like a bunch of filthy anarchists under the guise of being "left wing."
>woefully inadequate dictionary definition that nobody actually takes seriously,
Oh that's convenient that "nobody takes it seriously" when it disproves their argument. You're also not realizing that it's literally the definition by Merriam Webster, which is basically the definitive credible source for definitions of terms.
> as evidenced by the fact that nobody unironically calls most authoritarian countries in the world fascist.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they aren't engaging in fascist practices. You don't have to directly associate yourself with the fascist party to be a fascist. Just like you don't have to associate yourself with the Nazi party to be a Nazi.
>You should consider looking into some actual attempts to define fascism by credible people if you want to throw the term around.
What makes your definition more legitimate than mine other than the fact that it proves your argument? I also trust a definition that was determined by a group of scholars more than a definition by some random author on Amazon.
> When I say that Antifa is fascist, I don't mean that they are literal fascists like Mussolini.
>"When I say that antifa is fascist, I don't mean like, you know, fascist fascists. I mean the other kind of fascist, people I don't like."
Ummm no, I mean literally the other definition of fascist that I presented to you (Of course I know that doesn't mean anything to you since "nobody takes that seriously," conveniently enough) Like I said, you don't have to associate yourself with fascism to be a fascist. You just have to hold a very similar ideology to them.
> Literal definition of fascism from every single source known to man (Wikipedia, Websters, dictionary.com, etc)
Oh yes, because those are credible sources you can use to define an ideology as complex as fascism alright.
Here, let me help you out. https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Paxton, one of the most prominent scholars of WWII fascist movements in Europe, would disagree with you. Fascism is a type of populist, ultranationalist mass movement defined largely by its lack of any real intellectual foundations beyond what is necessary for respectable window dressing. Historians have largely shifted away from trying to figure out fascist "political theory", accepting that it doesn't exist, and instead analyze it as a political phenomenon that develops in stages under particular social and material conditions.
Popular alternatives to The Anatomy of Fascism
