No he’s a wholesome freedom lover and flag kisser, like all our greats 🥰🤗

I’m no fascism expert, but he literally hits every one of the 14 points in Ur-fascism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

I never finished r.paxtons anatomy of fascism but yeah I’d argue he is. But I call libs fascists to the point my friends have told me i need to dial it back.

I cant find the quote I’m looking for to reference, but there’s a fascist inside all of us and we have to fight them or whatever

Arguably yes, arguably no. I’m not convinced it’s a particularly useful way to think about things tbh

I’m gonna say no he wasn’t (past tense), he was an opportunist that used others to seek position and power and ego.

The fascism came through being the path of lowest resistance to what he wants. If an alternative non-fascist path had less resistance he could have been the woke president, he’s exactly that uncommitted to any cause, he is a media figure who will mold himself into any shape that would be successful. He molded himself into the fascist because it ultimately was the easiest way to reconcile the contradictions in the right, the fighting factions previously divided now show very little sign of division. These contradictions were not resolved in his first term and he was not wholly a fascist at that time but he certainly is now.

What this means ideologically however is to be determined by those around him, not by him, he is a true marionette to capitalists around him.

He’s the most American man in existence, if that looks like fascism, well I’m not going to disagree with you.

I wrote a long thing about this in a different thread awhile back so I’ll link it here: https://hexbear.net/comment/5927199

I’m going to add to it here too:

I think the issue we have is that there is fascism as a material outcome and Fascism as an ideological movement that arose in Italy and Germany which people still identify with. A goose-stepping swastika wearing guy and Trump are not the same person.

Trump could still choose to do everything that fascists did or would do because it benefits him and never think of himself as a fascist or someone who identifies with Hitler or Mussolini.

He certainly has fascists who advise him, but they likely aren’t saying “Donald, we have to do this because it is how we achieve a fascist world, which is our grand plan.” They probably just tell him he will make a lot of money as will all his friends. It’s a good idea economically.

I think this is because he is American, and America was the original fascists before that word or idea we identify with Italy and Germany existed, and that everyone who accepts or promotes Americanism is a fascist materially because they are accepting and promoting the same material outcomes, but calling it being pro-American without even imagining it is intentionally fascist.

There are enough real fascists around to use this to their advantage and accelerate fascism, and enough people who think they are the farthest thing from fascist but accept fascism because it isn’t marketed as fascism, but as making themselves richer and their lives easier. If you are American, you accept everything fascism does, as long as it isn’t called that. This has been the case since the 13 colonies, since before America existed as a nation, and so now it goes totally unnoticed

He may not fit the definition exactly, but fuck him, yeah, he’s a fascist.

I’d say that historically fascism is a somewhat nebulous term that tries to cover a few disparate movements, but generally speaking has been a capitalist response to a rising domestic communist movement, and so in Marxism has a very specific/scientific meaning in that regard. So without that movement in the United States currently existing Trump doesn’t qualify in my opinion.

I think anyone with a billion dollars is a fascist. You don’t get that rich without stepping on people.

I lean towards the “No” side and I’m mostly informed by Daniel Bessner’s work and Richard Evans’ book “The coming of the third reich” about the rise of the Nazi movement, that goes for Trump as well as other far-right parties around nowadays. The center argument against I think is the lack of mass politics in these countries (not the case in Israel and maybe India), and that most people who use fascist just mean it as a term of insult for the right, like calling social democrats “communist”.

Danny’s been on some chapo episodes, did that Hinge Points show with Matt and does a global politics podcast called American Prestige.

If anyone wants a quick rehash of the debate there’s this podcast called Spaßbremse (it’s mostly about german politics from a left perspective, in english) and the host, which used to lean “No” and now leans “Yes”, recently (past 2 episodes I think) brought on Danny to argue for No, and then in another episode gave the right of response to John Ganz to argue for “Yes”, I recommend those 2 episodes because each are under an hour long and I think Ganz presented the strongest case for “Yes” I’ve seen so far. I would like if the host brought Danny back to respond.

I’m not sure he’s anything. I feel like he’s operating on a combination of base instinct, desperation, self interest, and whatever unholy drug cocktail they’re using to keep his neurons firing.

Anybody trying to define fascism based on the very specific characteristics of Italy, Japan, or Germany is going to run into reasons to call trump a fascist or not and be able to debate. Like the 14 from ur fascism. I don’t think that’s a useful way to spend our time. I think that the definition of “Actually Existing Fascism” from redsails is the one that is useful, and there Trump can really only be considered the current captain of a success of fascism. The US has been fascist (in expropriating from its shifting periphery) since it’s inception, and just survived the birthing pains. The “classic” fascist examples failed to become the dominant force of their own existence and thus failed. So Trump is just as much a fascist as every other American president; he just shifted the periphery to be an internal enemy instead of external.

Western definitions always find that shift mega-important, but I think Cesare’s famous quote (“fascism=colonialism turned inward”) was dialectically supposed to mean that all the expropriation at the periphery has been fascism too, not that fascism should be defined by its inward turn. That would only make the definition of fascism be an easy way to hide the oppression of the 3rd world as better than oppression of the 1st world. We Marxists should not accept that.

So yes, his fascism aims slightly different than the democrats, but of course he’s a fascist

I don’t think Trump is intelligent to have an ideology, but he enables fascism regardless.

Only in the sense that fascism is the logical end point of American Exceptionalism.