This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
What do you think fascism is? What we have is a populist, nationalist, racist, far-right regime headed by a man that our highest court has ruled can't be held accountable for his "official" actions and who acts like a dictator (as further evidenced in this case by going to war without congress) who uses to the power of the government to attack/threaten/suppress his "enemies" here in the US. If this isn't textbook fascism you must admit that it at least checks a lot of the same boxes
Well this is not fascism, this is, as you said, a populist regime.
The far left loves to categorize everything at its right as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even though the country was communist.
There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries have similar laws.
> The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Sure, why don't we:
- leader with a cult of personality
- an idealized story of the prosperous past (make america great again)
- pinning blame for the nation's downfall on marginalized minorities and persecuting them (immigrants, socialists)
- aggressively anti-socialist/leftist, protection of capital and suppression of labor rights
- glorification of violence (ICE, hate crimes, "department of war")
- ramping up existing and starting new imperialistic conflicts (Venezuela, Cuba, now Iran)
- rolling back personal liberties (freedom of speech, right to due process, women's rights)
- suppression of the free press given unfavorable reporting (revocation of TV licenses, revocation of access to white house)
- clear desire with ongoing attempts to dismantle democracy (capitol attack, violating separation of powers by illegally withholding funding for programs and violating court orders)
- demands complete subservience rather than competence in all appointed roles
- all of this with full support of the elites (clear shift in the 2nd term)
If you want to argue that the US isn't fascist because Trump hasn't completely dismantled the judicial branch yet, be my guest.
But fascism isn't just a concrete political system where a dictator has absolute power, it's an ideology, and Trump and the Republican party are clearly fascist in that sense - that is their goal. It's just a question of whether they'll succeed in dismantling the judicial branch before his term is over.
The only people who benefit from this sort of language policing are the fascists themselves.
P.S. I probably shouldn't be saying this but the fact that you refer to people sounding the alarm as "the far left" really gives the game away.
Each point, aside from the cult of personality regarding Trump, is shallow.
For instance, the US didn't start a war against Venezuela or Cuba under Trump. America was much more aggressive in the 80´s, if you want to compare.
Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it. It's not "democracy" when it suits your ideas and "fascism" when it doesn't.
Opposing socialism isn't "fascist" and afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it: social expenses and the deficit are still growing faster than ever. What is mainly happening is that ressources are being redirected toward the retired, who are influencial voters and a growing demographic. It's the same everywhere in the western world.
Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
By the way, most of those points have their Democrat counterpart with a different style, it's mainly linked to the evolution of the governance style in the US. Democrats also had their DEI unsuited hires, censorships (Meta was censoring on the order of the White House), and so on.
> Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it.
Stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing immigration = fascism, I said that identifying marginalized groups, pinning all of the nation's problems on those groups and then persecuting, victimizing, terrorizing anyone who looks like they belong to one of those groups - that is fascist.
> Opposing socialism isn't "fascist"
Again, stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing socialism is fascist, I said "aggressively anti-socialist", as in, violent anti-socialist rhetoric. Similar to the previous point.
> afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it
That's wholly detached from reality. The only reason he hasn't dismantled all of the social programs yet is because the courts have stepped in and intervened when he tried. See: USAID, withholding SNAP funding, Medicaid, the whole DOGE disaster.
> Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
Those are the core qualities of fascism. I get it, you don't like being called a fascist so you sea-lion about the differences to distract from the overwhelming similarities.
Even when Trump dismantles the judicial branch, people like you will maintain that the US isn't fascist because people aren't speaking Italian like they did in fascist Italy, or German like they did in nazi Germany.
I feel comfortable saying this because we're not just disagreeing on whether the US is fascist right now and there's still room to have argue there, but we're disagreeing on whether Trump has a fascist agenda and whether he's actively working to transform the US into a totalitarian regime following the fascist playbook, which he absolutely is.
I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat. I however live in a country where the soviet propaganda was crying "fascism" every single day of the year, for 60 years, so when I see people do the same I tend to be skeptical about it.
I still don't understand why "aggressively anti-socialist" policies are fascist. Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one, in France the fascist leader Jacques Doriot was one as well, for instance). Being a totalitarism, it aims at engulfing every aspect of the daily life, which means supporting socialist policies (similar to communism, another totalitarism).
Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist. Franco or Salazar are relevant examples, even thought today they would be categorized as such, since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism; it would likely be better defined as plutocratic cesarism, even though he did not make a coup (yet).
> I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat.
You don't have to be American to be a fascist-sympathizer, which you clearly are, since you label opposition to totalitarian methods as "the far left", lie about matters of fact, and grossly misrepresent the events that happened in fascist Italy while trying to represent yourself as someone intimately familiar with the matter.
For example:
> Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one)
> Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist.
> Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism
Fascism is not a branch of socialism, fascism frames socialists as enemies of the state and pledges to destroy socialism. Mussolini was clearly not a socialist ideologically, as he had them killed. That was the entire MO of the blackshirts.
> since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
No, we're just using the word appropriately and you hate it. You'd rather lie and make up a story about fascism being a branch of socialism than admit that Trump is a fascist.
You should read more about this, the creator of the fascist doctrine stated plainly that fascism was socialism with nationalist characteristics.[0]
Socialism and fascism share many similarities, given that they developed in the same context with the same roots : youth movements, focus on controlling education, citizen's health seen as a responsibility of the State, strong management of the economy, and so on. Both tend to classify political ennemies as a single group ("communists" in the case of fascists, "fascists" in the case of socialists), without distinction, just like what you are doing.
The fact that Black Shirts (which don't have a Trumpian equivalent) didn't like the other socialists doesn't make fascism less socialist, just like the soviet campaign against Trotskists doesn't mean that the USSR was less communist.
> we're just using the word appropriately
Rubio just admitted that the US participated in the strikes against Iran to please Israel. There is nothing fascist about this, and again plutocracy is a much more efficient explanation for the current regime actions. Saying that something isn't fascist doesn't make me a fascist.
"If you are not with me, you're against me" type of thinking... where did I see this historically?
> Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?
There isn't a single accepted definition of what fascism is. The USSR and their left-wing allies in Western Europe would define everything that wasn't communist as “fascist”. It still continues to this day.
I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
> I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil.
January 6th had all the hallmarks of the black shirts marching on Rome. And ICE is definitely pulling people out of cars and homes in Democratic cities. But I guess everything is fine because they're not making them drink castor oil.
Immigration enforcement is necessary, but these actions clearly have less to do with people's immigration status and more to do with political reprisal.
> Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
They'll always say they'll follow the Constitution to legitimize themselves, but their actions don't reflect it.
> The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
It has everything to do with fascism, not because of its motivation, but it's lack of democratic approval. This administration has a clear disdain for the democratic process.
I sincerely hope there was some secret vote by Congress that we don't know about.
> So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
I would've agreed with you if we were talking about Trump's first term, that was clearly just populism. This second term goes far beyond what any populist leader has done in Europe.
Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
> ICE
ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions. The problems mainly arise from the overhiring, lack of training, and braindead managers. By the way, many members agency are not white, which contradicts the racism narrative. Alex Pretti was shot by two latino officers, for instance.
> lack of democratic approval
Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
> farther than any populist leader
Politics aren't a 1d political spectrum were the ends are facism. Afaik declaring a war to satisfy the billionaires of another nation is clearly not fascism, nor even nationalist in the strict sense.
Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly. The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics, and the media system which favors outrage and "loud" candidates. Democrats also commited a historical blunder with the botched Biden candidacy and the lack of a credible replacement (Kamala was clearly not convincing from the early start).
> Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
The black shirts were no different.
> ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions.
Much of the prosecution of minorities in fascist regimes was not done by the militias, it was done by law enforcement.
> Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
A hallmark of fascism is the refusal to acknowledge any democratic limitations on the power of the leader. The article you reference states clearly that he has no legal authority to start the war, as he would need congressional approval.
France has the same system as the U.S., only parliament has the power to start a war.[0]
> Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly.
I'm glad we agree on that. I will concede that Trump may never become a true dictator, but the ideology is clearly there and if his power is not checked I worry about who will succeed him.
> The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics
Fascists regimes have historically been well-funded by money in politics.
You can alternatively read the wikipedia article about squadrism and see that there is nothing in common between the people that did Jan 6th and squadrists, which were a highly organized and violent paramilitary force.
> Much of the prosecution of minorities
There are many latinos in ICE - the Axel Pretti murderers were latino agents. All of this rethoric about ideology hardly matches reality, which is more likely a chain of incompetent people mismanadging the situation.
> illegal war
Article states that "Under the War Powers Resolution, which dates back to the 1970s, if a president enters the military into hostilities without congressional authorization, the operation must end within 60 days unless Congress expressly authorizes it.". Trump is within this framework, similar to the previous strikes on the enrichment plants.
> Succession
As usual with this kind of cesarism, it is tied to an individual and will deflate after Trump's mandate. Since they didn't cancel elections (like a true fascist would do, by the way, as it is not a democratic ideology), it may end up this year when they'll lose the congress.
> money
Fascist regimes had rich donors, but it was for ideological reasons first - Henry Ford's support of the nazi party comes to mind. The current donors such as Miriam Adelson or the tech bros fund him to steer the policy towards their interest, or just pure corruption, as we saw with CZ (Binance). I mean look at it, 13 members of the government are billionaires. This is a classic case of plutocracy - rich people's government. Caesar was also a plutocrat, which fits well with Trump.
There's still time for that, but canceling elections would make it too obvious, then even people like you would realize what is happening. That's why these days autocrats prefer to simply subvert the electoral system. That way people who prefer to look away can simply continue to pretend everything is above board.
Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.
Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.
Trump doesn't need congressional approval to launch operations shorter than 60 days, per the War Powers act, a law introduced by Democrats, by the way.
This isn't a simple operation, killing a foreign head of state is about as clear of a declaration of war as you can imagine. The law was introduced to put a check on the president's use of military force, it didn't give the president the power to declare war on another country.
"Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear
In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel"
