The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
Presidents have been doing the undeclared war thing since the end of WWII. Nothing new there, the tariffs and other EOs have maybe increased markedly in the last few presidencies.
It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it.
> easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it.
I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
> believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state)
It's their neighbors, not the "deep state". Renee Good and Alex Pretti were the enemy within. People in inflatable costumes or pussy hats are the enemy within. Uppity kids in high school who get thrown to the drown and put in a choke hold. People filming ice on public streets. They are the enemy within to MAGA. It isn't distant and abstract. It's personal.
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian.
Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.
On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.
Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.
Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
- despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc).
- despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021
Americans voted for all of this to happen.
What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient.
Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic.
All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
Serbia used to be parliamentary republic. Nominally it stil is. In fact it is currently governed by SNS, former political party turned criminal organization.
> Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Honestly I’ve been filled schadenfreude with as the American civic religion collapse. Even the right is giving it up as they view it as too obstructionist.
The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded. It’s been fascinating to see the explosion of political thought amongst Americans in the last few years.
> The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded
I don't buy it, after January 6th and Trump getting re-elected, despite everything it will have to get much much worse before there's a conscious change.
difficult to have a change when you control just about all of the media. every decision now has a “reasonable” explanation and we past the point where people will en masse admit they fucked up. I have numerous friends who voted to the right in 2024 and it is fascinating to hear narrative after narrative and “excuses” why this is all good for us. nevermind that we had discussion in 2024 before election where just about every single reason they debated for voting to right has been shown that it was all BS… I am past the point where I believe there will be a change (it is not helping that alternative to this madness ain’t that great either)
It’s less about any of that. It’s more that I’m glad I won’t have to hear them deify the constitution anymore because they don’t care for it much anymore.
I don't believe that will happen. The Constitution will continue to be paraded as a tool to attack perceived enemies and protect allies. We already see it all over the place when MAGA talks about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
The hypocrisy doesn't matter to them because it isn't (and never was) about the "ideals" of the Constitution, it is about punishing enemies.
For the political movement in control, the law and the constitution exists as a tool to protect the in group, and to restrict the outgroup.
That's why they get so upset at the elected veterans that did a simple video saying "the law says you must disobey unlawful orders," the reason that such a statement is viewed literally as "treasonous" and worthy of "hanging" according to Trump.
Using the law to restrict those in power goes against their fundamental understanding of law. There is no hypocrisy, just a completely different view of what is criminal: namely the other guys are all criminals.
Sorry, I deliberately left it open as while violence is a valid solution in extreme cases, but I meant it more as using all the faculties available to us. In any case, I will try avoiding statements that could be seen as violating site rules.
We did. And if anyone would stop to actually analyze it, instead of just insinuating that we're all yucky poopooheads for doing so (in the futile attempt to shame us into stopping), they might come to understand why. Whatever the alternative is to how we're voting, as exemplified by Europe, we don't want it. Maybe there are more options besides those two, but no one's offered those or even described what they could be. Europe certainly hasn't.
>not one was a parliamentary republic.
And thank god that we're not one then. We'd truly be hopeless.
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning
The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically.
Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.
So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).
The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.
It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.
So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:
He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
10. contempt for the weak
11. everyone is educated to become a hero
12. machismo
13. selective populism
14. newspeak
I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.
At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar.
But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed.
So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
> I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar.
See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action.
Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides.
I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too!
The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.
>Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I'd like to hear your rationale for that. In the meantime, I'll add my comments on those points. But first, let me set a ground rule for myself: this review covers the political left in the United States. A circle of thinkers with no sway over the government isn't considered for whether the left matches the qualities of a fascist government. If that circle does have sway, then sure.
>1. cult of tradition
I cannot think of a tradition the left holds in nearly religious sanctity. This might be a "fish can't see the water" thing, so I'd be happy to learn one.
>3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
You didn't list this one, but I will. The left is prone to subgroups fracturing off and calling for extreme reactions (e.g. "defund the police"), and then not strongly quashing these dumb ideas. I think it's a bias to being inclusive and not wanting to deny anything that comes from an oppressed person. Noble intent, but doesn't always lead down the best path.
>4. disagreement is treason
I think you're conflating "cancel culture" with accusations of treason. Trump has literally accused people disagreeing with him of treason ("Air strikes on drug smugglers is illegal, and you should refuse to do so"). Has a modern Democratic official accused somebody of being treasonous for disagreeing on a political matter?
>5. fear of difference
If anything, the left defaults to celebrating difference. And no, "fear of MAGA" is not enough to qualify as fear of difference.
>6. appeal to frustrated middle class
Yes. Everyone does that these days, but yes. It almost seems like a pointless quality to isolate, because any political party would appeal to middle class frustrations. Maybe the better way is to offer hope. In that case, both parties could do a lot better.
>7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
The left is sliding down this path with fears about the midterm elections. To be fair, after the 2020 election, Trump did spread lies, prepared slates of fake electors, got Republican representatives to vote against counting voters from certain states, and instigated what ended up being a violent assault on the electoral certification. So it's not as crazy as "Democrats are busing in illegals to vote."
>8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
Democratic officials have called this administration dumb, selfish, and cruel. But not weak.
>9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, who was the enemy during the Obama years? That administration even had the laughable "reset" with Russia.
>11. everyone is educated to become a hero
I can't think of much evidence for or against this. Maybe it's just an American thing to lavish praise on "common people* doing amazing things. Neither party truly praises a humble life, despite mentioning it to cloak bad economic policy in "salt of the earth" rags.
>13. selective populism
I'll have to read the original work to see what this term means.
>14. newspeak
I genuinely would like to know some leftist newspeak. Again, fish and water.
> I cannot think of a tradition the left holds in nearly religious sanctity. This might be a "fish can't see the water" thing, so I'd be happy to learn one.
"Diversity" comes to mind. But I think that only makes sense when you consider it in the loaded "only certain kinds of diversity are allowed" interpretation. There are definitely unwritten rules around what kind of diversity is allowed!
"Reality has a liberal bias" also comes to mind, along with its variations that all require heavy selection bias.
The Democratic left's obsession with academic superiority also comes to mind here. There's a deep-seated bias that someone who graduates from a institution of higher education must be smarter/better/etc than someone who does not, and this belief is held to an almost religious degree.
> You didn't list this one, but I will.
I didn't list this one because I think the left actually has the opposite problem: believing that intellectual reflection alone is sufficient, and/or is worth doing for its own sake.
The left loves to make perfect the enemy of the good.
> Has a modern Democratic official accused somebody of being treasonous for disagreeing on a political matter?
I don't know about a "modern Democratic official", but the left in general (especially the progressive left) loves to ostracize those who disagree with them on arbitrary things, even if those people are otherwise in general agreement with Democratic values. It's not treason in the "state" sense, but more so in the social sense. The "you're a traitor to the cause" sense.
Again, see my point any perfection being the enemy of the good.
> And no, "fear of MAGA" is not enough to qualify as fear of difference.
No, I think it does, because "MAGA" has just become a convenient label to slap on anyone who votes differently, even if it's for very good reasons (like feeling like Democratic policies aren't serving them!). Not all Republicans are "MAGA", and probably not even a majority of them are: but vocal Democrats readily substitute "MAGA" for "Republican" in rhetoric all the time.
> The left is sliding down this path with fears about the midterm elections.
I saw a ton of accusations about "Trump rigged the election" after 2024. I also see the "we won't have free and fair elections anymore" fear-mongering on a nearly constant basis from commentators on the left. I've even seen it here!
> Democratic officials have called this administration dumb, selfish, and cruel. But not weak.
I would dispute this, but I don't have any examples in mind. I certainly think I've seen examples of this in the past, from Democratic officials (especially since of the more... Outspoken ones). I definitely see this among the Democratic populous, though.
> After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, who was the enemy during the Obama years? That administration even had the laughable "reset" with Russia.
I mean, these days it's "MAGA", ICE, fascists, etc. I didn't interpret "the enemy" to only be external enemies (though China and Russia are constantly used as bogeymen by both sides), nor did I interpret "permanent warfare" to be literal warfare. The left has certainly cultivated a culture of perceived oppression, even though actual evidence of said oppression is often lacking.
To put it differently, the left loves to frame things through the lens of oppression, and oppression requires an oppressor. To me, that fills the same role as "permanent warfare", at least as far as rhetoric is concerned.
> I can't think of much evidence for or against this. Maybe it's just an American thing to lavish praise on "common people* doing amazing things.
Related to the above, I see a lot of glorification of "the oppressed". To the point where many folks seem encouraged to try to frame their own stories through such a lens, so as to receive greater acclaim.
> I'll have to read the original work to see what this term means.
I took this to mean "my populism is good and isn't really populism, but yours is bad and evil." Perhaps there's a deeper meaning here that I missed.
> I genuinely would like to know some leftist newspeak. Again, fish and water.
Oof where to even start with this. "Inclusion" is a good one. "Tolerance", maybe? "Fascist", probably. "Undocumented migrant"? Or just an unqualified "immigrant"?
I see lots of words that have specific meaning to the left, and where that specific meaning subtly differs from the word's actual denotation. Or, where certain phrasing is deemed "wrong", with a more "inclusive" replacement is offered (i.e. "illegal alien" -> "undocumented migrant"). I find these tend to be used in the service of a motte-and-bailey, or as shibboleths, etc. Maybe that isn't specifically newspeak, but it's a close sibling.
As someone who's probably on the spectrum, it makes conversation with folks on the left very difficult and fraught :( there are many unspoken layers to a lot of language used by the progressive left, and if your own language doesn't pass their sniff test, you very quickly find yourself excluded at best, and accused of being a fascist or Nazi at worst.
It's all rather divisive and exclusionary, from my perspective, which is why I find the relevant antonyms to be... Disingenuous at times. The parallels between the Left's selective application of "inclusion" and "diversity", and religious fundamentalists' selective applications of their beliefs is pretty straightforward to me.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties.
It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?
During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
And what did it change? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Tariffs are still here - this morning I accepted DHL package and had to pay it - and even if - Trump/Vence already said its actually good because we will use another vehicle which will allow us to continue collect the money. So it won't be called tariff - it will be called embargo fee. So yes, Trump continues to control all branches, one way or another.
It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.
The nature of tariffs has fundamentally changed. Imports from all countries are subject to the same 15% rate which means no more deals or wielding tariffs as a punishment.
Why? Seriously, why do we care so much about this?
Do we not have better uses of our money. Also the irony considering recent moves by the US government in terms of control of the internet and free speech.
> Also the irony considering recent moves by the US government in terms of control of the internet and free speech.
Well you've got plenty of countries doing it, including France, Iran, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Brasil, Australia, you name it. Not that it's good, but a criticism for the goose is a criticism for the gander, as a manner of speaking.
As to which, why or why do we care so much about this? Idk, same reason our government funds tens of thousands of initiatives and cares about lots of different things that people find equally important or unimportant.
Historically the US did care a lot, in a way it reminds me of the Crusade for Freedom [1] and Radio Free Europe [2].
So I find this in line with the behavior of many American administration, the weird thing being that this time the target is not the just usual suspects (China, Iran, etc.) but also European allies.
(not saying this is a good thing btw, just trying to put it in perspective)
These things have been going on forever. Since WWII and until right now, there has been radio stations broadcasting into enemy territory, to bypass censorship.
No, the Trump administration is an enormous supporter of propaganda outlets, just not the ones that already existed. They don't care about maintaining the rules based world order. Their propaganda is much more inward-focused.
tl;dr there's currently no overarching plan to help the US catch up to China, and we're going to let "the market" fix that problem. Being that "the market" in the US is about quarterly earnings reports and strategic bonuses for the C-suite, I'm keeping my expectations in check.
fascists are going to fascist. Dang et al will just look away and say. "we don't have any power over what our users do. Email us to let us know." Because apparently the mods don't visit their own website? They'll just keep their heads buried in the sand. Everything is fine as long as that sweet ycombinator check keeps getting cashed.
I'm not telling anyone they can't clutch their pearls and tell other people what to do. All I'm saying is that you will never win the cultural battle that way. Building a culture that does things like getting people fired from their jobs for using magic words, even if there is obviously no intentional malice in those words, is a great way to lose elections.
OP is not looking to get people fired for using particular words. OP doesn't appear to be fighting any sort of political battle. OP is telling people to be nice, and that's as much his right as it is yours to use the wrong words.
And I don't think elections or "the culture" should have anything to do with it. If that's how we made every decision, life would only improve for whoever exists in the overall majority. What if we each chose to have some integrity and do the right thing, even when there's nothing measuring it? It wouldn't kill us, I don't think.
That Supermicro story was never confirmed/verified. All the companies involved denied that it happened (that doesn't mean much however) but no other reporters were able verify the story as far as I'm aware. With Bloomberg saying they had something like 12 anonymous sources, the likelihood that the NYT, Washington Post, Wired, etc. etc. etc. were not able to reach any of the same sources or corroboration says something.
Also, if these things were out there in such a large supply, I would have expected some hacker would have literally found an old board and found the chip and presented it to the world as evidence.
In terms of a coverup, this was during the first Trump term, and he's not exactly a fan of China, so I don't see any real reason the entire US business and intelligence community would keep it a secret (never mind the fact that if they can keep it a secret... and contact their traditional ways of leaking, not Bloomberg.)
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there has been effectively zero evidence presented.
And I'm not debating the fact that I'm sure it can happen and will happen. But let's stick with facts, not just some rumors.
I remember in one of the reports seeing a scan of the board with the inconsistent chip. The premise is plausible. It's not rocket science, so the bar for believing it is pretty low.
12 anonymous testimonies and a story is not zero evidence. Most of the history you are taught in school has a similar bar.
I'm not an international trade lawyer/expert by any means, but this seems like an unfair government subsidy. I guess the WTO won't care though.
But since this does seem like a government subsidy, I predict over the longer term this will only hamper US companies, not help them. And when this exemption inevitably disappears, US companies will end up further behind because they did not have to compete to the same level as other international corporations.
America has always bent the international order for it's own ends, but it seems like the real innovation and competitiveness that we did have is slipping away and we're left with nothing but trade barriers and monopolies. It's not going to work out well long term I predict.
Nah. The United States has the biggest lead and it's on the decline, but who's on the ascent? China? It'll be a long long time before any other country comes close to U.S. economic competitiveness.
FWIW the unique economic position of America is pretty much solely due to the fact it prints the world reserve currency (which is because it was geographically isolated from WW1/2) and not much to do with its actual production. When that fails it becomes just another (very big) country that will have to produce as much as it consumes.
reply