Preparing for a Fascist America (in Europe)

[Benjamin Frank]

Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. The author of Know How, Language in Context, Knowledge and Practical Interests and How Propaganda Works also writes for publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Review, The Guardian and Project Syndicate. He is currently working with David Beaver on the forthcoming book Politics of Language: An Essay in Non-Ideal Theory.

The ongoing coup against American democracy raises serious concerns for democracy worldwide. In this talk, Stanley argues that the history of the United States, as well as its present situation, justifies these concerns. More specifically, Stanley argues that the anti-democratic form that is emerging in the United States is a kind of racial fascism. Europe should prepare for the possibility of a fascist United States.

Interesting talk, that I'll comment more on when I've finished it, but for anybody interested in seeing it, the speaker isn't very articulate (even though he has a prepared text.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

[Benjamin Frank]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

[TheReckoning]

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

[Benjamin Frank]

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

Many key industrial sectors in the United States are oligarchies.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20most%20notable,have%20resulted%20in%20industry%20consolidation.

That article doesn't even mention many consumer products where a handful of companies sell under multiple product names which makes it seem like there are multiple competing companies.

Even many Republicans agree (in the abstract) that corporations have gamed the system through rent seeking and regulatory capture and that the law makes it nearly impossible for executives or other wealthy/powerful people to go to jail.

The speaker addresses the notion that fascism is specific to a place and time pointing out that fascism and fascists adapt to new situations like everything else does, but that the general principles of fascism are timeless.

In your specific case, why would a fascist need to coopt labor/labor unions, when labor unions are already very weak in the United States?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even many Republicans agree (in the abstract) that corporations have gamed the system through rent seeking and regulatory capture and that the law makes it nearly impossible for executives or other wealthy/powerful people to go to jail.

What's interesting about that is that many of those Republicans are hyperauthoritarian in other ways (Hawley most infamously; Rubio flirted with that style briefly but seems to have backed away from it; DeSantis sure as hell hasn't...).

[Benjamin Frank]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

George Orwell was a good philosopher, he also died in 1950. One problem I have with some aspects of philosophy is how it always looks back to 'long' dead philosophers as if they had the final word on the subject. John Stuart Mill wrote in favor of free speech, end of debate.

Philosophy, is to me, a living thing. John Stuart Mill was a good philosopher, he also died around 150 years ago. There is a great deal more understood about psychology and sociology now, and technologies have changed significantly. I don't really care about Mill's arguments for free speech 150+ years ago.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm just laughing at the notion of fascism being about economics.

[TheReckoning]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

I mean, Mussolini said that “Fascism can more accurately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” (Note that “corporate” in this context does not refer to “corporations” as we think of them today.) Corporatism was a pretty big part of fascism, especially when it first started, as it’s opposition to other economic ways of thinking (especially Marxism) was a very core part of its philosophy.

[Benjamin Frank]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

I mean, Mussolini said that “Fascism can more accurately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” (Note that “corporate” in this context does not refer to “corporations” as we think of them today.) Corporatism was a pretty big part of fascism, especially when it first started, as it’s opposition to other economic ways of thinking (especially Marxism) was a very core part of its philosophy.

That's also mentioned in the lecture: fascism started up in opposition to communism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

George Orwell was a good philosopher, he also died in 1950. One problem I have with some aspects of philosophy is how it always looks back to 'long' dead philosophers as if they had the final word on the subject. John Stuart Mill wrote in favor of free speech, end of debate.

Philosophy, is to me, a living thing. John Stuart Mill was a good philosopher, he also died around 150 years ago. There is a great deal more understood about psychology and sociology now, and technologies have changed significantly. I don't really care about Mill's arguments for free speech 150+ years ago.

The argument I was trying to make was less about Orwell himself and more that I don't appreciate you insinuating that objecting to this particular terminological point is solely the province of the right, but your point is well-taken.

[Benjamin Frank]

I increasingly think the word "fascist" has a tendency to obscure more than it reveals or explains, even when it's at least partially merited (as I agree it is in this case). It's used because of its emotional power, but sometimes that emotional power prevents clear assessment. "Ethnonationalist" and/or "Christian nationalist" should be more than pejorative enough.

"Ethnonationalist" and "Social Conservative" are both used along with fascist. The point made in the video is that the fascists have formed a coalition with these other groups behind a specific fascist agenda.

From the American context, a person can be a social conservative without being a fascist, and especially from a European perspective one can be an ethno-nationalist without being a fascist (like say Morrissey.)

As to the word being overused or having 'lost its meaning', I regard that like some right winger saying "those socialists call everybody they don't like fascists."

The point was made fairly early on by George Orwell, who, outside maybe the last two or three years of his life, has at least as much leftist cred as anyone on this forum does. I'll allow that my suggested alternatives are maybe not sufficient, though.

On the other hand...

Until I see Republicans pushing for a corporatist economic model, I won’t be scared of fascism here. Scared of other things? Sure. But not fascism.

...focusing on the economic aspects of fascism is the very definition of muddying the waters.

George Orwell was a good philosopher, he also died in 1950. One problem I have with some aspects of philosophy is how it always looks back to 'long' dead philosophers as if they had the final word on the subject. John Stuart Mill wrote in favor of free speech, end of debate.

Philosophy, is to me, a living thing. John Stuart Mill was a good philosopher, he also died around 150 years ago. There is a great deal more understood about psychology and sociology now, and technologies have changed significantly. I don't really care about Mill's arguments for free speech 150+ years ago.

The argument I was trying to make was less about Orwell himself and more that I don't appreciate you insinuating that objecting to this particular terminological point is solely the province of the right, but your point is well-taken.

What the speaker suggests it to look at commonalities of practices and the purpose behind those practices. This is why I use fascism and neofeudalism together to describe the modern Republican Party.

One difference between the fascism in Italy, the fascism+ in Germany, the fascism in Spain under Franco and the brief period of fascism in interwar Romania (mentioned by the speaker) is that these were imposed by a strong man from the top down.

Leaving aside Trump, the fascism/neofeudalism being implemented in the United States, is being done by a political party owned in a coalition between the genuinely wealthy elites like the Mercer Family, the Koch Brothers, the Murdoch Family... and the owners of the mega churches.

Of course, a coalition of landowning elites along with the Church defined feudalism.

What makes it fascist, as is pointed out in the video, is that it also combines patriarchy, alpha male machismo, scapegoating, a celebration of a mythical past (along with trying to recapture this mythical past to take it into the future, with the added feature of overt racism and related panics (great replacment theory.)

I'm not sure I agree with that last point in that at least Hitler was racist, but, although the speaker is white, one of his specialities is the study of black American philosophers.

[afleitch]

I think we rhetorically equate fascism with Nazism when it was such an exception. Fascism is as post war Franco or Salazar as it is Mussolini or Tiso. We didn't call it that because we 'defeated' it and cut deals with those who were still in power. So I have no qualms in calling Putin or Orban fascist, but I also understand why it can be considered 'unhelpful.'

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

[Person Man]

Would allowing medical insurers to sell across state lines create a corporate model type situation because it can create a situation where all insurers would simply sell from the state with least regulation and eventually encourage the formation of a monopoly?


Isn’t DeSantisism  basically the corporate model? That is, force businesses to stay in service during times of public dangers and force them and discipline them to follow and implement the state ideology? Basically where companies exist as the organ of the state or are regularly commandeered by the state.