Fascism has also been characterized as "a style" -- by which I do not mean a mere preference for brown shirts and goose stepping. "Style" would include the regular crude use of force, ruthlessness, crass manipulation of the public, the deployment of sappy 'Volk' sentimentality (like PATRIOTISM), etc. — BC

I'll quote one of my favorite philosophers here, because he explains "style" much better than me:

I once knew an arrogant sculptor who snapped at some remarks about artistic style that were made in his presence. It was proposed during a con­versation that one might design a computer capable of generating count­less new works in the style of an already known author or musician. The sculptor objected to this notion, not in the manner of a luddite, but that of someone quite confident in a specific philosophical position: "there is no such thing as a style apart from the sum total of works an artist has pro­duced." Whatever the merits of this position, they are opposed by the entire phenomenological tradition, and in my view rightly so. A style is actually not a mere concept abstracted from numerous singular cases, but an actual reality that none of its manifestations can exhaust. One can hear a newly discovered Charlie Parker recording and immediately recognize the style; one can and will say that "that solo is really classic Bird," even though up till now it was not part of the known Parker oeuvre. We sense that a certain person does not really belong in Brooklyn or in the military just by their general style, without being able to pinpoint any disqualifying factors. In this sense, styles are no different from intentional objects as defined by Husserl, which lie beyond any of their current profiles and even any of their possible profiles. We can say of any object that it is not a bun­dle of specific qualities, nor a bare unitary substratum, but rather a style. And although style is not often seen as one of Merleau-Ponty's key tech­nical terms, I would suggest that it may be the most important of them all -just as his personal style of seeing the world is surely his most lasting contribution to philosophy. — Graham Harman, Guerilla Metaphysics, p. 55

When I look for fascistic features I generally don't look at social security, unemployment insurance, public works programs, and the like as examples. Or, was it the rapid marshaling of government programs that struck Mussolini as fascistic? Fascists are not alone in managing economies. Are programs which alleviate poverty fascistic in nature?

You’re right, such programs themselves are not an indication of fascism, since policy predate fascism. If anything welfare statism is the product of European conservatism. But fascism is totalitarian. So the closer one trends towards totalitarianism, the more fascist one can appear. And the idea that only the state can solve the world’s problems is a totalitarian idea.

Roosevelt was open about his admiration for the Prussian militaristic tradition, collectivism, and a strong militaristic state. Include on top of that the deluge of state propaganda during that time and we have a situation ripe for scathing criticism, especially from the laissez-faire inclinations of The Old Right, many of whom were proto libertarians.

I remain unimpressed by your sources.

The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program. — BC

Okay, he did want to join the fight against Hitler and help France and England, but mostly, he was concerned about being unable to defend the US in case of attack. He persuaded - not forced - business and political leaders to co-operate and to approve his initiative. Readiness is not the same as preparation to invade. Still no similarity to Hitler. Incidentally, this armaments initiative also prompted the desegregation of the defence industry.

When I was a teenager I started to get interested in politics. I remember that we learned about the Second World War in school, and I recall that I couldn't get my head around the concept of fascism. I mean, I understood the thing about the bundle of sticks, and all of that dumb imagery, but I just couldn't understand the fascist mentality, beyond the rhetoric.

So, I talked with my family, but since none of them had ever been fascists, they couldn't quite explain "the gist" of it to me. So, my grandmother (a moderate conservative of Basque heritage, who happened to be married to my grandfather, a moderate conservative of Italian descent), took it upon herself to "explain fascism to me". The conversation went like this:

Her: "Mussolini asked a crowd of people: 'Pópolo, ¿Qué quiere? ¿Manteca, o Cañones?" (People, what do you want, butter or cannons?"

Me: "Butter."

Her: "No, they want Cannons!"

Me: "Why? You can eat butter, you can't eat cannons."

Her: "It's not about what you can eat, that's not the idea."

Me: "Then what is the idea? What is it about?"

Her: "If you choose butter, then that means that you stay at home, like a coward, doing nothing but eating toast with butter. If you choose cannons, then that means that you're brave, that you're proud to go to war."

Me: "That sounds stupid to me. I prefer to stay at home like a coward, eating toast with butter, instead of risking my life in a war just so that I can convince myself and others that I'm brave."

Her: "Then you don't understand fascism."

Me: "No, I don't."

And I suppose that I never really did. Understand fascism, that is. I mean, I understand it to the extent that I see it as right wing populism. I don't see how it can be anything else.

I remain unimpressed by your sources.

Probably because you haven’t read them.

Me: "That sounds stupid to me. I prefer to stay at home like a coward, eating toast with butter, instead of risking my life in a war just so that I can convince myself and others that I'm brave."

Her: "Then you don't understand fascism." — Arcane Sandwich

I too prefer toast and butter and haven't found a cause for which dying seemed like a good idea.

In the last few decades, the practice of valorizing soldiers and military-adjacent agents like police has become more noticeable, more common in the US. Flags and flag-waving has become more prominent in some circles. Personally, I've been falling through a hole in the flag since the 1960s (per HAIR!) It sometimes sounds like the only citizens who possess and display courage, self-sacrifice, grit, and loyalty are people in uniforms.

Usually, this rhetoric of the patriot's game is voiced by people who are quite conservative, whether they served in the military or not.

A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. [Contrarywise, U.S. United Methodists and Evangelical Lutherans, among others, no longer allow flags in the sanctuary, or allow their display during veterans' funerals.)

A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. — BC

Here it is again: style. It's all about the how. Add heritage, racial purity and the right to bully those who disagree and you have the full Monty.

The American New Deal bears a resemblance to Hitler's and Mussolini's version in that apples, oranges and lemons are all fruit. The difference is in motive, means and method.

I understand [fascism] to the extent that I see it as right wing populism. I don't see how it can be anything else. — Arcane Sandwich

No doubt. To wit:

Populists are politicians who appeal directly to the people when they should be consulting the political process, and who are prepared to set aside procedures and legal niceties when the tide of public opinion flows in their favor. Like Donald Trump, populists can win elections. Like Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, they can disrupt the long-standing consensus of government. Or, like Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers in Britain, they can use the popular vote to overthrow all the expectations and predictions of the political class. But they have one thing in common, which is their preparedness to allow a voice to passions that are neither acknowledged nor mentioned in the course of normal politics. And for this reason, they are not democrats but demagogues — not politicians who guide and govern by appeal to arguments, but agitators who stir the unthinking feelings of the crowd. — Roger Scruton, 2017

Flags, crosses, guns and torches.

I too prefer toast and butter and haven't found a cause for which dying seemed like a good idea. — BC

I'd willingly die for many causes, such as saving the life of a family member or a friend, for example. I'm not willing to die for a fascist cause, because fascist causes strike me as unjust and irrational to begin with. So, if I have to choose between going to war simply for the sake of "being brave" or staying in my house like a coward, then I'd rather be a coward.

Usually, this rhetoric of the patriot's game is voiced by people who are quite conservative, whether they served in the military or not. — BC

I consider myself a left wing Argentine patriot, in the tradition of Mariano Moreno. I don't condone the actions of Argentine right wingers, even if they call themselves patriots just as much as I do. And if for some reason the conflicts in our society escalate to the point of physical violence, then I'm willing to fight them, and to die in such a fight. I believe that such is the nature of a civil war. I don't want to die, and I don't want a civil war to occur. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am ready to fight and even to die if such are the circumstances. I don't think that this has anything to do with fascism (at least not on my side, I'm sure the right wingers think that fascism is "a good thing").

A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. — BC

I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. The rhetoric seems (to my mind, at least) to have more brainwashing power than the mere symbols, iconography, and other purely aesthetic, organizational, or structural elements. In other words, no chain of command or obedient service is more persuasive to the fascist mind than the idea that going to war is inherently better for some reason than staying in your house eating toast with butter. It's this last part that makes no rational sense to me, because I suspect that at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with reason. It's pure, irrational sentiment, similar in some sense to the blind faith of Kierkegaard's fideistic "knight of faith". That's why the fascist slogan is "Believe, Obey, Fight", instead of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" which was the slogan of the French Revolution.

:100:

I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't think what we perceive of as fascist politics need a reason or even an ideology, beyond the flag-wearing, boot-stomping masculine bonding rituals. All you need is a bunch of disaffected, frustrated, insecure people and a guy to come along and give loud voice to all that grievance. He then needs to point to a culprit - preferably a recognizable and relatively weak group of scapegoats: "They are the cause of all your problems! They are the reason you can't get a job, can't keep a girlfriend, can't stop drinking...." If he can enlist God - "God is angry because you let them behave in this way." so much the better. That worked for all the OT prophets.
It's not that hard to collect a number of factions with otherwise unrelated agendas under the umbrella of "I can stopthem doing whatever you don't like!" It works for every demagogue, whether they nominally belong to an established political faction or not.

Indeed. The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. He riles them up with vitriolic rhetoric about some other group of people who, for some reason, must take the blame for every key societal problem. Those that end up with a sort of raptured state of mind (i.e., in awe of the fascist concept of the nation) are the ones that will most likely climb up the ranks to become intermediaries: captains, lieutenants, and whatnot. Those who fail to experience such awe-inspiring psychological phenomena will most likely be the rank and file grunts. They're still fascists, but merely because they just "take the leader's word for it". They hope to become as "enlightened" as their commanding officers, that is, they hope to achieve the sort of mystical revelation that they believe their superiors have already achieved. It's really just delusions bordering on something similar to psychosis at the end of the day.

The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. — Arcane Sandwich

What I was trying to get across is that it's not 'irrational sentiments'. People have real problems that the government has failed to address - and in many cases, even to acknowledge. They feel unvalued and ignored. If they're not significant enough numbers to make a difference in elections, politicians do tend to ignore them. Business interests, landowners, unscrupulous preachers manipulate and exploit them with impunity: the government doesn't protect them. They grow resentful and mistrustful. They're not interested in enlightenment; they want something in particular: prayer in their schools, an all-white neighbourhood, free range for their cattle on public lands, better jobs and housing, health insurance, a ban on abortion, no limit on the arsenal they can own, no competition from immigrants - something. Each of the groups wants something different. They don't know why they can't have it, so they're generally angry with everyone in a position of authority.
Each of these inconsequential groups is powerless to get what it wants.
But when a local politician who presents as anti-authority taps into the discontent of two or more groups, he can become czar of his region - since, once he's elected, he does control all the agencies of authority.
And when a federal organization, fronted by a self-proclaimed champion of all the aggrieved factions, organizes the various groups into a coalition, there remains only to direct their anger at an available target and keep beating on the war-drums. They'll bring their own pitchforks.

Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions.

Sure. As Ernesto Laclau would say, regarding the modus operandi of populism, the reclamos become demandas. Equivalence chains propagate to a polarizing degree, in such a way that disenfranchised individuals crystalize into a more or less homogeneous (or better yet, homogenized) mass, in increasing opposition to "the powers that be", i.e., the government. Career politicians must navigate the particularly complicated jungle of demands in such a way that the aforementioned homogenized mass becomes increasingly heterogeneous instead. That is, it's in the best interest of those that govern, to meet each demand separately, since this is the most effective strategy for mass disarticulation. Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric. Argentina already underwent the rise of fascist groups and right wing populism that now characterizes the political landscape of the USA. Several times, I might add. We had five military coups (some count six) during the 20th century alone, plus the phenomenon of Peronism, which is a real head-scratcher for everyone, Argentines included.

Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric. — Arcane Sandwich

That comes fairly late in the game. First, and for a longish time, government must be rendered unable to to meet the demands. That is, some faction or factions opposed to the public weal must have influence in or on the government long before the figurehead emerges. This influence is usually economic. While financial interests don't intend to bring about any particular ism, their cumulative activities in industry, media and politics set the stage for populist leaders.

All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating. At the end of the day, Truth is not on their side, so it shouldn't be impossible to verbally show them the errors of their ways, by means of critical thinking, respectful dialogue, and well intentioned comedy. I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House. In that case, if law enforcement (both state and federal) can't deal with them for some reason (i.e., they are too numerous, so that they effectively overrun law enforcement) then, and perhaps only then, civilians are entirely justified in joining the fray and physically fighting them, even if it's to the death. But by that point, the conflict has effectively turned into a civil war. This should be avoided at all costs, if possible. It will always be preferable to confront fascists with words, not force.

Ah, but when it comes to dealing with fascists, cannons have generally proved more effective than sticks of butter.

The current far-right's obsession with fighting seems to me to be well explained by Francis Fukuyama's employment of Nietzsche's "Last Man." In a society where everyone is given the same basic level of recognition, and where their basic biological needs are met by the welfare state, the individual loses any particular recognition (thumos). Your typical alt-right member is faced with the prospect of degenerating into Nietzsche's "Last Man." Their culture sees them primarily as consumers, and even in their own eyes they see themselves degraded into bovine consumers (perhaps a result of trends in modern education that, as C.S. Lewis put it, "produce men without chests.")

This phenomena isn't unique to the far-right. I think it explains the widespread popularity of post-apocalyptic media. The basic idea is "if everything falls apart I can actually become a hero, actually have a meaningful life," or even "war or crisis will help make me into something more heroic." And this also helps explain the phenomena of the "Manosphere," and other changes in patterns of consumption (e.g. "tactical" everything flying off the shelves, people driving off-road vehicles for their suburban commutes, etc.).

It's particularly strong in the sphere of gender politics because sex is one of the last things to be wholly commodified. Hence, sex remains a strong source of validation. And yet, as de Beauvoir points out, Hegel's lord-bondsman dialectic ends up playing out between men and woman, because the misogynist, having denigrated woman, can no longer receive meaningful recognition from her.

You also see this in complaints of the "HRification" of the workplace and schools, or "longhousing."

This search for meaning helps explain why far right circles have also surprisingly become enclaves of the humanities. From an apologetic perspective, the entire "movement's" interest in tradition and the classics would seem to offer a promising avenue for rebutting its more toxic ideas, but I think the dominant philosophy of the academy closes off such an avenue. The trend has been more to "decolonize" syllabi. Required courses might focus on social justice, but the idea that all college graduates would be at least somewhat familiar with a "canon" seems to be increasingly a dead letter.

The call to a "collective greatness" is a particularly powerful siren song if the alternative is largely a pluralistic hedonism.

I think Nietzsche's "Overman," so very popular in these circles, is itself a sort of the fever dream of the Last Man. It is to the Last Man that the goal of becoming an Overman seems so alluring.

In that case, if law enforcement (both state and federal) can't deal with them for some reason (i.e., they are too numerous, so that they effectively overrun law enforcement) then, and perhaps only then, civilians are entirely justified in joining the fray and physically fighting them, even if it's to the death — Arcane Sandwich

Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group?

Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions. — Vera Mont

Yes - particularly if elements of the media have been priming people for decades - catastrophizing, intensifying differences, finding scapegoats, promoting hatreds, conflicts and unrest, etc.

Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group? — Tom Storm

Yes, I do. Assuming that the Waco siege is indicative of such differences, of course. I could also mention Ruby Ridge, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the apprehension of the Unabomber, among other cases. State and federal law enforcement are not beyond reproach, especially considering issues such as racism for example, as evidenced in many cases, ranging from Rodney King to George Floyd. That being said, I don't see how law enforcement agents, racist as they might be, would align themselves with someone such as Timothy McVeigh. Cops in general might be right wingers, but they don't seem to be sympathetic towards domestic terrorism. Because that is what you're effectively dealing with when a group of people plans to take over the White House: it's domestic terrorism.

Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler?

Let me think about this, since the points that you're making are quite complex.

Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler? — Tom Storm

Do I think that would happen? I've no idea. The police and the military aren't immune to corruption, ideological or otherwise. If they were, then there would be no reason for Internal Affairs or military courts to exist. Would I like to believe that they would oppose such tyrannical measures? Yes, I would indeed like to believe that.

This phenomena isn't unique to the far-right. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Its not unique at all.

All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating. — Arcane Sandwich

They don't need to. They've already put the cabal in charge of all the levers of power. Now, they just sit back, watch the bloodbaths and wait to be disappointed that none of the destruction they've unleashed improves their lot one jot or tittle.

I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House. — Arcane Sandwich

They did that four years ago, were confronted, chastised and pardoned; now they're plotting revenge for their chastisement. The situation is way far past dialogue.

Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group? — Tom Storm

We know that some law enforcement agents are, but we don't yet know what percent. Same with the military. No until the actual armed confrontation will we know the relative strengths.

Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler? — Tom Storm

Should he live that long (which I consider highly doubtful), by then one of two situations will prevail:
- either all the mechanisms will be in place to ensure his ascent to the throne and the divine right of his designated line of succession (not necessarily his own progeny)
- or the civil war be approaching its climax.
(Unless the next series of pandemics will have taken out half the population.)

:up:

The police and the military aren't immune to corruption, ideological or otherwise. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not thinking corruption, I'm thinking more that they may be aligned with authoritarian visions for America and long to rid society of deviants.

I'm not thinking corruption, I'm thinking more that they may be aligned with authoritarian visions for America and long to rid society of deviants. — Tom Storm

In that case, authoritarians would do well to keep in mind that the ordinary people of the United States of America, the so-called deviants, will not simply lay down and die just because a group of deluded tyrants want them to. That's not what they're about as a people. That's not what their Founding Fathers would have wanted for their country. If there's one thing that the people of the USA are especially averse to, it's tyranny. It was the aversion to the tyranny of King George that promted their War of Independence. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the enslavers that prompted their Civil War. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the military-industrial complex that prompted Eisenhower's final speech. Sure, all of these historical events can be explained by less "naive" factors, such as economic factors. But it seems to me that anti-tyranny is deeply ingrained into the very identity, the very "essence" if you will, of the ordinary person from the USA, no matter what that person's class, sex, or race happens to be. Whatever faults or shortcomings the people of the USA might have, anti-tyranny is not one of them.

As one of their Founding Fathers said:

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. — Thomas Jefferson

I hear you, but I don't think what the founding fathers intended matters much to most - assuming they even if they know or understand the history. It might be argued that the "ordinary people" have been split into tribes and fed shit by media so that a shared understanding is no longer possible in a country too big and atomised to govern. The Left seem to be disorganised and banal and the Right seem to be marketing a version of certainty based upon anger.

I'm going to comment in this thread because the Trump thread has it's own dedicated MAGA troll.

So, two utterly and profoundly worrying developments.

The first is that Elon Musk and his troupe have now been granted access privileges to the Treasury system that disburses ALL US Government payments to every individual and organisation (NYT Gift Link).

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave representatives of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency access to the federal payment system late on Friday, according to five people familiar with the change, handing Elon Musk and the team he is leading a powerful tool to monitor and potentially limit government spending.

The new authority follows a standoff this week with a top Treasury official who had resisted allowing Mr. Musk’s lieutenants into the department’s payment system, which sends out money on behalf of the entire federal government. The official, a career civil servant named David Lebryk, was put on leave and then suddenly retired on Friday after the dispute, according to people familiar with his exit.

The system could give the Trump administration another mechanism to attempt to unilaterally restrict disbursement of money approved for specific purposes by Congress, a push that has faced legal roadblocks.

Mr. Musk, who has been given wide latitude by President Trump to find ways to slash government spending, has recently fixated on Treasury’s payment processes, criticizing the department in a social media post on Saturday for not rejecting more payments as fraudulent or improper.

This is a guy who has never held an elected office. He's putting his lieutenants into Government buildings and scrutinising all the outgoing funds. (Incidentally there's also pretty strong evidence that it was Musk that was behind the bulk email offering severance payments to practically the entire Federal beauracracy.)

The second development is Trump's demands for a list of all the FBI agents that worked on the Jan 6th insurrection and stolen documents cases. It seems many hundreds or even thousands of individuals could be fired or demoted for doing their jobs, following the exoneration pardoning of hundreds of insurrectionist police-bashers.

//update// I now read that the DOGE stooges only have read-only access to the disbursements system, which is not quite as Dr Strangelove as the initial story. But still….//

Indeed. The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. He riles them up with vitriolic rhetoric about some other group of people who, for some reason, must take the blame for every key societal problem. — Arcane Sandwich

And here's why populism leads to fascism: by emphasizing the divide between the rulers and the "ordinary people" and stating that key societal problems are because of the rulers, populism can easily descend into fascism as populism embraces strong leaders, wants to take the power away form the real or many times imagined "elite" and replace it with the movements followers, who will follow their leader. Above all, fascism opposes democracy and democratic system where decisions have to be negotiated with other political factions. It sees democracy as the reason for corruption. Also this leads to a command economy, because the leader has to be in charge of everything.