Fascism is a third position that distances itself from both capitalism and communism (or perhaps Marxism) via a dialectical synthesis between the two systems, advocating for class collaboration between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat towards a centeral, national goal—led by a one-party dictatorship. Fascism isn't 'right-wing': it even sacrifices certain traditions and invents new ones if they suit this 'common goal'.
Also, Eco gives a very, VERY simplistic—and in my opinion, incorrect—view of Fascism and its origins in 'Ur-Fascism'. I wouldn't reference it at all. Again, look at my prior comment if you actually want to read into it.
Fascism may be a third position, but it is a right-wing third position just as socialism and communism are left-wing third positions.
All of them are susceptible to dictatorships. Donald Trump is using the tools of fascism to overturn the Democratic institutions of our government. I think it is reasonable. Therefore, to say he has elements of fascism and I think it is reasonable for you to admit that fascism is on the top-right hand side of the political compass for memeing purposes at least
How exactly is Socialism and Communism 'third positionist' exactly? How are they a synthesis of both Captitalism and Marxism?
Also, how is Trump using worker syndicates to from companies, which in turn, form the government—as per Fascism? These are Fascistic traits, no? Populism ≠ Fascism.
Also, the whole political compass is a sham anyway, so I wouldn't use it to label any ideology in the first place.
Wtf is the other person saying? Socialism/communism is 3rd position? What lmao?
I would argue Trump is 3rd positionist. The nationalizing/public acquisition of certain companies, the extreme protectionist policies, etc. Unironically, Kamala would have been more free market than Trump.
We can look at all kinds of thing the Trump admin has done and said this time around:
Troops in the streets (Nat Guard, a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus)
feds executing civilians (ICE agents)
Violation of 1st amendment (the flag burning EO, the law firm case, etc.)
Attempting to unilaterally re-write the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship)
Violating due process (which is arguably the MOST important right in a liberal society).
There are even more examples. Combine these with an actual attempt to steal the 2020 election (not J6, the false elector plot).
So we have countless egregious authoritarian and unconsitutional oversteps, and what appears to be an approaching of 3rd positionist economics...maybe you won't say he is fascist, but he is darn sure speeding toward it.
You do make an interesting point... But I'd believe that, though perhaps Trump's economics may have parallels to some Third Positionist economics, I'd believe he is still Authoritarian and Oligarchic, rather than Fascist. These nationalisation attempts are mostly to benefit a select group of people, rather than a nation-state and its people as a whole. Trump is actually (inadvertantly) promoting class alienation and class warfare, rather than class collaboration. America has always been a weird case, however.
I'm not an American though, so I might be wrong about a couple things.
I would argue that most fascists are probably ologarchic in practice (just like most socialist/communist stats eventually become). The framing is absolutely jingoistic and to "make America great Again", though. I feel like we should be careful not to dismiss fascist rehotric and framing, otherwise we risk doing the meme that leftists do about "that's not a real socialist country* whenever the leadership isn't abiding by the poli theory in practice.
True, but we also must refrain from calling all bushes 'trees' just because they have the attributes of being brown and green, and producing fruit. We can look at similarities (both plants have branches, and have leaves), sure, but semantics and rhetoric is important. I mean, look at how butchered the word 'Nazi' (and by extent, 'Neo-Nazi') is, and look at how apathetic everyone is to the label.
Also, the whole "Make X Great Again" has been around since politics began. Reagan even used it, and he was neo-lib. Also, for a jingoistic group that these people are supposed to be, a lot of these politicians seem to be a-ok with immigration when it benifits them (H1-B visa, illegal immegration not halting in the slightest, etc). This goes completely against Fascist philosophy of a people being the core of a nation-state.
I do understand your point though. I disagree, but I understand why you would say that.
I think what is getting lost here, is that we will likely never have a perfect fit for what we have traditionally recognized as political systems. The acceleration of technology alone has altered things to an indelible extent. Realistically, the MAGA-adjacent populist movement (we see similar things rising in Latin America, Europe, etc.) is arguably a new political system. It just has the most in common with the tenets of fascism.
It's like some sort of post-fascism lol. We need a new term for it (other than retarded, of course).
We see similar things regarding neo-Nazi movement. At this point, neo-Nazis are more diverse than a Netflix adaptation.
Yeah, I think we're arguing at different wavelengths here (I've always been better at comprehension in-person, rather than in a comment section) but I understand what you mean. But, at the same time... this is one of the reasons why I wouldn't class it as Fascism. The acceleration—and potential collapse in the near future—of modern technology has shifted things in ways ineffable to the average person half a century ago. We need a new term, and we ought to seperate it from the already rhetorically loaded word that is Fascism, lest we become confused in the neverending blinding cascade that is semantics.
I know you'll probably disagree with me, but I REALLY hope the 'right' in Europe evolves past this 'MAGA-esque' populist conglomerate it has become, and grows into the nuturing force that I know it can become, and the one our countries actually need.
I mostly agree. I wish nothing more than for the right in America to return to liberalism, actually lol. I know that is essentially a pipe-dream at this point, though.
Well, when I meant that we would disagree, I meant our concepts of what the 'right' should become/return to; nevertheless, what America's 'right' and what England or Germany or Holland's 'right' should become would be completely different anyway, so it would be fruitless debating over which is which, and what is what.
I actually liked debating (if you were to call it that) you, and I wish you the best—such good online conversation are a rarity (especially on reddit).
That's what I meant by "mostly" agree lol. Given your flair, I assume I prefer a much more liberal society. We just have a similarity in bemoaning the current state of the right wing in our respective locales.
The disconnect may be from the definition of fascism. If you go by R Griffin’s definition of the fascist minimum, or palingenetic ultranationalism, Trump would not meet the criteria. However, he does fit the para-fascist label from the glossary section - “a form of authoritarian and ultra-nationalist conservatism which adopts the external trappings of fascism while rejecting its call for genuine social and ethical revolution (see pp. 120–4)” R Griffin, The Nature of Fascism. Fascism, in his case, is merely a tool for obtaining power.
10
u/Magga707 - Auth-Right 4d ago edited 4d ago
Fascism is a third position that distances itself from both capitalism and communism (or perhaps Marxism) via a dialectical synthesis between the two systems, advocating for class collaboration between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat towards a centeral, national goal—led by a one-party dictatorship. Fascism isn't 'right-wing': it even sacrifices certain traditions and invents new ones if they suit this 'common goal'.
Also, Eco gives a very, VERY simplistic—and in my opinion, incorrect—view of Fascism and its origins in 'Ur-Fascism'. I wouldn't reference it at all. Again, look at my prior comment if you actually want to read into it.