Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

[arthwollipot]

I think Trump is too non-ideological to be a fascist. He's the quintessential opportunist.

If Trump himself is not a fascist, the people around him very definitely are.

 

[Helen]

So if other people have called someone a fascist, but been wrong about it, no one should call people, who are actually fascists, fascists? Got it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think Trump is too non-ideological to be a fascist. He's the quintessential opportunist.

Arguably, so was Mussolini. There's a reason I brought up his manifesto. He was basically just harping on how everyone should be super-patriotic and act together as one, and almost nothing else. It's what even gave him the party name and the emblem: a bunch of twigs (fasces) which are individually weak and easy to break, but together they're unbreakable.

Mind you, he didn't invent the notion and the symbol. It is of Etruscan origin. But he revived it to make his point.

But seriously, the guy pretty much invented modern populism. Like, you thought Trump was ridiculous for posing as working at a burger joint? Pfft. Mussolini INVENTED that kind of photo op. He posed as working wheat fields with a scythe, ploughing with an ox plough, chucking wheat into a threshing machine, etc, side by side with peasants. (He actually closed a field in the middle of harvest for his photo ops.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So if other people have called someone a fascist, but been wrong about it, no one should call people, who are actually fascists, fascists? Got it.

Well, if nothing else, it becomes ineffective. Or, as he was saying, signalling the exact opposite: oh, hey, there's nothing wrong about that guy other than the other side not liking him. See the story of the boy who cried wolf. He eventually was right once, but people stopped caring when they heard someone crying wolf. They just assumed that if they hear it, it actually means there's no wolf.

Same with most kinds of -ist or -phobe these days, really, not just "fascist". After you've heard it used as just shorthand for "someone / something I dislike" a hundred times, you stop caring when you hear it next.

It's just basic pattern recognition, really, which is what the brain does. (See, engram and synapse strength.) Even Pavlov's dog, if he heard the bell a hundred times and no food was coming, he'd stop caring about hearing the bell. In fact he'd start to assume it means NO food yet, go back to chasing your tail.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sorry, have we gotten to the "you have to let yourself get eaten by the Wolf if you cried Wolf too many times in the past but didn't get eaten?" part of the argument?!?

The reason why the US is not a Fascist State is because a number of attempts to turn it into one have been foiled, not because they haven't been attempted.

If voters had heeded the warnings, we wouldn't be so close to never have a mostly fair election ever again.

 

[jimbob]

They are not at odds and the writing was no more on the wall than it was for Reagan or Bush or Clinton, or anyone else. The writing on the wall was that he was a narcistic demagogue not much different form Hugo Chavez.

The reason it had no useful impact is that it is a useless term, especially coming from the left, members of whom have described everyone remotely on the right a fascist since the end of WWII.

Stalin, Mao, and Xi would also kill anyone that stands in their way to power, does that make them fascists? Would calling them fascist have helped?

I still say he is not a fascist. He is an authoritarian sure, his administration is fascisty because he can only get fascists to work for him. If he could get Marxists to work for him, his administration would be a Marxist authoritarian government, so long as they kissed his ass. He does not have an ideology other than self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment and people should do what he says.

ETA: Even though I am absolutely right about all of this, I'm just banging my head against a wall. Like I said, I can't get the right to stop calling folks commies either.

And it doesn't matter if he is a fascist or a Marxist authoritarian (IMHO, is all Marxists but I'll let you "non-authoritarian" Marxist have that in this discussion). Calling him a fascists has had all the impact of the left calling every republican presidential nominee in my lifetime a fascist. Same impact the right calling all the Democrats a commie/socialist has had. Just as folks that don't already agree rolling their eyes.

So my argument is still.
A. He wasn't a fascist, he isn't a fascist, his first administration wasn't fascist.
B. Calling him a fascist them was wrong incorrect which is a big part why continuing to call him a fascist is useless.
C. The last 12 years of calling him a fascist didn't change anything, may have helped get him elected actually.
D. It doesn't actually matter what kind of authoritarian he is.

If a fascist gets put in charge, I might be put in a camp, probably even. If a Marxist gets put in charge I will definitely be put in a camp.

ETA: Its as though nobody has ever heard about the boy who cried wolf. If you have, you'll know that the sheep were all eaten by wolves in the end, not because they weren't wolves though.

You might have thought he was a bit extreme but still within democratic norms. But he wasn't.

And January 6th highlighted that. But it has been clear before then. And Neo Nazis knew, because they applauded him and unlike normal politicians, he didn't reject their support.


It is far more clear now.

Obviously he's not adopted the Fasces as a symbol and it isn't a carbon copy of other fascist movements, but his approach shares a lot of common features and it is a useful description - in a way that wasn't suitable for any previous administration.



Umberto Eco's 14 point checklist seems a good starting point. Note that he's talking about "Ur-Fascism" not the specific flavour of Mussolini's party. It is useful because it shows how many of those ideas his cult (accurate description, which itself is a red flag) have adopted.

1."The cult of tradition",
Lots here, even back to the name MAGA.

2 "The rejection of modernism",
I'd say the unconstitutional insertion of (mainly) explicitly Christian fripperies in governmental institutions and also the recognition of only a handful of religions within the armed forces

3 "The cult of action for action's sake",
To be fair, that could be just Trump's personality, he needs to fiddle with things and usually breaks them, but it does fit.

4 "Disagreement is treason"
In spades the obvious one is trying to punish serving senators for reminding US troops that they are bound to disobey illegal orders

5 "Fear of difference",
They are eating the cats and dogs. Or much of more

6 "Appeal to a frustrated middle class",
too many to list

7 "Obsession with a plot"
Again too many to list. But the election claims are probably the most obvious

8 Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak",
Deep State plots

9 "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight.
Trump is in permanent trade wars as well as shooting wars now.

10 "Contempt for the weak",
Hegseth and his Spartan mindset and the testosterone tests.

11 "Everybody is educated to become a hero", Spartan mindset

12 "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
Again too many to list.


13 "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people". Trump continuously claims massive support in the face of the evidence


14"Newspeak" –
Too many to list

I would also say that the cult of the strong leader is important and this very obvious in MAGA.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sorry, have we gotten to the "you have to let yourself get eaten by the Wolf if you cried Wolf too many times in the past but didn't get eaten?" part of the argument?!?

More like, "but there was no wolf to be seen anywhere in the 7 km or so to the horizon." If someone had actually shot a wolf and saved the boy, yeah, we'd be like in your argument that action saved him. But the whole point is that there were no wolves anywhere in sight. So people just started assuming that if he cries wolf, eh, it means there's no wolf.

 

[jimbob]

Not all Authoritarians are Fascist, but all Fascists are Authoritarian. The numbered Trump actions posted so far are more a definition of Authoritarianism and not Fascism uniquely. Trump is clearly an Authoritarian and mostly a Fascist.

To be pedantic about it, any adequate definition of a the characteristics of a Fascist state must characterize Italy, Romania, Hungry, Austria, Spain and Greece in the run-up to and during World War II. These are the self-identified Fascist states. I would also include Nazi Germany, though is controversial among political scientists. A relevant definition would characterize post-World War II Fascist regimes that are widely recognized as Fascist: Franco’s Spain, Pinochet’s Chile, the military Juntas in Argentina and Brazil, Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia, Guatemala, Honduras, Park’s South Korea, and Taiwan under the Kuomintang.

Fascist regimes had all or most of the following factors in common to greater or lesser degrees. A regime that maximizes all these factors would be completely Fascist. Other regimes can be partially Fascist.

1. Authoritarian. The state holds absolute power and demands ultimate loyalty. Dissent is treason. The state stokes fear and a sense of crisis to justify an obsession with security, crime, and punishment and an abandonment of human and civil rights. The military commands the lion’s share of the budget and the public’s adoration. Fascism often comes to power in a democratic system, but the Fascist contempt for democratic liberty soon corrupts the process and ends in dictatorship. [Trump is pushing for it, ICE is demanding it, and Hegseth is stocking the military with Trump loyalists, but we have not yet arrived at absolute power. See if Trump tries to overturn or reject the midterm results.]

2. Ultra-nationalist unity. Populists, trans-class revolutionary movement of a purifying national rebirth to overcome perceived degeneration/humiliation/victimhood, and political paralysis. Patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, and flags are ubiquitous. All self-identified Fascist states blended religion, specifically Christianity, with this nationalistic identity, but Christianity and perhaps religion itself does not seem to be Fascism’s aim. A transcendent, cleansing rebirth as a united national community is the aim. [What do you think "Make America Great Again" means?]

3. State-integrated economy. Nationalistic militants work in an uneasy collaboration with traditional corporate power elites. Labor unions are suppressed. Rampant cronyism and corruption is the natural end state. [We got there even before Trump. With Trump, he puts industry leaders in charge of government regulation of that industry. His regime is openly and extensively corrupt.]

4. Chauvinistic. Identifies an enemy as the source of the nation’s problems and focuses the national will on elimination of that scapegoat. Creates a social mythology that venerates one element of society while vilifying and dehumanizing another. Historically, the targets were racial, ethnic or religious minorities, liberals, communists, socialists, conservatives, and intellectuals. [Can you say immigrants, transsexuals, Muslims, intellectuals elites, "communists," and blacks?]

5. Elitist. Rejects equality as a goal, expresses contempt for the weak (but argues that anyone can be strong through will), and extols the manly virtues over feminine weakness. The nation is seen as chosen and deserving to dominate. Militarism and imperialism follow. [Attacks on DEI, contempt for the disabled, images of Trump as a mighty warrior, and open self-justifying imperialism.]

6. Irrational. Creates an emotional cult of will, vigor, unity, and purity. Action is taken for the sake of action. Sheer will can produce truth and the desired result. Intellectuals, the arts, and critical media are scorned as degenerates who bring the nation down by questioning nationalist myth. Lies, propaganda, newspeak, and violence are held to be a beautiful means to a glorious end. [Trump lies, takes action without thought of consequences, and endorses violence against his enemies. Consider the reflecting pool debacle as a metaphor. Incompetence is often confused with irrational, but one can be both incompetent and irrational, Trump being Exhibit A.]

I would add that from the elitism, follows the idea that the leader is the ultimate expression of this and is the leader by virtue of being "the bestest" (to put it into words that Trump would might understand). And this blind cult of personality is something that is probably the most obvious feature of MAGA.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Umberto Eco's 14 point checklist seems a good starting point. Note that he's talking about "Ur-Fascism" not the specific flavour of Mussolini's party. It is useful because it shows how many of those ideas his cult (accurate description, which itself is a red flag) have adopted.

I hope you realise that that also describes Marxism, which fascism (along with other far right movements in Europe) rose in opposition to. Among other things.

Hell, it even describes the ancient Romans and Greeks, or most medieval religions. Hell, modern "progressive" activists fit most of that list.

So "ur-fascism" is not very useful, is all I'm saying.

 

[Darat]

I think Trump is too non-ideological to be a fascist. He's the quintessential opportunist.

I agree in a way and to an extent as he wants the world to bend to him so he's also a quintessential wannabe dictator, but when you look at what he tries to do, what policies flow from his Sharpie, what he posts on social media they do fit under the term fascism.

 

[jimbob]

I hope you realise that that also describes Marxism, which fascism (along with other far right movements in Europe) rose in opposition to. Among other things.

Hell, it even describes the ancient Romans and Greeks, or most medieval religions. Hell, modern "progressive" activists fit most of that list.

So "ur-fascism" is not very useful, is all I'm saying.

I am not an expert but don't recognise 6, 10, 11, 12, in Marxism. Nor 1, and 2 the cult of tradition and the rejection of modernism. If anything, Marxism embraces its vision of modernism.

I would also add to Umberto Eco's list two more that are implicit in his list but I'd say are sufficiently clear to be their own signals, one of which @Really? Used.

Ultra nationalism and a cult of the strongman Leader.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I am not an expert but don't recognise 6, 10, 11, 12, in Marxism. Nor 1, and 2 the cult of tradition and the rejection of modernism. If anything, Marxism embraces its vision of modernism.

I would also add to Umberto Eco's list two more that are implicit in his list but I'd say are sufficiently clear to be their own signals, one of which @Really? Used.

Ultra nationalism and a cult of the strongman Leader.

Glad you asked:
6: Actually historically Communism was more popular among poor and disenfranchised factory workers in Russia, than among peasants. And even Marx's work was mostly geared toward them.
10: The bourgeois were portrayed as what Tate would call betas, just living off the work of others. (You know, like Marx did.) Plus, all communist states actually promoted a disdain for anyone not working (regardless of reasons), or not meeting their quotas, or really anyone not good enough to be a proper soviet man.
11: Stakhanovism and other propaganda in the USSR.
12: While not an official doctrine, which in fact was the contrary, the communist states were the last to adopt any women's rights, if at all. Mostly not at all until they threw off communism. Even the USSR which famously made good use of female snipers and pilots in WW2, just rolled them back to obedient housewives after the war was over. (And under Putin Russia actually rolled back women's rights to USSR levels. Meaning you can't even seek protection as a battered wife. Yeah, it was THAT bad under communism.)

As for your bonus point, really? Every single communist state ever had a cult of personality about its leader. The USSR even had songs about Stalin going to the front (together with the first marshall, i.e., Zhukov) to motivate the troops. Which he never actually did. And, while Marx's theory was about international communist solidarity, each actual communist state actually encouraged nationalism and hating some neighbour, so you don't start thinking about who's oppressing you right now.

 

[jimbob]

Glad you asked:
6: Actually historically Communism was more popular among poor and disenfranchised factory workers in Russia, than among peasants. And arguably even Marx's work was more geared toward them.
10: The bourgeois were portrayed as what Tate would call betas, just living off the work of others.
11: Stakhanovism and other propaganda in the USSR.
12: While not an official doctrine, which in fact was the contrary, the communist states were the last to adopt any women's rights, if at all. Mostly not at all until they threw off communism. Even the USSR which famously made good use of female snipers and pilots in WW2, just rolled them back to obedient housewives after the war was over. (And under Putin Russia actually rolled back women's rights to USSR levels. Meaning you can't even seek protection as a battered wife. Yeah, it was THAT bad under communism.)

As for your bonus point, really? Every single communist state ever had a cult of personality about its leader. The USSR even had songs about Stalin going to the front to motivate the troops. Which he never actually did.

The bonus point, I wasn't addressing your point It'd be pretty difficult to, given the queues in Red Square yo see Lenin's Tomb. Or the DPRK. Or Stalin, etc...

But I would argue that it's not necessarily the same. I don't believe that there was much effort to get a cult of Kruschev or Andropov, for example. In fact the Politburo might have had bloody succession manoeuvring and discrediting of rivals, but that's not the same as something built around a single figure like Mussolini, or Trump.

I can imagine the Soviet Union without Stalin at its head. Because it happened. I can't imagine MAGA with anyone other than Trump at its head. At least not successfully. There might be a successor, but they wouldn't command the cult.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I can imagine the Soviet Union without Stalin at its head. Because it happened. I can't imagine MAGA with anyone other than Trump at its head. At least not successfully. There might be a successor, but they wouldn't command the cult.

You lack imagination

Populism is at least as old as the Roman republic. (Seriously, consul candidates even rubbed their robes with chalk to appear pure glowing white to the crowds.) And was formalised in writing since the 19'th century. Both Communism AND Fascism are based on that book. Plus, as I was saying, Mussolini refined that recipe to an art form. Most of the photo-op stunts you see even from democratic parties these days, he INVENTED that stuff.

So, yeah, I have no trouble imagining that someone else would figure out how to be a populist. Maybe not as charismatic to the MAGA cult, I'll grant that, but they'd do it.

(I mean, I could probably do it myself quite easily, if only Cyberdyne Systems gave me a body. Hard to get people to vote for a data centre. *shakes a virtual fist*)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Plus, given voter dissatisfaction these days... as they say, "Vote Yog-Sothoth / Chtulhu in 2028. Why settle for the lesser evil?"

 

[jimbob]

Glad you asked:
6: Actually historically Communism was more popular among poor and disenfranchised factory workers in Russia, than among peasants. And even Marx's work was mostly geared toward them.
10: The bourgeois were portrayed as what Tate would call betas, just living off the work of others. (You know, like Marx did.) Plus, all communist states actually promoted a disdain for anyone not working (regardless of reasons), or not meeting their quotas, or really anyone not good enough to be a proper soviet man.
11: Stakhanovism and other propaganda in the USSR.
12: While not an official doctrine, which in fact was the contrary, the communist states were the last to adopt any women's rights, if at all. Mostly not at all until they threw off communism. Even the USSR which famously made good use of female snipers and pilots in WW2, just rolled them back to obedient housewives after the war was over. (And under Putin Russia actually rolled back women's rights to USSR levels. Meaning you can't even seek protection as a battered wife. Yeah, it was THAT bad under communism.)

As for your bonus point, really? Every single communist state ever had a cult of personality about its leader. The USSR even had songs about Stalin going to the front (together with the first marshall, i.e., Zhukov) to motivate the troops. Which he never actually did. And, while Marx's theory was about international communist solidarity, each actual communist state actually encouraged nationalism and hating some neighbour, so you don't start thinking about who's oppressing you right now.

Okay starting at 1&2, which confusingly I put last.

Marxism embraces its vision of modernism. Which is quite the opposite of MAGA going back to an imagined past America.

6. The factory workers were literally working class; the bourgeoisie were the middle class and they were also one of the scapegoats.

I will Quote Eco in full here.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority. "In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority." That was spot on. And different from Marxism.


10 and 11. Yes there was the Hero of the USSR etc but there was not the explicit invoking of and the Sparta. A regime that has always been a favourite of Fascists and Nazis. Also the heroic propaganda was different.

12 as you say, it's explicitly against Marxist doctrine. I'm not sure why you refer to Putin, who's an ultra nationalist authoritarian harking back to a self contradictory golden age and not a Marxist. We are talking about the espoused ideologies and I would argue that there's a difference between a regime where its attacks on freedom align with its stated philosophy and where they are opposed to its stated philosophy.

Umberto Eco's 14 point list is useful but not exhaustive and it's also worth pointing out quotes from his original essay

Nevertheless, even though political regimes can be overthrown, and ideologies can be criticized and disowned, behind a regime and its ideology there is always a way of thinking and feeling, a group of cultural habits, of obscure instincts and unfathomable drives. Is there still another ghost stalking Europe (not to speak of other parts of the world)?

The contradictory picture I describe was not the result of tolerance but of political and ideological discombobulation. But it was a rigid discombobulation, a structured confusion. Fascism was philosophically out of joint, but emotionally it was firmly fastened to some archetypal foundations

And especially this part

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

More like, "but there was no wolf to be seen anywhere in the 7 km or so to the horizon." If someone had actually shot a wolf and saved the boy, yeah, we'd be like in your argument that action saved him. But the whole point is that there were no wolves anywhere in sight. So people just started assuming that if he cries wolf, eh, it means there's no wolf.

just because no one you know or care about got eaten doesn't mean that others haven't.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Okay starting at 1&2, which confusingly I put last.

Marxism embraces its vision of modernism. Which is quite the opposite of MAGA going back to an imagined past America.

Its own vision. In practice it was one of the most ultra-conservative regimes ever. It was rabidly against homosexuality until it fell, it never gave women any rights or protections, etc. They just replaced the old boyars with the state.

Plus 13 out of 14 would still be good enough even if I conceded that. (Which I don't.)

6. The factory workers were literally working class; the bourgeoisie were the middle class and they were also one of the scapegoats.

Sorta, not entirely.

Plus, I think your quote supports my point more than disproving it. For a start it describes exactly how populism was described even in the 19'th century. Plus in Russia the factory workers pretty much were the middle class, compared to the peons working the fields. They had JUST come out of serfdom, and it wasn't all that much of an improvement.

10 and 11. Yes there was the Hero of the USSR etc but there was not the explicit invoking of and the Sparta. A regime that has always been a favourite of Fascists and Nazis. Also the heroic propaganda was different.

They may not have explicitly mentioned Sparta by name, but have you seen some of that super-human propaganda? For Lucifer's sake, it makes even the 300 movie look tame, and that's an achievement.

(For bonus points, try some North Korean propaganda movies. Now those are stupidly over the top.)

And, while it's not Sparta, they absolutely glorified any past victory against anyone. People routinely joked about the Battle of Grunwald in 1410 as being the victory of the communists against nazis, the way it was presented in movies and other propaganda.

12 as you say, it's explicitly against Marxist doctrine. I'm not sure why you refer to Putin, who's an ultra nationalist authoritarian harking back to a self contradictory golden age and not a Marxist. We are talking about the espoused ideologies and I would argue that there's a difference between a regime where its attacks on freedom align with its stated philosophy and where they are opposed to its stated philosophy.

Putin was only a side note, to bring us back to how bad it was for women in the USSR, because he rolled it back partially to that level. The main point was that the women got the crap end of the stick under communism. Up their ass. So to speak.

In many communist countries even abortions were forbidden AT ALL. Not even talking about late term like in the USA, but AT ALL. Even if you just found out that your next menstruation was two weeks late, you were forbidden to get that tiny group of cells out. Better be an obedient baby mill, like Jesus intended you to be.

So, yes, it may not be the doctrine as Marx intended it to be, but it was the reality in any actual implementation.

 

[jimbob]

We are taking about the propaganda not the reality

 

[jimbob]

You lack imagination

Populism is at least as old as the Roman republic. (Seriously, consul candidates even rubbed their robes with chalk to appear pure glowing white to the crowds.) And was formalised in writing since the 19'th century. Both Communism AND Fascism are based on that book. Plus, as I was saying, Mussolini refined that recipe to an art form. Most of the photo-op stunts you see even from democratic parties these days, he INVENTED that stuff.

So, yeah, I have no trouble imagining that someone else would figure out how to be a populist. Maybe not as charismatic to the MAGA cult, I'll grant that, but they'd do it.

(I mean, I could probably do it myself quite easily, if only Cyberdyne Systems gave me a body. Hard to get people to vote for a data centre. *shakes a virtual fist*)

Yeah populism was. But my point is that MAGA is Trump. In the way that Communism was never Brezhnev, for example.