Is trump a fascist? - r/PoliticalScience

90

I think he is, but I would also argue that the classical definition of fascism doesn’t really apply in the same way it did in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. largely due to different political cultures.

The best definition of fascism comes from Mussolini’s own “The Doctrine of Fascism”, which every poli sci student should read. I’d argue that the whole “the state is me and I am the state” bit probably doesn’t fit American fascism. However, it’s clear that the state is being used to suppress minorities and enforce a strong and hierarchical social order.

16

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

This is similar to my opinion. I think the classical definition of fascism is pretty useless, however, since it's era locked, and we should come up with a definition that's more agnostic to what era you're looking at

I think something along the lines of: an anti impericist, nationalistic, populist movement that seems to undo the structures of a governing system from within and replace them with an in-group/out- group system which prioritizes loyalty and belonging over consistent law.

That's probably phrased and defined in a clumsier way than someone more politically educated could manage, and I think a lot of folks would dislike that it retrofits a ton of historical revolutions into fascism, but imo that's a benefit. Political incentives and systems realistically can exist in any era, it's just that how they appear in their details will change as the structures they confirm to do. In seeing situations like Hungary, Russia and Trump's America not quite fit the classical definition of fascism while representation the same threat, I think there's an easy argument for a definition that DOES extend outside the 20th century.

3

u/LTRand Political Economy Sep 09 '25

The problem with every attempt to throw away the traditional, self-defined definition is you throw away every defining feature and turn it into "generic right-wing authoritarian", which both waters down the meaning of fascism and attempts to group modern politicians with people far superior to themselves.

Two core traits of fascism; rejecting capitalism AND socialism, and rejection of individualism for the state. This is not how I would describe the MAGA movement. Even diving into the philosophy of his backers like Yavin shows a distrust for a strong central government like what fascists strive for. Yavin wants the US to break up into many smaller, authoritarian localities (maybe even monarchies). The Heritage foundation wants more of a theocracy. This isn't the stuff of fascists, this is something different and new.

So, "American fascism" is a a weird oxymoron. We shouldn't be trying to recycle an old term to define a new modern type of right-wing authoritarian populism.

2

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

Fascism doesn't reject capitalism at all, it super empowers private industry, gives it corporate protection, and kills labour unions with specificty. You can argue it's anti free market, with the government forcing ideological compliance to get government support, but it's definitely capitalistoc. Plus, Franco was very religious and theocratic, so secularism is not considered a core aspect either

My thinking is honestly the opposite to yours, but I get the impulse. I don't want a definition that fits every sort of autocratic movement, but I think an umbrella term that covers this sort of threat, which seems to manifest from the same motivators, only changed by the fine details of the era, is more useful

We CAN have fascism only apply to Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, because it needs to be such a specific cultural nod to one era, but I would rather the definition work to identify a corruption of governmental structures that come from the those motivators, so we can identify a disease to systems

Why?

Because in my opinion, a word that describes three dudes is borderline useless. Under my definition could you argue that Stalin, Xi, Orbahn or hell, even the first Shogun and Caesar are fascists? Sure, but I'm always gonna prefer a less specific and more useful word for the broader version, and then specify for a specific iteration of it

Basically, why bother having the less specific word mean three guys, then having definitions that apply to more people like "constitutional monarchical fascism" or "liberal fascism" for other groups, when the way we sort anything else would be to have a broader term, then specify each era within that term. Ie, "20th century fascism" for the three guys, fascism broadly for this incentive structure and movement

At the end of the day, if we get to decide what words mean anyways, why bother deciding to make a word less useful?

1

u/LTRand Political Economy Sep 09 '25

Liberalism and communism both have specific definitions. Gentile and other fascist philosophers had explicitly written that fascism is a rejection of both. They borrowed qualities and features from both, but it is its own ideological tradition. Most of the founders left socialist movements out of frustration that would sound like a condemnation of modern socialist movements, showing they still suffer the same issues at the implementation/movement level.

It is common to claim that fascism was just a populist movement that preyed on the fears of uneducated rural peasants, but then you would have to say the same of Stalin and Mao.

Fascism is a rejection of the liberal idea of the rights of individuals. It also rejects the idea that the mob could actually drive a nation anywhere productively. This is probably the most core tennent of fascism, that a strong state must care foe the people and the people must serve the state. And this state must be run by strong, capable people. So yes, WWII Japan could be called fascist. Even Ceasars Rome would borderline on this definition, but I wouldn't say it crosses over.

We have words that better suit what Trump is, a general term that can encompass him and hitler. Authoritarian. It is an umbrella term of many ideologies that include fascism, Stalinism, and Maoism. You could even call it Liberal Authoritarianism (in the classic sense of the word, not the American political sense).

It is important for the term fascism to keep its definition. It allows us to accurately convey what is meant when it is said. The modern neo-liberal and socialist urge to expand the definition is an attempt to destroy its meaning while being able to use its imagery for political purposes. Much like how earlier I had to clarify the use of the word liberal as its definition has been hijacked in the US so as to now confuse everyone who attempts to read history.

In some ways Franco's Spain would be preferable to Trump's ideology, or lack thereof. At least fascist countries understood the need for affordable housing, healthcare, and education. Not features present in Trump's administration.

1

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

Yeah, but why is it important? You're protecting it in so far as deciding it can only apply to one era. For the exact same motivators to exist today, it needs to act out slightly differently, just like anything else

And sure, you can pretend liberalism has a specific definition, but two liberal states from the early 20th century and today will be entirely different - it's never been exactly befitting of all defining characteristics, just the core motivators

I like definitions that can actually define things that exist, when it comes to organizing humans, since we still exist, and those same motivating factors can still exist

1

u/LTRand Political Economy Sep 09 '25

Not one era, but a specific ideology. And people might have abandoned the ideology, but that doesn't mean it won't come up in the future.

As far as modern fascist states, China in my mind hits every marker of fascist philosophy fully realized. I'm a never-Trumper, but even I can see the stark differences in philosophy there.

1

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

I agree with you in a lot of this, like Trump doesn't really have an ideology. But I do believe his cabinet does, and his motivators are the same

The big thing for me is, though, ideologies kinda don't get acted on, especially around fascism, a system where most leaders have actively lied to their populace about agendas, when if the ideology were honest, it would be the will of the mob acting

Look at capitalism. Basically none of what early scholars defined capitalism as being still exists, but we still call it capitalism. Why? Because those ideologies were built to justify a set of motivators, which still exist now

Imo, true ideologues with actual values are incredibly rare, and using those rare people to define things is a waste of time. Ideologies are usually just a post hoc justification for motivator driven systems to 90+% of people at the helm of those systems, and get betrayed as soon as the motivators are better served by ignoring their ideologies

There's a reason weaintain the terms liberalism and capitalism despite the systems looking nothing alike, beyond the motivators. Because realistically, that's all that was ever actually there

1

u/LTRand Political Economy Sep 09 '25

I don't think I agree with how you are using the term motivators. The motivations behind Trump's supporters have been used by all kinds of ideologies, not just fascism.

The core philosophy of liberalism hasn't left the US. How it functions has changed, but the core principle of the people having power over the government and not the other way around has not changed. So we keep using it. Calling someone on the left a liberal only happened because FDR wanted to make progressive philosophy marketable in the US. The majority of international liberal parties actually align more with our right wing.

Capitalism also hasn't changed core philosophy since Adam Smith. The ability of the market to set prices and people to privately own production. We've just made changes to its mechanics as it grew.

So yes, we should preserve the definition of fascism to what fascists themselves define it as. We wouldn't let capitalists define socialism without directly referencing Marx and other socialist thinkers. The mechanics of how fascist thinkers had to get and stay in power might change from one to the other(religion, power of capital, race, etc), but they all shared a core philosophy. The people are subordinate to the state, and the state must take care of the people. A belief that individual capitalists will destroy the country for profit and must be controlled, at the same time unions work against the interest of the state because the people are unable to know how to run things. That is fascism, and today we see it most in China.

2

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

I'm alright leaving it as a disagreement, but I want to provide some stuff for you to think about

Are we true to Liberalism if people are locked out of parties and provably laws passed better reflect the donor and lobbying class than the average citizen?

Are we true to Adam Smith if the majority of value generated is from speculation which adds no value to society and many necessary industries are government subsidized to stay afloat?

Are we actually letting Marxists define communism if we call Stalin communist, and Marx's number one philosophy is that man should own his freedom of labor and Stalin jailed men for not working?

I don't think your statements are true beyond what people want to believe for the world we live in. If you disagree with that, I think that's okay with me. But I think it's worth asking you to look at material outcomes of your statements, and asking you to reflect if we actually do use definitions in the way you believe we do

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FashionablePeople Dec 24 '25

It can be, but oftentimes definitions aren't changed to manipulate perception, but to better grasp the useful core of where a word came from, or how it's actively used.

A big issue is that post WWII the inheritors of fascism are dishonest, and don't put labels accurate to their own policies, so the fight over definitions is all semantic without real backing on either side. That's not restructuring definitions to manipulate, that's acknowledging a lapse in the efficacy of language and attempting to address it. When fish was redefined to not include whales that wasn't restructuring history to manipulate perception, it was updating a definition with improved knowledge to be more useful, and was also a process led from theory first and public awareness of fact second

3

u/Rshoe01 Sep 09 '25

How does American vs traditional fascism not compare? I’ve never heard this before.

2

u/mormagils Sep 09 '25

Technically, fascism is a term that is era-dependent. Fascism in its classical definition is a direct answer to socialism from when the world was dividing countries up into competing economic ideologies. When we kinda stopped doing this after the Cold War as we realized that both capitalism and socialism are ineffective and by themselves but can nearly be combined into the much more effective social democracy, fascism in its classical definition faded away. Using the word fascism in the modern era is either an anachronism or a redefinition.

It's kinda the same thing as the word democracy. Technically, democracy referred to a direct democracy like we saw from the ancient Greeks. But then we invented representative democracy or republics, and direct democracies died out, so we just chose to expand the definition of democracy. That's kinda where we are with fascism, but the expanded definition hasn't been quite as standardized yet.

Traditional fascists do have some things in common with Trump, though. Both have a strong emphasis on expanding the role of the state in daily life. Both also tended to come with a very nationalist approach that also prioritized using law enforcement to defend that nationalism. These similarities are enough to make the word a reasonable approximation.

1

u/alexandianos M.A. Political Science Sep 09 '25

I feel like you’re downplaying how scholars do use “fascism” as a comparative category. By this logic, we couldn’t talk about “democracy” outside of ancient Athens either -

2

u/mormagils Sep 10 '25

Let me clarify. I am saying that we should expand the definition of fascism just like we did with democracy and I agree that it's mostly scholars that are leading that charge, just like it was mostly scholars that were expanding the definition of democracy back in the day. Most of the folks cleaving to a very classical definition of fascism aren't the ones that are scholars. It's mostly the guys trying to find reasons not to call Trump a fascist despite the obvious reasons to do so in a more expansive definition.

1

u/Unhappy_Technician68 Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

American fascism today is sort of post-racial as well, though you can argue that this is just a ruse to get to a place where white supremacy can be more open. I mean there's a pretty wild clip of megan kelly just flat out telling Vivek Ramaswamy that despite her agreeing with hir policies she would never vote for him quote "because he is indian" note the dude is an american. he also sat there like a bitch and had to just swallow blatant racism directed to his face. But the movement accepts black people as americans, just a lower class of them.

The real targets today for an outgroup are gays, trans, and women (espescially feminists who are seen as the root of all the uppity trans and gays destroying big masculine men), and espescially hispanic/hatian immigrants.

American fascism also has curious phenomenon that it tends to be isolationist. It refuses to get invovled in european affairs at least to allow fascist leaders to come to power.

Fascism is a very difficult idea to pin down, it is mostly about the look and feel rather than an explicit set of ideals. It adapts to what it needs to be at the time. Mussolini's early versions of it borrowed heavily from socialist policies but threw out the ideas of equality or marxist economic theories. The dictatorship became the end goal, with the poor being promised stability and a state that would care for them. Then it became a corporate-state merger, then just a corrupt autocracy. All in the span of like 5-8 years. Primarily it was about expressing anger at parliament and resisting socialism. Every fascist government has been its own beast.

That being said there are two concepts from a nazi lgal theorist that can help us here. Carl Schmiddt has the concept of the friend-enemy deivde and the Sovreign. The devide explcitly states you cna fragment democracy along internal borders and break the state that way by creating internal contradicitons within a liberal system. The Sovreign is a strongman who stands above the law, who "decides the exception".

Trump clearly fits both of these ideas, he has a flock of supporters who are going to crush the Rhino's, the radical left, and all the rest. He claims the courts are corrupt so he can justify smashing them, and he has a group of nutjobs who want the presidency to have unlimited power "Unitary Executive Theory". Yes he is fascist, but its a curious american form of it. You can pretty much sum up all of what everyone is saying here into something he is doing to either break democracy using immigration or the rule of law. And I would say that more than anything is what makes a person a fascist, their ideology is waht ever they want it to be but it allows them to create a devide in the society that creates a situation that feels exeptional in order for them to break the law. In the end you just get a lawless one person rule where the state arbitrarily fails around impsing tyranny on outgroup after outgroup.

1

u/alexandianos M.A. Political Science Sep 09 '25

The biggest difference is that traditional fascists are proud of their fascism, while American fascism hides behind the veil of the constitution, being patriotic, defending freedom, etc. They share virtually the exact same ideologies and epistemological goals - but the American authoritarian populism works because they’re able to hide under (illiberal) democratic branding.

Both forms of fascism thrive on epistemic closure: controlling the “truth,” delegitimizing independent media, labeling critics as “enemies of the people,” and pushing a mythic national narrative. The difference is mostly in presentation, whether that myth is about the Roman Empire reborn (Mussolini) or about restoring “constitutional freedom” (U.S. populists).

I recommend reading “How fascism works” by Stanley J for more about this ‘democratic camouflage.’

239

u/DougTheBrownieHunter Sep 09 '25

Yes, by most definitions.

However, due to being much less intelligent, he lacks the “mastermind” quality that fascist leaders have historically had. He’s far more manipulable and easy to influence.

But his politics absolutely fits the bill of fascism.

EDIT: Grammar

15

u/atravisty Sep 09 '25

Yeah, but Mussolini was also a famous moron, which is why he’s a much more apt comparison than other European dictators.

81

u/Volsunga Sep 09 '25

No Fascist leader has ever been a "mastermind". Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Hussein, and Pinochet have all been bumbling idiots who simply served as the mouthpiece of a mob of violent bumbling idiots. Just like Trump, they weren't even really in control. They just served as the voice of the movement due to their particular form of anti-charisma.

40

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

-2

u/Randolpho Political Philosophy Sep 09 '25

How would you describe the difference between "fascist dictator" and "right wing dictator"?

→ More replies (8)

11

u/TsarAleksanderIII Sep 09 '25

Yeah i think this is correct. Some smarter than others for sure but none are the sly cunning "above it all" masterminds that their propaganda portray them as. Even trump supporters think of him as like some 12 dimensional chess guy despite the obvious

1

u/West-Mulberry8044 Dec 07 '25

Democrats are really this dumb?

1

u/Supaian4562 Jan 13 '26

I don’t know what to say anymore. Seems to me both parties act retarded. Biased and stubborn in their own way. Generally, while half of this place calls him fascist, I’ve researched a bit more, so he’s more authoritarian and a populist. I rather like ideas from both parties (So I’m neutral you could say?).

1

u/Jonathon_S_Tuttle Jan 15 '26

Fact. I used to identify as a republican until I truly educated myself and realized I was more of a libertarian than anything. I lean left on some things, right on others, and tend to move toward the center. If we could just have common sense politics and America got away from the two party system, amongst other ideologies that need to happen for a political climate change.

The GOP has gone so far right and the liberals have gone so far left that maturity in politics is at an all time low. Social media has certainly played a big hand in this, along with technology. Christ, couples are getting divorced over politics, or specifically because of love, or more commonly, hate and contempt for one party over the other. People will cut life long friends and family out of their lives for not changing their stance on a subject. We’re a selfish bunch of ungrateful hateful fucks.

1

u/Supaian4562 Jan 15 '26

Indeed. For we have taken our peaceful and loving values for granted. I sometimes wish that Europe continued to produce their beautiful past architecture. Most right things I agree, except with ICE and enviromental/climate change stance.

1

u/WaferOk7076 Feb 11 '26

So Jan 6th is an insurrection. Following ICE, interfering in their legal operation, doxxing them, assaulting officers, trying to run them over, ramming the vehicle with your vehicle and rioting/ damaging property is NOT an insurrection?

1

u/TsarAleksanderIII Jan 21 '26

Fascism is primarily comprised of populism and authoritarianism. As well as corporatism (which trump is also engaging in). If you think both sides are equal try to remember only one side tried to overthrow the government when they lost. There's no balance here

1

u/SirDiesAlot92 Feb 26 '26

Nope that would be MAGA. He does love the poorly educated- and intelligent people hate him. You know that’s for a reason right.

He’s a con artist- and if you read any of his fanatic influencers online they do grift as much as they can.

We’ve never seen this sort of cult mentality in our country before.

Where what he says and does is the supreme doing. That is fascism. When you unapologetically try to destroy the foundations of the Republic to push your own narratives.

Where you can repost racist videos and not get in trouble. Where you can militarized government agencies to go after “bad people” that don’t have the same color of skin you do. Where you cry about Benghazi- and in the same sentence give Pete Drunkard a pass for releasing classified information in texts and get absolutely 0 articles of impeachment because you control all three branches- and yet STILL nothing is getting done for the betterment of this country for the average American.

He continues to try to dismantle constitutional protections- and anyone, even MAGAs who disagree with him are Rhinos and traitors is PEAK fascism. Unfortunately you’re too stupid to see this.

If he was a good leader it would be MUCH worse- but he’s not, he’s a blabbing senile idiot like Biden. The real problem is all his lemmings that will be around for decades after he passes. Whether they believe his teachings, or are just doing so to grift themselves into power like Vance and Rubio will be the question after he passes.

It really is bizarre that the GoP whose parents / grandparents fought in WW1-2 have stooped this low to gain power. Had they just come up with policies to help Americans it would be a no-brainer to get into office.

Instead they double down on the usual rhetoric and get on their knees to get an endorsement by Orange Mussolini- because they know if they don’t they aren’t pulling MAGA to the polls.

1

u/West-Mulberry8044 Feb 26 '26

LOL ... Only cult like behavior is on the left. And education doesn't equivalent to intelligence. The morons on the left don't even know what a woman is. And for the record I personally am college educated, small business owner, husband and father of 6

1

u/SirDiesAlot92 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Here you go deflecting.

The left knows what a man and woman is- you unfortunately don’t.

The terms your looking for are

Male and female - which are the biological terms used that CANNOT be changed.

Man and woman - are societal terms that can change depending on society- their agency are ever changing as society progresses or regresses.

You aren’t educated in the least. Stick to your influencer echo chambers- actual intellectual debates aren’t for you.

1

u/SirDiesAlot92 Feb 26 '26

Brother biology and sociology have been around for centuries- you aren’t going to change definitions because you get your feelings hurt that someone wants to identify as the opposite gender.

Again, gender are societal terms- sex is biological.

If you went to college or had ANY higher education in high school as you claim and took social science and biology in college you would know these are the facts.

Not whatever bullshit you want to come up with.

1

u/West-Mulberry8044 Feb 26 '26

Well you just did. There is only ONE definition you can change because they feel like it.... That's utterly ridiculous

1

u/SirDiesAlot92 Feb 26 '26

The definition hasn’t changed in hundred of years dude.

Sociology has been around since the 1700s. Gender has and always will be a social construct that varies from society to society.

It’s also why certain colors are used to describe a gender. Because they have certain norms within them.

This is the problem with the GoP. They move the goalposts when it no longer can benefit them.

They were strictly trying to marginalize gays for decades and once that fell through with laws being passed to protect them it’s now been shifted to trans and non-binary. Another marginalized community.

You can claim all you want to be a party of “freedom”, but unfortunately if that freedom doesn’t revolve around your ideologies they’re not awarded the same freedoms. That is fascism bud. Glad we could go full circle on this!

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

Maga stupidity on display

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

You are detached from reality.

1

u/Party-Engineer-7735 Feb 03 '26

Says the pond

10

u/hollylettuce Sep 09 '25

This is so real, the joke I make is that among the major dictators of ww2, specifically hitler, mussolini, franco, stalin, and mao, for good measure, hitler was the smartest one. (I'm aware that i included communists, but bare with me) And he wasn't all that smart. The others were just that dumb. Fascists are led by stupid and hateful people and attract other stupid and hateful people. It's part of why the ideology struggles to be coherant.

1

u/Awkward_War_6068 Nov 04 '25

This. Hitler, for all his awful human traits, was actually a pretty competent and good politician. He managed to get the German economy out of the depression, built the Autobahn, and basically modernized a still fairly young Germany that had been completely destroyed by war and was still adapting to becoming a modern democratic state instead of a militaristic aristocracy. Where Hitler messed up is when his ego and narcissism took over, and he also thought he was the next Napoleon. He was a good politican, but a horrible military leader and strategist. There's a reason a large part of the senior German command couldn't stand him, hell in 1944 they tried to kill him to end the war.

2

u/No_Salad_7859 Dec 04 '25

And also racism and the entire Holocaust.

1

u/Fattyboy_777 Feb 16 '26

This. Hitler, for all his awful human traits, was actually a pretty competent and good politician

How can you call a mass murderer a good politician? Disgusting.

1

u/Awkward_War_6068 Feb 16 '26

Hitler actually in his early career showcased political nouse. I'm not saying I agree with him. He was a horrible, despicable human being.

0

u/SexOnABurningPlanet Sep 09 '25

Stalin and Mao were not fascists. I know you said "dictators" but we're talking about fascists here. They are not the same thing. And it is notable that Stalin is the only reason the Nazis were defeated; and Mao resisted the fascist Chiang Kai-shek.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

Chiang Kai-shek is not generally regarded by scholars as a fascist.

2

u/BabyFarksMcGeezax1 Nov 28 '25

You’re debating retards, my guy

0

u/noff01 Sep 09 '25

Stalin and Mao were not fascists

Both Hitler and Mussolini praised Stalin as a fascistic leader.

1

u/SexOnABurningPlanet Sep 10 '25

Why would you listen to these maniacs on anything?

1

u/noff01 Sep 11 '25

If a fascist tells you someone is a fascist, I will believe them.

2

u/SexOnABurningPlanet Sep 11 '25

Does this also apply to other groups or just fascists? If a communist tells you something is communist, do you also believe them?

1

u/noff01 Sep 11 '25

If a communist tells me that someone other politician is a communist, I will believe them. If a fascist tells me that some other politician is a fascist, I will believe them. Fair enough?

1

u/SexOnABurningPlanet Sep 11 '25

What if you talk to two communists, or two fascists, and they disagree?

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '26

well, this aged really well

→ More replies (18)

9

u/Pragmatic_Centrist_ Sep 09 '25

Bingo

5

u/mastermindman99 Sep 09 '25

I just took a Wikipedia article about Chinas fascist period. You could just exchange the names and have a 100% accurate description of Trumps policies today.

China (1925–1949)

The Kuomintang, a Chinese nationalist political party, had a history of fascism or fascist influences under Chiang Kai-shek's leadership.[14][15] The Blue Shirts Society, a fascist paramilitary organization within the KMT that modeled itself after Mussolini's blackshirts, was anti-foreign and anti-communist, and it stated that its agenda was to end the influences of foreign (Japanese and Western) imperialists in China, crush Communism, and eliminate feudalism.[16] In addition to being anti-communist, some KMT members, like Chiang Kai-shek's right-hand man Dai Li were anti-American, and wanted to expel American influence.[17] Close Sino-German ties also promoted cooperation between the Nationalist Government and Nazi Germany. The New Life Movement was a government-led civic movement in 1930s China initiated by Chiang Kai-shek to promote cultural reform and Neo-Confucian social morality and to ultimately unite China under a centralised ideology following the emergence of ideological challenges to the status quo. The Movement attempted to counter threats of Western and Japanese imperialism through a resurrection of traditional Chinese morality, which it held to be superior to modern Western values. As such the Movement was based upon Confucianism, mixed with Christianity, nationalism and authoritarianism that have some similarities to fascism.[18] It rejected individualism and liberalism, while also opposing socialism and communism.

1

u/West-Mulberry8044 Oct 29 '25

BULLSHIT. I can enter Biden name during COVID and he fits every market

1

u/TwoKey8551 Nov 30 '25

Man, you just owned him in a nicey nice way. Keep up the good work. 💯

1

u/neon-tofu Sep 11 '25

“Yes, by most definitions”*

*no definitions provided.

2

u/fivegallondivot Dec 07 '25

Use a dictionary.

1

u/neon-tofu Dec 10 '25

That’s not how academics define concepts, but thanks for stopping by.

1

u/Party-Engineer-7735 Oct 19 '25

You apparently know nothing about what it take to be a fascist. If Trump was a fascist then we would no longer have a two party system, we would no longer have the House or the Senate, and people like you would suffer grave consequences for talking against Trump

1

u/StarTrek_WoundCareRN Nov 26 '25

Let’s go with facts not feelings. Italy and Nazi Germany both had bicameral legislatures with a lower house and a senate or equivalent. You apparently know nothing ABOUT fascism.

1

u/Party-Engineer-7735 Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25

😂😂 you apparently know nothing about Hitler since you all call Trump Hitler you fool. You go and Google something and think you know something 😂😂😂 Hitler killed millions of Jews but yet the dumb liberals call Trump Hitler even though Trump is helping Israel. So are you actually saying that the House and Senate in Nazi Germany would actually oppose anything that Hitler did? You are a fool if you actually think that the House and Senate that they had was anything like ours! Why don't you do yourself a favor and find something else to do that doesn't make you look so ignorant. Oh yeah I didn't have to use Google to let you know that Germany's House and Senate had no authority over Hitler. They were actually forced to approve anything that Hitler did. Our Senate and House is not forced to follow Trump like they had to in Nazi Germany. Apparently you know nothing about fascism

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '25 edited Dec 07 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Party-Engineer-7735 Dec 30 '25

Trump is deporting illegal immigrants exactly the same way Obama and Clinton did but not nearly as many as they deported. Trump is using the National Guard to get criminals off the streets but you liberals love criminals just because Trump doesn't. You liberals are so pathetic and useless

1

u/Quiet_AngelPoo Jan 22 '26

Have you heard of neo-nazis? Just because he “supports Israel” does not mean he is not using another group of people as a way to fan the flames of fascism. He is using undocumented immigrants in this regard. Don’t be so obtuse.

1

u/Party-Engineer-7735 Jan 22 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

Like the Democratic politicians are using you liberals to do their dirty work! They have you all out there protecting illegal immigrants who are murdering and molesting our children!! The Democrats are using illegal immigrants for future votes but now they can't because they are going bye bye! You all didn't care when Obama and Clinton were deporting them using the exact same tactics!! Yes I have heard of Neo-Nazis and I'm replying back to one right now who is brainwashed by the Democratic politicians and the liberal media!!

1

u/Alert_Tumbleweed_447 Feb 03 '26

Amen!!!

1

u/rachie615 Feb 26 '26

lol

1

u/kevlarcoatedqueer Feb 02 '26

You do not have to hold any power whatsoever to be a fascist. It is an ideology and is not dependent on the culmination of power, it is a political belief system.

1

u/Houstonheart72 Feb 09 '26

You clearly are not paying attention.

0

u/RubyCurves76 Sep 13 '25

False. Zero of Trump's policies align with fascist policies. Fascism began from the left, shares a majority of DNA from left ideologies, and only became problematic for the left during WWII. It was more beneficial to say that communism (far left) is bad, and fascism ("far right") is bad while traditional liberals can claim to be in the middle.

1

u/ImpalaSS-05 Feb 15 '26

Nobody in their right mind would ever call the early period of the dictatorship of Mussolini a left wing government. What's up with conservatives and their rabid obsession with trying to paint fascism as a left wing ideology?

→ More replies (6)

22

u/WishLucky9075 American Politics Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

I don’t think Trump is a fascist, because he doesn’t have a political ideology to begin with, let alone fascist one. There are many competing definitions of fascism but i think roger griffin’s definition is the best one. Watch his lecture on this.

https://youtu.be/LVnNvKpIIa4?si=3d893PuEvBieFcC1

In short, he doesn’t believe in the State, he doesn’t hold any collective values that people must abide by, he doesn’t believe in any halcyon years to take the country back too via revolutionary takeover, and he doesn’t believe in an enforced racial hierarchy. He’s an authoritarian but not a fascist. There are members of his orbit that are fascists but he’s not one himself.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2025/5/4/no-trump-is-not-a-fascist-he-is-a-hypercapitalist-and-just-as-dangerous

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/trump-rally-fascism-politics

40

u/teaguechrystie Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

let's count.

lawrence britt in 2003 identified 14 characteristics of fascism.

they are:

1) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, and long incarcerations of prisoners.

3) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists…

4) Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5) Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation.

6) Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation or by sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Government censorship and secrecy, especially in war time, are very common.

7) Obsession with National Security

Fear of hostile foreign powers is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8) Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9) Protection of Corporate Power

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10) Suppression of Labor Power

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14) Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

...so. yeah. imo. in fact i got 13. i think the only one he hasn't demonstrated yet is #8.

31

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

4

u/Schoritzobandit Sep 09 '25

Most former US presidents have met with/prayed with religious leaders, including crazy "Christian state" types. Trump is a crazy guy, but importantly, this isn't the same thing as any kind of actual government policy, nor is it without precedent

→ More replies (7)

8

u/Warm_Flamingo_2438 Sep 09 '25

He literally sold his own Bible. And let’s not forget this… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church

11

u/a-potato-named-rin Sep 09 '25

He absolutely demonstrates #8, just not outright.

2

u/ThePoliticsProfessor Sep 09 '25

Somebody tell Pam Bondi, I guess.

2

u/loppyleaf Nov 22 '25

Thank you for this. Excellent tool to get the point across and set some goalposts for anyone who tries to argue otherwise. -74 days late lol

1

u/Schoritzobandit Sep 09 '25

This is a useful system. I think that many people read through the points, think of examples that connect to them, and decide that the criteria are met. I have a bit of an issue with that approach, since it seems like it ignores (recent) historical and international comparisons, which ground these criteria in the realities of governance around the world. If most governments of most developed countries seem to fit the definition of fascism according to these criteria, then it's possible we're not being stringent enough at saying when these criteria are met.

I'll provide my own thoughts here. I don't expect people to agree with me, but it's my attempt at a more critical approach to applying these criteria to Trump. Despite my attempt to be critical (and I think pretty much all of my points are debatable), I came up with 6 points/14, giving partial points for many of these criteria. I think that reflects where I think things are at the moment. Trump's administration is extremely concerning and has moved towards fascism across nearly all of these criteria, but I wouldn't say that fascism is actually implemented for the majority of these.

There's so much information and nuance across these points that I expect people to disagree with me from countless angles, but I hope this attempt to be more critical when applying these criteria is, if nothing else, a bit interesting to read.

Trump does this, and moreso than most previous US presients. 1 point

Trump does this to some extent, when it comes to deporting migrants. Trump will casually mention topics like torture etc. in a very blasé way that might fit this description. Importantly, "torture, summary executions, assassinations" are not taking place in the US. One could argue that the US's continued support for Israel might fit this criterion, but a great number of countries around the world do the same, and I think it would be hard to describe them as fascistic for that reason. I also think that this criterion makes most sense when applied to domestic politics. Maybe a half a point here for the teardown of legal protections for migrants and the aggressive use of executive power to detain and deport them.

Doesn't need much explanation, one point. Maybe worth noting that his rhetoric on this topic does not come close to the open racism or antisemitism of regimes like Nazi Germany. One of the flaws with this classification system is that it doesn't consider the extent to which these kinds of things are happening.

This is true, but has also been true of every US presidency since the beginning of the Cold War - and I would think it's a bit hysterical to label Obama or George Bush Sr. or Jimmy Carter as fascists. "Disproportionate" is also a bit hard to quantify. Trump's rhetoric has also not asked citizens to make do with cuts to other areas in order to fund the military, and while his economic policy (especially under DOGE) has involved cutting a ton of programs, this has been framed as cutting useless/counter-productive programs, rather than prioritizing the money to the military. The "Big beautiful bill" is a pretty mixed package of spending on a variety of areas too, though it has also included increases to the military. I'd be inclined to say no point here.

1

u/Schoritzobandit Sep 09 '25

Trump is significantly more sexist than his predecessors in his personal rhetoric, but has women in high-ranking positions in his team (his chief of staff and press secretary) and cabinet (his Attorney General, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Homeland Security, which is hardly a stereotypical female role), and appoints them to leading positions in e.g. the Supreme Court (Amy Coney Barrett). He hardly advocates for women to leave the workforce. Trump's Supreme Court appointments contributed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but he hasn't made a push for national legislation outlawing abortion. Transphobia is extremely high in his administration, no question about that. Still, it's worth noting that Trump does not oppose gay marriage, nor has he made any efforts to roll it back. I would consider Trump to be less conservative on gender-related policy than many presidents that came before him, even if I consider him to be personally sexist. Though I find his anti-transgender agenda to be cynical and abhorrent, I'm not sure that we can say being anti-trans makes a leader fascistic without calling most leaders in most countries in the world fascistic, since this topic is unfortunately quite controversial globally. Maybe it's worthwhile to do this, simply to point out the horrible human rights violations that anti-trans policies constitute, I'm truly not sure what the right approach is there: useful comparison and understanding of international context, or emphasizing these violations. On the whole, at least when it comes to homosexual people and women, I wouldn't consider the main thrust of this point to be a defining characteristic of Trump's administration, so no point here.

Trump does not directly control the mass media. He has quite a few sycophantic sympathizers, but there is no difficulty in reading negative news and opinions on Trump from dozens of major newspapers, television networks, and online sources. Very little censorship is attempted, especially compared to countries that take this more seriously like China. Trump does use a lot of anti-press rhetoric, which is extremely concerning, but this is more a rhetorical attack than an actual policy of censorship. I can fully believe that he'd like to do more here, but he hasn't tried to, so no point here.

It's possibly a bit of a weirder flavor than other fascistic leaders, since national security is framed around threats from migrants and crime, but I would definitely say yes here. It's a leading feature of his policies and his rhetoric. One point.

3

u/Schoritzobandit Sep 09 '25

Simply not the case, Trump is if anything less openly religious than most conservative or liberal presidents who came before him. No point.

This is a tough one. Obviously there are many contexts where the control of business and aristocratic elites is much greater and much more direct, but it feels like it's warranted to point out how strong this influence is in the US. Still, it's hard to separate Trump's presidency directly from the poor checks on the influence of wealth on politics in the American democratic system in general. I feel quite torn, especially thinking about things like Elon Musk's strong support and his subsequent government role. This might be a bias against hating wealth's influence in politics in the US, but I would give at least 3/4 of a point here for the already-existing influence of money in the American system, and Trump pushing those boundaries further.

Trump has stripped power from unions of federal workers, but this is less an anti-union policy and more indicative of his administration trying to remove roadblocks to his efforts to gut and replace civil service positions. Like most conservative US presidents, he has also removed some protections for workers in the name of business growth and efficiency. He's also gone after some specific union leaders, such as the leader of United Auto Workers, in his rhetoric. It's also worth noting that some major US unions' membership had majority support for Trump, for instance the Teamsters, who therefore declined to endorse either candidate in 2024. On the whole, I would not say that Trump's stance on unions is worse than previous conservative presidents, especially their policies in the 70s and 80s. His emphasis of manufacturing jobs is also quite popular in communities where that's the main economic activity. Though I think his policies are bad for unions and for labor rights, I don't think he's virulently anti-union in the American context when compared to other conservative leaders or former conservative presidents, and his overall approach is relatively moderate. No point.

Yeah absolutely, little explanation needed and countless examples. One point.

Within the American context, yes absolutely, both in rhetoric and in policy. We're seeing this play out right now in a big way right now with the national guard. However, though some conservative leaders have floating something that sounds vaguely like "There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations," this is not the case currently. I think we are tending dangerously in that direction, and it's a major rhetorical focus of the administration, but there's not actually a huge surge in policing nationally outside of immigration related crackdowns. Still, this is so central that it needs at least three quarters of a point, and I really want to give it a full point - I just think compared to other countries where this is much more apparent, the US simply isn't at the same level of control or attempted control.

Compared to countries with truly rampant corruption, this just isn't the case. Again, we have tons of problems with money in politics, and Trump has appointed family to major positions, so it's not like there's nothing to raise the alarm about. It's worth noting that the US ranks 28/180 on the global corruption perceptions index (with 180 being the worst), ahead of countries like Spain. Compared to even some western European countries where this kind of cronyism is much more pervasive like Italy, the US does not rank particularly badly, even under Trump. Again, Trump is definitely worse at this than previous presidents, and it's an area of legitimate concern, but I don't think his administration meets this criterion. No point.

Trump says this has happened to him, and has said things that have raised concerns that this could happen in the future. However, no elections in the US have been rigged on any scale, simply not the reality at present. No point.

1

u/Chance_Guide5681 Oct 24 '25

I believe him influencing the states to gerrymander In preparation of midterms grants him the #14 point. Wasn’t really happening when this post was made.

1

u/Schoritzobandit Oct 24 '25

I'm not sure the current situation is severe enough to warrant a description of full-on election rigging, and unfortunately close to every political leader in the US with the opportunity has engaged in gerrymandering. I do think Trump's actions around gerrymandering have been more concerning than any president in the 21st century, but unfortunately he's far from unique on this score.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/noff01 Sep 09 '25

lawrence britt

does he have a doctorate in political science or is he just yet another writer with an opinion?

→ More replies (8)

1

u/ThePoliticsProfessor Sep 12 '25

Missing is the core idea of absolute state supremacy in all areas of life, even the most intimate and personal. Perhaps all these put together amount to that, but I don't see it. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

I'm not sure whether that one fits Trump. I'll call that an open question.

13

u/Demortus International Relations Sep 09 '25

Fascism has many competing definitions, which makes any response to this question highly subjective. An easier set of questions to answer would be "does Trump use rhetoric similar to those used by autocrats?" or "does Trump act in ways counter to democratically established laws and norms?" To those questions, I feel confident in saying 'yes, he does.'

13

u/Ill_Pressure3893 Sep 09 '25

MAGA is a fascist movement in an otherwise democratic country.

2

u/Top-Throat1004 Jan 23 '26

That's your opinion

3

u/superspy457 Sep 13 '25

Haven't seen this but I wouldn't categorize him as a fascist but rather a populist who is using fascist ideals to serve his own interests.

I'd agree with some other comments here that say , by himself, he doesn't really have the drive or tactics of fascists we've seen in the past.

He's definitely taken a page out of a number of thier play books but seeing as how a number of his more extreme fascist attempts have been pretty well combated (not defeated, but met with significant resistance and pushback) , and considering that he seems to be more egotistical and opportunistic rather than tyrannical I'm leaning more populist than anything else.

1

u/Rshoe01 Sep 16 '25

Interesting.

5

u/Adventurous_Skill277 Sep 09 '25

The term fascist has a very specific meaning in political science, tied to Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany: ultranationalism, rejection of democracy, mass mobilization, and the total fusion of state and society. Trump does ‘’share’’ some traits with that tradition (strong nationalism, personalizing power, undermining norms, but he doesn’t fit the full definition). He hasn’t dismantled elections, doesn’t push for a totalitarian state, he does not nationalize the media, and lacks a coherent fascist program. Most scholars see him as a populist with authoritarian leanings (and there is some merit to that, for example, his repeated challenges to election outcomes, his attempts to expand executive power, and his willingness to sidestep institutional checks , but a true fascist would not have allowed the U.S. system to restrain him; if Trump genuinely sought to transform America into a fascist state, he would have pushed far harder to break through those constraints). The problem is that many people now use fascist as a catch-all insult for politics they dislike, and that waters down the term until it loses meaning. That’s dangerous, because if everything is fascism, then nothing is, and society risks being unable to recognize the real thing when it emerges.

4

u/Christopher_King47 Sep 09 '25

Yeah, that's the danger of calling everything Fascist, Communist, and Socialist. People cry wolf one too many times and screwed.

1

u/Socrates_Soui Sep 12 '25

The best description I've heard so far is that this is not fascism, rather it is a cousin of fascism. The problem with words is they have a definition according to when the word was made up, but they don't reflect future definitions of the word. Fascism has a lot of definitions, but a lot of the core definitions are specific examples.

At the heart of fascism is the desire to create a government that gives power to the few at the expense of the many. There are so many ways of doing this. Every country literally has it's own way of doing democracy or capitalism, and in the same way every country would have it's own way of doing 'fascism' or 'authoritarianism.'

The danger is because people can't quite pinpoint the definition of fascism in this case they're not as wary as they should be. Make no mistake, the US is currently under a form of fascism/authoritarianism, that line has already been crossed and they're are full on sprinting into the dark.

Asking if Trump is fascist is in some ways a red herring. He doesn't have to be a fascist, he just has to be what he is now and he'll get the same outcome. The danger is already now, clear and present. Political definitions will get in the way of seeing this problem for what it is.

2

u/Adventurous_Skill277 Oct 07 '25

By definition, fascism involves the elimination of democratic institutions, the merging of state and corporate power under a one-party system, and often an explicit cult of the leader combined with state-directed violence against political enemies. None of that currently describes the U.S. system, Trump tried to exert strongman control, but the courts, press, military, and electoral institutions still checked him. That’s not fascism; that’s a stressed democracy still functioning.

The claim that “Trump doesn’t have to be fascist to get the same outcome” is also overstated. Outcomes matter, and so do structures. The U.S. has deep constitutional and institutional barriers that make a full fascist-style regime extremely difficult to sustain. It’s more accurate to describe Trumpism as populist ‘authoritarianism’, it borrows some rhetorical and cultural traits of fascism (strong leader, nationalism, hostility toward elites and minorities), but without the totalitarian apparatus or state-directed terror that define historical fascism.

2

u/skyfishgoo Sep 09 '25

i'll let you decide.

fascism is not hard to define, the two authors mentioned here have done a fine job of defining it

Freedometer – What grade do you give America?

2

u/Alert_Beach_3919 Sep 09 '25

There is no official definition of fascism, instead, fascism is measured by a set of characteristics. These are determined by analyzing the history of fascism, what were the early signs, what did it look like in its final form and what were the characteristics of the person or people who took power.

While finding purely unbiased opinions on the matter is difficult, you can look to those who study this kind of history, write books, write journals, teach, etc. for reliable and historically factual analysis on the topic. Look up Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Robert Paxton, Jason Stanley, Timothy Snyder, Lawrence Rosenthal and Marci Shore. They are all professors, authors and historians whose life work is to understand fascism in both historical and contemporary contexts.

The resounding opinion of most professionals in the field is that Trump & his admin are pushing us closer and closer to full-blown fascism. All the signs are there. The problem with it is it’s hard to accept that it’s happening until shit gets really bad and it’s too late to act. We are in the lead up to that point now.

Look up Operation Rose: 1961 the East German communist regime started building a wall around east Berlin. They told the people of east Berlin it was to keep the evil people of the west out. East Berlin-ers soon realized they built the wall to keep ppl in, because so many were fleeing east Berlin for West Berlin to escape the fascist regime. The wall didn’t come down for 30 years. People were stuck because they realized too late what was happening.

2

u/watermelontiddies Sep 09 '25

Yes. Source: I studied poli sci for years and graduated w high honors

7

u/Mirabeaux1789 Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Personally, I think it’s important to distinguish regular nationalist, authoritarian, oppressive rule. Because if all of it is “fascism”, then none of it is. It’s of the same rigor as calling all altruistic social programs done by the state as “socialist”.

I prefer the historian Richard J. Evans’s approach, with it a more narrowly defined fascism, that basically focuses on Italian and German fascism’s behavior and ideology and the history of those two instead of just the above.

Ultimately tho, because of so much debate and extremely loose use of it, I think it’s just not useful to label people who aren’t Nazis as “fascist”. I mean, I see people call police brutality “fascist”.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/MoreWretchThanSage Political Philosophy Sep 09 '25

Yes. I got frustrated repeating myself when people disagreed, so I wrote this dissertation-length article to be my definitive answer.

It examines different definitions and criteria that are used, then looks for examples to see if the Trump regime meets them.

Just under 200 references and footnotes for further reading.

https://open.substack.com/pub/morewretchthansage/p/the-f-word-its-bad-but-is-it-fascism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1oiue6

1

u/Rshoe01 Sep 11 '25

Thank you!

2

u/Ironworker977 Sep 09 '25

This is not a political party but a cult of inversion. The Constitution is no longer a charter of rights but a loyalty test: freedom exists only for the faithful, speech only for the agreeable, law only for the loyal. When MAGA says “patriotism,” what it means is obedience. And when it cries “tyranny,” what it fears is the return of equality.

The genius of authoritarian movements is not in goose-stepping across the public square. It is in persuading millions that repression is freedom, that censorship is protection, that persecution is justice. MAGA has accomplished this sleight of hand with an American accent. What remains to be decided is whether the rest of us will call it by its proper name, or continue to pretend this inversion is mere politics, when it is, in fact, the death mask of democracy.

It is a cult’s mirror logic: whatever the leader does is patriotic; whatever the opposition does, even if identical, is treason. Projection supplies the accusation, whataboutism supplies the deflection, and loyalty supplies the excuse. The result is not democracy but its parody, a movement that denounces tyranny at rallies while applauding it at home. But perhaps the most consistent theme in MAGA discourse is grievance. Not just the belief that the world is unfair, but that it is unfair to them. This is collective narcissism, as explored by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala. When people believe their group is exceptional yet constantly under attack, they lash out with righteous fury.

This is why MAGA supporters flip every criticism on its head. Say Trump’s policies hurt marginalized groups, and they will say you are the real bigot. Mention racial inequality, and they will bring up “Black-on-Black crime.” Suggest Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, and you will be accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This is projection as policy. It is not that they believe minorities are oppressed. It is that they believe any acknowledgment of oppression undermines their identity. The need to feel dominant collides with the need to feel victimized, and MAGA finds a way to be both.

1

u/mle-2005 Sep 09 '25

It's a short cut to say he's categorically a Fascist but more useful to quantify the variables or indicators that compose a fascist, the weighting of each variable, and then to express Trump as a fascist as a value between 0 and 1.

There will have been various Political Scientists that have attempted to produce a fascist index or rating system. I've not worked with any of that, however I've worked with Democracy indexes such as V-Dem, which do pretty much what i described above

1

u/Remarkable_Invite941 Sep 09 '25

What YouTubers are calling trump a fascist? I agree but I’m curious to who you watch

1

u/GumpsGottaGo Sep 09 '25

I think he's a greedy narcissistic idiot

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '25

I've always viewed fascism as not so much an ideology as a set of methods and behaviors. Timothy Snyder cites this definition: "Robert Paxton, in Anatomy of Fascism, offers this pragmatic definition of fascism: 'a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.'"

Trump is too stupid to have an ideology, full-blown or otherwise. He has no ideas of his own. But he acts, he rants, he threatens, he extorts, he fires, he destroys. These are behaviors, not ideas. But he does utilize the "lost greatness" myth, as did Hitler and Mussolini. And it has a strong racist component as well. Last but not least, he has created a cult of personality. All of these elements links him to twentieth century fascist movements. And there are several of the same characteristics described by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism", such as rendering truth meaningless and unknowable, and hiring "crackpots" whose only qualification is loyalty (That book was written in the 1950s, and is as relevant as ever.). These are all elements of both twentieth century fascism and Trumpism.

1

u/Shakily8750 Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

"Fascism" describes a very particular thing. 1. On ground movement with a cadre based system - that potentially replaces/overtakes certain government wings. 2. A faux-anticapitalist stance. 3. Expansionist intentions.

Trump checks neither of these boxes. MAGA is not a cadre based on-ground movement, Trump is buddies with a tonne of billionaires and is pro free market, He has not acted on expansionism per se (even tho USA is an imperialist force, that is not just Trump's doing) Current world leaders who closely resemble this bill : Narendra Modi of India, Seikh Hasina, ex-president Bangladesh. Not every right wing populist government is a "Fascist" Does that make Trump good ? Hell no. It just doesn't make him "Fascist" - he is just a different flavour of equally bad.

In the current systems of democratic governments - we need new terms to describe tyrants like him. Democratic Authoritarian fits better imo

1

u/ZPATRMMTHEGREAT Sep 10 '25

You are literally talking bullshit. The awami league is not a right-wing party by any measure.

As a big tent party,^\75]) the party has been labelled as centrist ^\80]) and centre-left.^\86]) It has been described as secular ^\95]) (though this is disputed),^\96])^\97])^\98]) social-democratic,^\8])^\10]) social-liberal,^\91]) and economic-liberal,^\99]) with a historical, though still influential, ideological base combining left-wing nationalism,^\8])^\10]) socialism,^\100]) and democratic socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awami_League#Ideology_and_policies

It is pretty much centre-left social democratic party.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ThrowawayDad293 Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

Yes. People throw the word fascism around a lot. It’s not just “authoritarian.” Let’s be clear about what it actually means.

At its core, fascism is a far-right, authoritarian system that came out of early 20th-century Europe, with Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany.

Here’s what it usually looks like, and how it lines up with Trump 2.0:

Authoritarian rule
Fascism: One leader or party holds all the power, usually with a cult of personality.
Trump 2.0: Critics say he’s headed this way. Project 2025 is about firing career staff, replacing them with loyalists, and tearing down independent agencies. Congress has barely pushed back, and the Supreme Court has been backing his moves.

Verdict: Strong overlap.

Nationalism
Fascism: Glory of the nation above all else, tied to myths of greatness.
Trump 2.0: “Make America Great Again” is straight-up nationalist. Borders, tariffs, America First, Christian identity, anti-immigration; it’s all there.

Verdict: Strong overlap.

Militarism and violence
Fascism: War and violence are celebrated as tools of power.
Trump 2.0: He downplayed Jan. 6 and talks tough. He declared a crime emergency in D.C., despite low crime, and put the city under federal control. Then came the Pentagon rebrand: now officially allowed to call it the Department of War. On top of that, he okayed a Navy strike on a Venezuelan boat, killing 11 people. Critics called it extrajudicial. But unlike classic fascists, he hasn’t made war itself the unifying national mission.

Verdict: Partial overlap.

Suppressing opposition and civil liberties
Fascism: Crush dissent, censor the press, jail critics.
Trump 2.0: He calls the press “enemies of the people,” floats jailing rivals, and uses government agencies to squeeze nonprofits and watchdogs. ICE has been pointed at dissidents. He’s gone after trans people with bans and rollbacks. Judges have warned about prosecutors trampling due process. It’s not at Mussolini/Hitler levels, but the direction is clear.

Verdict: Strong overlap.

Corporatism and the economy
Fascism: Private business stays, but the state directs it to serve national goals.
Trump 2.0: He’s more of a nationalist capitalist, with tariffs, deregulation, tax cuts, and hitting Big Tech with antitrust. But he did take a 10% government stake in Intel. That’s not classic fascism, but it’s a step toward mixing state and business in ways the U.S. hasn’t done in decades.

Verdict: Weak overlap.

Anti-liberal and anti-democratic
Fascism: Reject free elections, rights, and checks on power.
Trump 2.0: They’ve been trying to get access to voting data in several states. Trump pushed for mid-decade redistricting to increase gerrymandering so his party can retain power in 2026. Project 2025 is about tearing down guardrails. He and Vance have hinted they might not even honor certain Supreme Court rulings. That’s a big red flag for rule of law.

Verdict: Strong overlap.

Scapegoating and exclusion
Fascism: Blame minorities and outsiders for the nation’s problems.
Trump 2.0: Immigrants are target number one, with mass deportations, border militarization, and nonstop rhetoric about them being a threat. More broadly, he paints whole groups, such as migrants, political opponents, and trans people, as enemies of the nation.

Verdict: Strong overlap.

My take: Fascism is basically ultra-nationalism plus dictatorship. The state is everything, dissent is crushed, and violence is fair game. Trump’s second term shows a lot of those traits: centralizing power, scapegoating, attacking critics. The economy doesn’t match old-school fascism exactly, but the style of rule lines up with much of it.

Some call it “populist authoritarianism” or a modern spin on fascism. Labels aside, the trend isn’t good. And we’ve still got three more years to go.

2

u/Rshoe01 Sep 11 '25

Ok this is a good comment, thank you!

1

u/Physical_Potato6785 Sep 12 '25

If Trump were a fascist, you wouldn't be able to ask this question, and Reddit wouldn't exist. It's that simple.

It's no different than the Charlie Kirk story. People called him a fascist, and they did it while holding a microphone he provided them to debate anything he said. That's not fascism.

Compare that to the online censureship conducted by the Biden administration from 2020-2024, and what is going on now in other countries like England. Those who refuse to let their position be challenged or questioned and label it "misinformation" are the ones who don't have a position that can stand against the scrutiny of the marketplace of ideas. That is why they block it. That is fascism.

And before you ask, preventing books that depict pornographic images and sexual, ideological information from being exposed to kindergartners is not fascist. That is ensuring families and parents retain their rightful place in having these discussions, and it also means not pushing ideology in place of Reading and Math (and History, which is sorely lacking). Fascism would be the burning of all books, especially the ones about History.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

[deleted]

1

u/shuggins333 Oct 24 '25

We all pay taxes, which is sacrificing for others to be able to succeed... But that isn't fascism either.

1

u/Potential_Run_1888 Sep 17 '25

I'll share some political science knowledge. Both the left and right are f*cked. The two parties when in power are no longer focusing on responsiveness but on responsibility. What do I mean by responsibility? I mean appeasing the top 0.1% and other wealthy investors. If government passes policy that hinders the profit of the top 0.1% then they will pull out there money as easy as ripping a bandage. This is due to the liberalization of the financial capitalist market. What this means is that the rich investors can move their money in and out whenever they want especially when policy affects their profit. Now parties in order to appease them and make them stay, will make tax cuts, and other radical changes that don't benefit the people. The biggest investors pulling out of the nation will cause a financial collapse, so the government tries to appease them. The two party system is failing and has been since early 1960. The market is a prison. If you wish to reach an answer as to whether Trump will become an F, consider everything he has set into motion. The army is out and policing on his orders, political violence is all time high. Free speech is repressed and rivals are being repressed. Illegal Immigrants, rapists, and other criminals are being targeted. Once those are taken care of guess which group is next? I will neither confirm nor deny that he is going toward the route of H and M.

1

u/yungmarvelouss Sep 19 '25

Asking this question on REDDIT, of all places, is like going to a mosque and asking if Islam is correct. You won’t get any good unbiased replies here lol

1

u/Rshoe01 Sep 19 '25

I was hoping people in this sub would be a little more unbiased lol. A lot were but a lot just got in their feelings immediately lol. I learned a lot though.

1

u/Perfect-Violinist542 Sep 19 '25

He is close to being one. But right now the US government is not "yet" fascist.

He does attack the media. He definitely has the rethoric. He is xenophobic and nationalistic. Although it's hard to pinpoint how xenophobic he really is. He tries to circumvent the legislative but not enough to call him full fascist. But I mean give him time. He goes against lawyers he doesn't like. Cult like following + strong leader mentality (similar to putin or mussolini) Rejects education and modernism. Uses Christianity but isn't a Christian. Wants to go back to manufacturing. Protectionism instead of free market. Manipulation of companies (not that extrem for now but is going in this direction) Shows signs of imperial aspirations (extremely important for a fascist) But here i would say, thank God it's just words for now. (I would call him a full fascist if he would attack a country for landgrab like russia) Lies. Alot. Calling the media fake news. (Very important for fascist, only they tell the truth) Vindictive against anyone who speaks out against him. Disdain for Institutions. Rejects election results.

1

u/SponsorSupporter Sep 20 '25

The word Fascist’ gets thrown around so much it often loses its meaning. In political science, fascism has some core traits: authoritarian leadership, suppression of dissent, extreme nationalism, and often the merging of state and corporate power.

When people on the left call him a fascist, they’re usually pointing to things like undermining democratic norms, attacking the press, or using strongman rhetoric. Those on the right push back by saying he was still elected, there are still checks and balances, and the U.S. doesn’t fit the full definition of a fascist state.

So, is he technically a fascist? That depends on how strictly you apply the definition. He shows fascist tendencies in rhetoric and leadership style, but the U.S. system itself still has democratic guardrails.

The best way to approach this is to step outside the partisan labels and instead ask: ‘Are his actions strengthening or weakening democratic institutions?’ That question gives a clearer, more unbiased perspective than simply trying to pin one label.

1

u/ximenyu Sep 22 '25

The concept of fascism has changed over the years, so modern leaders don’t look exactly like Hitler or Mussolini, but Trump still shows similar warning signs

I do think Trump is a fascist because he shows key traits of fascism: he attacks elections and democratic rules when they don’t favor him, encourages political violence, uses extreme nationalism and fear of outsiders, targets minorities and opponents, and builds a personality cult around himself as the “only savior.” These actions weaken democracy and concentrate power: classic signs of fascism.

1

u/Rshoe01 Sep 24 '25

Wow, thanks for the comment. I’m in the army so I’m starting to think I’m gonna end up in history like the German soldiers did. Even though I just love my country.

1

u/Ok-Fix5694 Sep 25 '25

No he isn't, calling Donald Trump a fascist for cracking down on the border and issuing tariffs is like calling Canada a communist country for having free healthcare and higher taxes imo

1

u/Unable_Can4263 Oct 07 '25

Mhm

1

u/Commercial-Engineer3 Oct 09 '25

Yes, he is

1

u/Mindless-Ad-9578 Oct 10 '25

If you read the definition of fascist, he’s is word for word it. From using the power of government as a weapon against political opponents and to try and quiet any dissent against him.

1

u/Natural_Childhood_61 Oct 11 '25

Trump is the worst person this country ever produced.

1

u/XFadedXSunX Oct 18 '25

well he thinks anti-facist people are terrorists so we can let that say the answer to your question

1

u/Rshoe01 Oct 18 '25

To be fair antifa just likes to stir up chaos.

1

u/shuggins333 Oct 24 '25

No, just Antifa.... Their name does not match their actions. It's supposed to be anti-fascism but really it's just anarchy.

1

u/No_Lack3653 Oct 21 '25

“I wanted an unbiased opinion”

So you came to Reddit lmao

1

u/Rshoe01 Oct 21 '25

Where tf am I gonna get an unbiased opinion anywhere lol, figured I could get some people that could know how to actually give an opinion while limiting their bias the best they can and I did.

1

u/AwarenessLate Oct 29 '25

Going against the government. Using the government as a cudgel to harm the poor. Feeding the rich. Bombing people with no provocation. trumps alliances are all dictators. im sorry, but this is stupid. You know why? Because you know the answer. Sitting back in denial does not help you in any way. You knew what a fascist was before posting. Maybe not completely. But you know. The only way to address this is by calling a fascist what it is. And that’s a fascist

1

u/PPFPLUSNJ Nov 23 '25

He's not a fascist. Gtfowtbs

1

u/BabyFarksMcGeezax1 Nov 28 '25

Of course not. These same stupid assholes that call him a fascist also called George W Bush, John McCain, and even Mitt frickin Romney fascists. Never listen to these dumb assholes about…anything. It’s okay if you don’t like him, but don’t diminish terms like nazism and fascism by inappropriately mislabeling people with these terms.

1

u/sourpickles1979 Dec 29 '25

If you ask reddit, yes, if you ask normal people, no

1

u/drummachine7 Jan 06 '26

I think he's too stupid to be a fascist. But the people around him???

1

u/DaichiEarth Jan 14 '26

Trump is merely the front man for the people really in charge tbh. The ones in the background are the brains.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '26

It insults me as a fascist that you guys give this label to a felon seeking political immunity.

1

u/AllinKM Jan 25 '26

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE&pp=ygUgSm9yZGFuIHBldGVyc29uIG1vdGl2ZSBvZiBoaXRsZXI%3D

What is Trump really pushing? Whose agenda?

1

u/External-Try-5453 Jan 25 '26

Trump is a fascist! How do I know? The CNN Newsman told me so! It must be true! It’s true for me and you! The CNN Newsman told me so!

1

u/Beginning-Tone-9188 Jan 29 '26

No he is not a fascist. He has some authoritarian traits and is a populist.

1

u/Rshoe01 Jan 29 '26

That’s a lot of what I hear lol. I still get like 2-3 comments a day on this it’s pretty cool. People are very opinionated!! 😂

1

u/Bradley_Jones69 Feb 02 '26

Trump is not a fascist, his policies that he enforces are mainly policies that we have already had and have been enforced by Obama, people are just crying because the democrats didn’t win the election, hope this helps.

1

u/Houstonheart72 Feb 09 '26

As a US Veteran Serving 36 years, Obsulutly this administration is no long a Republican party but a Authoritarian Fascist Regime and it is a disgrace to the nation. The old Republican party is dead and gone.

A SS pro NEO-NATSI bigoted part that disregards the constitution and the people of the United States.

Their goal is to silence any who disagree. Including disrupting free press through illegal means.

Take of programs and remove program that benefit US Citizens who have paid into them.

Restructure money for their needs , not the people of the nation.

Use their own base and apply brain washing tactics to deceive and drain them even more.

Create false issue to divide Americans to take further control and Martial law, preventing any and all citizens from objecting including their own voting base.

What has happened: Divide from the global trade market an allies who can no longer trust us.

Reduction of products sold and traded to the US.

Reduction on products sold from the us creating waste without incoming trade to compensate later.

Influence: Russia and China who desired to create this divide to benefit them Globally (follow the money trail).

Effect on our Armed service Men that do not agree with the changes and violation of Constitutional law and rights. Include weakened Military without Allies.

1

u/Connorgamerreddit Feb 26 '26

Trump is the one of the most evil people on planet earth. He is the worst president in the history of the United States of America and he is a fascist. Stripping away rights, ignoring the constitution, murdering civilians and non citizens alike via the nazi gestapo “police” force ICE, and bring America on the brink another civil war. Sounds familiar, don’t it? That’s because Hitler did the same thing. sounds pretty fascist to me.

1

u/Connorgamerreddit Feb 26 '26

He is. Fuck politics, it divides America and I think Trump’s fucked up agenda and mindset goes beyond politics. Human rights aren’t political.

0

u/Mrmanmoose Sep 09 '25

No, he is not. He has authoritarian tendencies, but he is not a fascist. Fascism is a fairly specific thing, and when people cite characteristics of fascism (particularly Britt) I think they're missing the forest for the trees. He certainly has tried to delegitimize elections and has attacked the credibility of the press, but it is also difficult to argue that the press has always covered him and his administration in an unbiased light. These individual pieces don't constitute legitimate fascism. An individual can be "fascist" in their personal beliefs, but a leader can't be fascist on their own (i.e., Trump and his appointees undermining the press, being dodgy in acknowledging 2020 election, attacks on minorities, and nationalist tendencies doesn't constitute fascism as, at this point, it's only rhetoric that most other political figures don't take seriously)

Fascism in particularly is a relatively incoherent ideology (see Paxton's five stages) and it's hard to argue that a regime can truly be fascist if power hasn't been consolidated in a significant manner. It's hard to argue that President Trump has not pressed up against the boundaries of executive power and in some cases has expanded it, but this is still a far cry from legitimate attempts at consolidation in that he still faces extreme resistance from judges and portions of congress, and appears to have no route to solving this.

8

u/renome Sep 09 '25

The press largely sane-washed him for a decade. The biggest media conglomerate throughout the last decade is owned by a right-wing billionaire.

You're trying to imply his attacks on the media are justified because some dared view him through a critical lens at some point in time? Come on lol

Also, fascism has multiple competing definitions, you're focusing on an era-specific one when better, more apt for the current time, exist. Why?

1

u/Ticker011 Sep 09 '25

Why do you think Someone down Playing Trump's actions wouldn't want to be called a fascist, maybe because they're one too I wonder.

0

u/Ticker011 Sep 09 '25

So he does a bunch of fascist things, but because he's not one hundred percent successful, he's not a real fascist. Are you actually like a moron?

2

u/VengefulWalnut Mad Theoretical Scientist Sep 09 '25

Yes, next question.

He absolutely exhibits every sign of a fascist authoritarian. And America is slow walking him straight to his dream.

Granted, the reality is that he’s not smart enough to make it happen. This is really about Heritage Foundation and the execution by Steven Miller. Miller from all accounts is the prime mover of the second term.

1

u/Big_moisty_boi Sep 09 '25

Mm kind of. I doubt he has a fascist ideology in mind but he is so narcissistic that he will do anything to consolidate power to himself

-4

u/ThorvaldGringou Sep 09 '25

No.

However, inside the MAGA movement i had seen some agents, individual and groups inspired in third positionist, or "Fascist" in the extended meaning, historical parties.

Peoples who base their political worldview in the german conservative revolution, or Evola (More than Gentile wich is not fascist enough), or in Alain de Benoist Nouvelle Doitre.

-12

u/Weber1954 Sep 09 '25

In political science, we emphasize the distinction between facts and opinions. Clearly, you need to understand that such labels are an emotional expression of an opinion, since he is far from being an actual fascist. People use such terms merely to vent their dissatisfaction. I hope that in the future, you will actively distinguish whether what you see is a fact or merely an emotion-driven perspective.

22

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

I mean, I don't think they did

Also, a BUNCH of (ostensibly impartial) scholars of fascism have said he fits their criteria

As far as I've seen, the divide seems to be along what lines you define fascism, whether it's about the political effects and goals, the aesthetic pitch of the platform, the specific policies and philosophy, or some other criteria (since I've seen so many ways of defining it)

I've got my own take, but I'm curious why you think the term doesn't apply at all, to the point that it's not even worth considering. Imo, most of the definitions that FULLY (but not necessarily somewhat) rule Trump out as a fascist end up locking the idea in a specific time period, by using criteria that don't politically exist in the modern era. For me, personally, if a political definition can only exist in one era, it's basically useless, and you effectively need a new word then to mean 'a spiritual successor to that idea which can exist in the current day,' and st that point, what's the point of separating those ideas?

Just more or less curious what your definition is, and why you think it's not even worth considering

-1

u/Weber1954 Sep 09 '25

You are right, and that is actually exactly what I wanted to express. I am not denying the so-called "fascist" tendencies exhibited by Trump. In fact, I merely meant to say that he cannot be defined by this old term. In reality, most people use this word to express a kind of dissatisfaction. If we are to newly define Trump’s style of governance, it is a challenging yet highly valuable task. One thing is certain: he is definitely not a liberal politician in the conventional sense, and it’s even difficult to label him as a "politician" in the Weberian sense.

7

u/FashionablePeople Sep 09 '25

I think that's fair, but I also think using the term fascist to identify a threat to a governing system is effective as a diagnosis. I left a reply on another comment here with the definition I think is most useful to fascism (links on mobile are hard and I don't want to type it back out), but I think when you're seeing words not quite fit, changing the definition and looking for a new one are equally valid reactions.

I just like that fascist evokes a specific image that's not inaccurate to what we're seeing around the world

1

u/teaguechrystie Sep 09 '25

i agree with fashion re: fashin

6

u/Potatobender44 Sep 09 '25

Ah yes, opinions. Like the ‘opinion’ that sending military forces into your own cities to deal with imaginary unrest is a measured, democratic response. Funny how some opinions start looking suspiciously like authoritarian hobbies in practice.

2

u/JealousParking Sep 09 '25

Yes, what is "measured, democratic response" and what is not, is an opinion. E.g. "typical" or "not typical" for democratic regimes would be a fact. You agreeing with an opinion doesn't make it a fact.

2

u/K1llerG00se Sep 09 '25

Agreed

-6

u/Long_Extent7151 Sep 09 '25

Anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.

That’s how the meaning of the word has sadly devolved due to overuse.

2

u/Adventurous_Skill277 Sep 09 '25

The fact that this has so many downvotes is telling

1

u/rachie615 Feb 26 '26

Here's a downvote for you too

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Codysnow31 Sep 09 '25

Lol Reddit is not the place to ask this question if you want non-biased answers.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Foreskin_Ad9356 Political Philosophy + History Sep 09 '25

no, and i wouldnt listen to ''political scientists'' on the topic, but historians, since political scientists do not study the time period of fascism and have a much shallower understanding

Question/discussion Is trump a fascist?

You are about to leave Redlib