Social fascism

Akrasia

Social fascism is a term widely credited to Stalin that first originated in the 1920's at the Communist International (third international) in which it was argued that the end of capitalism was imminent and could only be prevented by the counter revolutionary activities by fascists and social democrats.

This was a position that they adopted in response to their opponents in the 'Second International' which collapsed during WW1 when the social democratic parties took a position of 'Social Patriotism' in favour of the ruling classes in their respective countries and refused to form a united socialist front against fascism and Capitalism.

Their logic was simple enough. They believed that the socialists willingness to accept incremental improvements will eventually lead to their being corrupted and subsumed by the capitalist classes and then use their position of trust to re-order society once more in the interests of the capitalist fascist elements of society. They also had a highly critical view of the social patriotism that resulted in collapsing international workers solidarity in favour of patriotism, nationalism and hopes of nominal improvements in material conditions at home.

Fast forward to the 21st century and new discourses on Social fascism are starting to emerge, mainly from Latin American academics, but they also apply in western social democracies.

The reason d'etre for social democrats in the first place was the struggle to overthrow capitalism (eventually) This goal then evolved to a struggle to win workers rights in opposition to the demands of ever expanding wealth accumulation by capitalists. Then it evolved into a 'balance' between workers rights and capitalist accumulation, and now it's moved into reverse. Self described social democracies are now reducing government regulation on corporations at the expense of social and workers rights, in favour of competing in the international globalized evonomy. Meaningful international solidarity has become reduced to holding Music concerts petitioning capitalist institutions to drop crippling and unjust debt (which the Imperialist capitalist institutions pretend to agree to and then proceed to ignore).

The U.K. labour party is the perfect example of this shift over time from a nominal workers party, into a party for the elites, more conservative than the conservatives themselves, but it is also happening in the even most successful social democracies in the world (Sweden and Finland just elected 'centre right' parliaments and France look set to vote in a neo-liberal Pro American president in the coming weeks)

Academics like Arturo Escobar blame this on the inevitable processes inherent within the imperialist capitalist model. The fact that western governments can pretend to have high moral, sometimes socialist ideals at home (despite them still allowing slums and extreme poverty and social exclusion to exist) while still pursuing the worst kinds of oppressive economic and military activities abroad. He argues that pseudo-reformist "social democracies" are just as responsible for the massive global and class inequalities that are evident in the world today, as even the more overtly fascist regimes (that are fully supported by those social democracies) The question being, if you install and/or support a fascist regime, aren't you guilty of fascism yourself?

One of the main consequences, for Santos, of the collapse of emancipation into regulation is the structural predominance of exclusion over inclusion. Either because of the exclusion of many of those formerly included, or because those who in the past were candidates for inclusion are now prevented from being so, the problematic of exclusion has become terribly accentuated, with ever growing numbers of people thrown into a veritable ‘state of nature’. The size of the excluded class varies of course with the centrality of the country in the world system, but it is particularly staggering in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The result is a new type of social fascism as ‘a social and civilizational regime’.20 This regime, paradoxically, coexists with democratic societies, hence its novelty.

This fascism may operate in various modes: in terms of spatial exclusion;
territories struggled over by armed actors; the fascism of insecurity; and of
course the deadly financial fascism, which at times dictates the marginalisation of entire regions and countries that do not fulfil the conditions needed for capital, according to the IMF and its faithful management consultants.21 To the former Third World correspond the highest levels of social fascism of these kinds. This is, in sum, the world that is being created by globalisation from above, or hegemonic globalisation......

(source attached)

DadaKopf

I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.

Fascism, IMO, was a specific historical phenomenon in Europe, with very peculiar traits. It was a result of the trauma of WWI, rapid industrialisation, social crisis, the breakdown of monarchicalism, the consequent mutation of nationalism into hyper-nationalism. Have I left anything out?

We are now in very different times with our own phenomena, and it would, I think, be more helpful to invent a new term for what we face today. It's not that tenets of fascism are not evident in today's world, but it's simply not the same. There is also the danger of 'fascism' gaining currency and giving those who rule the world another concept to free-ride people into oppression.

I've only read some of the article, but much of it reminds me of 'Empire' and 'Multitude' by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Perhaps from a Eurocentric viewpoint (justified in their opinion), they prefer to use the terms 'Empire' to denote neoliberal dominance over people's lives, and 'Multitude' to denote the majority world who, at once, are singular in their local identities but united in how we are affected by Empire and desire change. This seems to resonate with Escobar's endorsement of de Souza Santos who emphasises the politics of place.

But what I'm particularly intruiged by is Escobar's call to go 'beyond the Third World'. In typical post-development style, he claims that modernity has exhausted itself - modernity cannot solve the problems that it has created (though does he define 'modernity'?). The 'Third World' is a creation of modernity, and so it must come to pass that any new paradigm must divine much of its wisdom from 'tradition' - knowledge suppressed by modernity to support the global domination of Empire. Solutions lie in collapsing this 'modernity/tradition' distinction.

Again, Hardt and Negri spend all their time in 'Multitude' explaining that, right now, we are in an 'interregnum' between one paradigm and a new one as yet unmade. But that paradigm can go two ways: towards an even more oppressive Empire, or global democracy.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.

Fascism, IMO, was a specific historical phenomenon in Europe, with very peculiar traits. It was a result of the trauma of WWI, rapid industrialisation, social crisis, the breakdown of monarchicalism, the consequent mutation of nationalism into hyper-nationalism.

I agree with DadaKopf (that hurt to say).

Have I left anything out?

It also gave an alternative democratic model, although badly implemented in pretty much all cases (Italy, Germany, Spain, Argentina, etc.).

DadaKopf

'Alternative democratic model'? Explain.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

'Alternative democratic model'? Explain.

Corporatism. Whether you agree with it or not it was/is an alternative democratic (political/economic) model.

DadaKopf

Well, there are different kinds of corporatism. Care to go into a weencie bit more detail?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Well, there are different kinds of corporatism. Care to go into a weencie bit more detail?

I've gone into pretty much as much detail as you did, so not really.

Dontico

What is 'social fascism'?
How could you call someone a Fascist and a capitalist?
Where are these Fascist countries? Fascism died with Franco. Sure there is people still supporting Fascist ideals but wouldnt really be any strong movement.

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

I'm a fan of Escobar. And I'm disappointed to see him use the term 'fascism'. While he has said in the past, 'words are strategic sites of struggle', I'm not convinced this is the one to struggle over.

There are no words in popular discourse that have the same impact as fascism

We could come up with a new specific term to refer to the current exact geo-political situation, but that would just start a whole new semantic debate that would take generations to have the same impact that fascism has following a century of war and oppression. National Socialism (NAZIism) didn't have the impact it has now until WWII was already underway and by then it was too late.

The current words like Neo-Liberalism, Globalization etc are not powerful enough across the spectrum to fully convey the extremely harsh reality of the impacts they describe, maybe they will in 20 years, but by then millions more will have died. Corporatism would have been a good word, but it's already been used to describe something different.


There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. His point is that 'social democracies' try to absolve themselves from any connection with the appalling injustices that they cause and perpetuate through their participation in global capitalism

Akrasia

Dontico wrote:

What is 'social fascism'?
How could you call someone a Fascist and a capitalist?
Where are these Fascist countries? Fascism died with Franco. Sure there is people still supporting Fascist ideals but wouldnt really be any strong movement.

If you're not even going to bother reading the thread, why bother posting with silly questions?
(and your statement 'fascism died with Franco' is ludicrous.

DadaKopf

Akrasia wrote:

There are no words in popular discourse that have the same impact as fascism

We could come up with a new specific term to refer to the current exact geo-political situation, but that would just start a whole new semantic debate that would take generations to have the same impact that fascism has following a century of war and oppression. National Socialism (NAZIism) didn't have the impact it has now until WWII was already underway and by then it was too late.

The current words like Neo-Liberalism, Globalization etc are not powerful enough across the spectrum to fully convey the extremely harsh reality of the impacts they describe, maybe they will in 20 years, but by then millions more will have died. Corporatism would have been a good word, but it's already been used to describe something different.


There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. His point is that 'social democracies' try to absolve themselves from any connection with the appalling injustices that they cause and perpetuate through their participation in global capitalism

I disagree. I think it does the Movement a disservice to call what is happening social fascism, even though what *is* happening may exhibit elements of it.

There's a perfectly good word worth claiming. It's called 'Empire'. It's currently in vogue, Escobar uses it in that article, neoliberals use it, and it's worth claiming for the critical left.

However, I think his use of the phrase 'social fascism' reflects a new, potentially unfortunate development in, er, developments around the world. Nationalism, or more specifically, 'neo-nationalism'. Anthropologists and development researchers call this the rise of 'identity politics' - but while this is a nice, neutral phrase in principle, political developments in France, Poland, Russia, Sudan and India to name a few are pointing towards a new wave of nationalism that can only end in more blood and iron.

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

I disagree. I think it does the Movement a disservice to call what is happening social fascism, even though what *is* happening may exhibit elements of it.

There's a perfectly good word worth claiming. It's called 'Empire'. It's currently in vogue, Escobar uses it in that article, neoliberals use it, and it's worth claiming for the critical left.

However, I think his use of the phrase 'social fascism' reflects a new, potentially unfortunate development in, er, developments around the world. Nationalism, or more specifically, 'neo-nationalism'. Anthropologists and development researchers call this the rise of 'identity politics' - but while this is a nice, neutral phrase in principle, political developments in France, Poland, Russia, Sudan and India to name a few are pointing towards a new wave of nationalism that can only end in more blood and iron.

Yes, but Empire or the convoluted 'neo-emperialism' is being widely used to refer specifically to the actions of the U.S. and to a lesser extent Britain, It would be a very difficult debate to equate the likes of Sweden or Holland (in the 21st century with the violent expansionist foreign policy of the United States, but these countries are at least partially responsible for the problems caused by Empire building. Social fascism, which is a term almost as old as the term fascism itself implies that the social democrat system itself is beyond redemption and it asserts further Escobar's desire to find a completely new way and build a completely new world.

Dontico

Akrasia wrote:

If you're not even going to bother reading the thread, why bother posting with silly questions?
(and your statement 'fascism died with Franco' is ludicrous.

Then why not answer the questions?

DadaKopf

No, really, your comments are indecipherable.

Akrasia, 'Empire' doesn't *have* to refer to the US. It's been used to refer to different things at different times, remember the "Evil Empire"?

Today, 'Empire' refers not explicity to the USA (except among neocons), but to global capitalist social relations - it places emphasis on the system and its constituent parts. History has shown that it's dangerous to play the blame-game.

Surely 'social fascism' is a cloaked word for 'George Bush'.

It's just not as simple as that. At least, to me, 'Empire' points toward deep systemic issues that must be solved through negating empire.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

There is an element of poetic license here that is not a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Actually you are attempting to use a popularly miscategorised term to convey an emotive (irrational) message. At best this is patronising and at worst it is an attempt to defame by association.

Emotively the term Fascism creates associations with National Socialism, which in turn is associated with its part in the mass extermination of millions of ethnic groups throughout Europe.

By your use of the term, what you are attempting to do is create the same emotive association between something that has little or nothing to do with Fascism, National Socialism, let alone mass exterminations. It's actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually you are attempting to use a popularly miscategorised term to convey an emotive (irrational) message. At best this is patronising and at worst it is an attempt to defame by association.

Just because something is emotive doesn't make it irrational. Perhaps Dadakopf is correct and we should focus on different terms like Empire or something/

Emotively the term Fascism creates associations with National Socialism, which in turn is associated with its part in the mass extermination of millions of ethnic groups throughout Europe.

Not really, Naziism is associated with genocide, fascism is the broader term that includes monsters like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etc

Anyway, the limitations of language are unfortunate

By your use of the term, what you are attempting to do is create the same emotive association between something that has little or nothing to do with Fascism, National Socialism, let alone mass exterminations. It's actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Fascism is not about mass exterminations. At it's most basic level, it's a philosophy that emphasises economic power above human needs.

DadaKopf

Fascism, to my knowledge, is about the personification of state power under the leadership of one person which puts national prestige and economic prowess above human liberties as subjects are absorbed as machines of the former.

That's very different to a critical understanding of capitalism, which isn't identical with fascism.

Gobán Saor

Fascism, in my view, has the folowing characteristics:

Economic: Dirigiste, corporatist, economic central planning with private enterprise "co-operating" with government decree, effectively becoming an arm of government. Opposed to laissez-faire economics. Trade unions suppressed or incorporated into state machinery. Prediliction for grandiose public works - "fascist architecture"

Civil Society: Authoritarian/Totalitarian. Concept of rights replaced by idealistic state paternalism.

Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.

Political: Single party government - opposition suppressed. Anti-communist.

Cultural: Government control of newspapers, media. Artists encouraged (often generously) to spout the party line. Firm control of education.

Gender Politics: Mysogynist, Anti-gay, espouses so-called "family values" Population growth often encouraged.

Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.


Of the above, corporatism, nationalism and authoritarianism are the most distinctive defining elements. In that sense, it has a very specific meaning. Classic fascist states were Germany, pre-Anschluss Austria, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, the Baltic Republics, Spain, Portugal. I don't see the point of using the word as a catch all-term for any authoritarian right-wing regime. Nor is neo-liberalism or globalisation the same as fascism.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

Just because something is emotive doesn't make it irrational.

But it will only be rational by coincidence, if at all. Emotion - by definition - is not a product of reason, but typically a product of its absence.

Perhaps Dadakopf is correct and we should focus on different terms like Empire or something/

Dadakopf is correct because he’s pointing out that your argument is essentially a pile of steaming crap that falls apart whenever anyone challenges it even superficially. He’s not the only one to point this out to you.

Essentially you’re trying to argue that Charlie Chaplin is a Nazi, because he had a moustache like Hitler’s and thus that’s good enough reason to attach the label, presumably so that the unwashed masses will naturally feel inclined to dislike poor old Charlie.

Not really, Naziism is associated with genocide, fascism is the broader term that includes monsters like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etc

I actually think it’s bizarre that you seem to be at pains to cite the differences between Fascism and National Socialism when you’re so cavalier with those between Fascism and Western (liberal) democracies. Either you haven’t thought this through or you’re actually being actively disingenuous.

Anyway, the limitations of language are unfortunate

I think you mean the limitations of reality. You’re attempting to portray one ideology in terms of another because it’ll hit the right emotional buttons. Problem is that your comparison fails dismally, which leaves us with nothing more than an attempt at deception upon your part.

Fascism is not about mass exterminations. At it's most basic level, it's a philosophy that emphasises economic power above human needs.

That’s a horribly simplistic and arguably inaccurate statement that seems only to betray how little you actually know about the subject. And, TBH, and even if it were it’s frankly an accusation that could be levelled at any ideology – five year plan anyone?

The Corinthian

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.

Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.

Of course this is not to say that they did not contain elements of racism, but then again you have to look at the period in question. Both France and Britain were happy to impose radical laws in their colonies too at the same time. Not nice, but that’s how the World was back then.

Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.

Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.

Gobán Saor

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.

Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.

The Corinthian wrote:

Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.

Point taken. It was a turbulent time. But an essential component of fascism is an effective state security apparatus. Once this exists, it can gain popular acceptance by being turned against internal or external perceived enemies. This also cements the desired identification of the citizen with the state. Thus I say fascism, of its nature, tends to produce military aggression. (Of course the same point could be made about other political systems too!)

The Corinthian

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.

Actually there is a huge difference. If one looks at one of the principle historical inspirations of Fascism, ancient Rome, citizenship was extended from Rome, through to Italy and ultimately throughout the empire by 212 AD. Typically it was a cultural concept, extended towards Romanised territories, although it also often done for political and economic reasons – however it was never racially based.

In the Fascist states on the twenties and thirties, none of them defined citizenship in terms of race (outside of the racism that was common to all European nations with respect to their colonial subjects), with the exception of German Fascism. As Germany became more influential this racialism was exported, first to Italy (which saw numerous protests from Jewish Fascists, in such books as Abramo Levi’s Noi Ebrei) and later to her puppet states in France, Romania, etc.

However, outside of the National Socialist sphere (before and after World War II) of influence there’s actually very limited evidence of racially driven policies in Fascism.

Point taken. It was a turbulent time. But an essential component of fascism is an effective state security apparatus. Once this exists, it can gain popular acceptance by being turned against internal or external perceived enemies. This also cements the desired identification of the citizen with the state. Thus I say fascism, of its nature, tends to produce military aggression. (Of course the same point could be made about other political systems too!)

I would not have said that an essential component of Fascism is an effective state security apparatus – at least any more than any other centralised governmental system. What there was that would support what you’re saying was cultural militarism, that those qualities that are found in the military sphere (strength, discipline, honour, etc) were exalted in Fascist society.

This certainly was the case in most Fascist doctrines and would have contributed towards being aggressive and potentially belligerent, however one must consider how much of this was a product of the era in which Fascism existed. Post War Fascist states, few as they were, tended to slowly relegate militarism to a ceremonial importance (such as Spain) or were even largely devoid of it (such as Argentina). However I’d agree the tendency is certainly there in the ideology.

I do think it is important to view Fascism in the context of what it actually is, a fairly short lived ideology that existed in a tumultuous time and that due to one of its proponents being racially driven to the point of genocide, has essentially been damned forever more. Except for the last bit, you could say the same of Socialism, except it has been able to evolve into more mainstream ideologies today that are far less flawed than the disastrous implementations of Stalin and Mao.

DadaKopf

Y'see, Akrasia? Instead of talking about global social injustice, we're talking about fascism. This is what unhelpful labels do. When writing a policy document on anti-corruption for Irish NGOs, I inserted a section on the historical and structural reasons for corruption in sub-Saharan Africa. Rightly so, I was asked to remove it because including it in public debate would take attention away from the real issues (among them, the massive bribes paid by rich countries in the 'normal' course of business) to debate the minutiae of these historical factors.

It's much more helpful, when speaking generally, as Escobar does in that article, to focus on common social relations - which puts the blame back on the social relations of capitalism and its regional variants. This, to me, is a more fruitful approach.

This small-mindedness always happens, as people zone in on tiny issues to ignore the big picture, in order to, or as it happens to, stifle meaningful, normative discussion.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

This small-mindedness always happens, as people zone in on tiny issues to ignore the big picture, in order to, or as it happens to, stifle meaningful, normative discussion.

You appear to have a rather generous definition of what are "tiny issues", at least when it suits your purpose. Would you prefer if we turn a blind eye to people coming out with horseshìt of the good of "the Big Picture"?

However, you are right in that using erroneous devices in argument are likely to destroy whatever good they were meant to support.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

But it will only be rational by coincidence, if at all. Emotion - by definition - is not a product of reason, but typically a product of its absence.

So you see fit to deny a whole chunk of the human experience? Emotion is not exclusive of rationality. Politics is far from scientific, emotions (hopes, fears, desires, compassion, etc) play a huge part. And language is not a neutral device.

Dadakopf is correct because he’s pointing out that your argument is essentially a pile of steaming crap that falls apart whenever anyone challenges it even superficially. He’s not the only one to point this out to you.

Excuse me, but do i detect a bit of emotion in that statement? Wouldn't 'steaming crap' be a statement designed to arouse a certain image to convey your distain for what I had to say.
What exactly is 'my argument' anyway? The reference to a term 'social fascism' which has been around for 86 years which I only used because it was used in turn by a highly respected academic?

Essentially you’re trying to argue that Charlie Chaplin is a Nazi, because he had a moustache like Hitler’s and thus that’s good enough reason to attach the label, presumably so that the unwashed masses will naturally feel inclined to dislike poor old Charlie.

If that is what you think I am saying then no wonder you think it's a pile of steaming crap. I wasn't saying anything like that. Or perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting my opinion.

I actually think it’s bizarre that you seem to be at pains to cite the differences between Fascism and National Socialism when you’re so cavalier with those between Fascism and Western (liberal) democracies. Either you haven’t thought this through or you’re actually being actively disingenuous.

I was pointing it out because you brought it up. And you only brought it up as some kind of statement about the inflexibility of language while yourself making a flase statement about what you believe fascism to be.

I think you mean the limitations of reality. You’re attempting to portray one ideology in terms of another because it’ll hit the right emotional buttons. Problem is that your comparison fails dismally, which leaves us with nothing more than an attempt at deception upon your part.

I am using a word because it communicates the seriousness of the problem. When you called my argument a steaming pile of crap, did you mean it was actually warm faeces?

And I think if George Orwell can use the term and device of fascism to describe something that didn't exactly fit the specific criteria that you insist on applying in 1984 without resulting in an infinite regress of semantics and linguistics, then perhaps you should lighten up a little

That’s a horribly simplistic and arguably inaccurate statement that seems only to betray how little you actually know about the subject. And, TBH, and even if it were it’s frankly an accusation that could be levelled at any ideology – five year plan anyone?

It was simplistic, but it is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word fascism. And it can't be levelled at 'any ideology' (I'm not a communist)

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

So you see fit to deny a whole chunk of the human experience? Emotion is not exclusive of rationality. Politics is far from scientific, emotions (hopes, fears, desires, compassion, etc) play a huge part. And language is not a neutral device.

Actually you'll find that emotion is exclusive of rationality. There may be good evolutionary reasons for many emotions, but ultimately it's not cognitive, which is necessary for reason.

Excuse me, but do i detect a bit of emotion in that statement? Wouldn't 'steaming crap' be a statement designed to arouse a certain image to convey your distain for what I had to say.

Who were you expecting? Spock?

What exactly is 'my argument' anyway? The reference to a term 'social fascism' which has been around for 86 years which I only used because it was used in turn by a highly respected academic?

Because, by your own admission, the term was used for the purposes of engendering an emotive response that cannot be engendered by simply using facts and reason. 'Social Fascism' has been little more than a soap box term for decades, you and the article's author simply keeping that tradition alive.

I was pointing it out because you brought it up. And you only brought it up as some kind of statement about the inflexibility of language while yourself making a flase statement about what you believe fascism to be.

Firstly you appear to believe that language should be used regardless of it's true meaning or any facts behind it simply because it is expedient to your argument.

Secondly what false statement did I make? Would you care to expand, preferably with less rhetoric and more facts?

I am using a word because it communicates the seriousness of the problem. When you called my argument a steaming pile of crap, did you mean it was actually warm faeces?

That's a distinct possibility.

And I think if George Orwell can use the term and device of fascism to describe something that didn't exactly fit the specific criteria that you insist on applying in 1984 without resulting in an infinite regress of semantics and linguistics, then perhaps you should lighten up a little

Or perhaps you should read more books. I am not for a moment denying that the term is used in literature or mobs, but that does not make it any more accurate or true. You're trying t convey a message, but to do so you're happy to manipulate language and truth for that purpose, to "communicates the seriousness of the problem" as you put it. Essentially the end justifies the means.

It was simplistic, but it is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word fascism. And it can't be levelled at 'any ideology' (I'm not a communist)

Then preach to a more simplistic audience.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually you'll find that emotion is exclusive of rationality. There may be good evolutionary reasons for many emotions, but ultimately it's not cognitive, which is necessary for reason.

I really do not appreciate being patronised.
Your statement of fact is by no means an undisputed truth. Emotion and rationality are not separate. There is no room for emotion in the physical sciences, but politics is a social science, and we base our 'reason' on values that are derived from human emotion.

a major function of emotion appears
to be the promotion of socially and morally desirable
behavior and the deterrence of undesirable behavior.
Emotions are a necessary component of empathic
responses, which are important drivers of pro-social
behavior. Emotions are also very sensitive to the
fulfillment or violation of social and moral norms,
and therefore an essential component of social and
moral self-regulation. Finally, in social and economic
interactions, emotions promote the fulfillment and
enforcement of social and moral obligations by
overriding the players’ material self-interests. In this
sense, the emotional person is not irrational, but
ecologically rational.

http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/news/colloquia/pdf/spring2007/pham.pdf

Who were you expecting? Spock?

Well, you do seem to idolise his 'rationality' devoid of emotion.

Because, by your own admission, the term was used for the purposes of engendering an emotive response that cannot be engendered by simply using facts and reason. 'Social Fascism' has been little more than a soap box term for decades, you and the article's author simply keeping that tradition alive.

By my own admission, Words are an important battleground in politics. When the discourse is dominated by words that sanitize (or ignore) all of the crimes and atrocities that are committed daily on our behalf, it is necessary to change that discourse to reflect the reality. Strong words are needed. I don't really care if the word is fascism, or Imperialism, or capitalism. As long as it focuses people on the root of the problem. The worship of money, the consolidation of global power in the hands of a tiny elite, the subjugation of billions of people into slavery and the wanton destruction of our environment by pirates and plunderers.

Firstly you appear to believe that language should be used regardless of it's true meaning or any facts behind it simply because it is expedient to your argument.

Words don't have one true meaning. That's the great thing about language. It's organic. It's about communicating meaning As long as people understand what is meant by the word fascism in this context, then it's a valid word to use. Whether it's a good choice tactically is debatable (using these words tends to de-rail a debate, but there wouldn't have been a debate if I didn't start this thread...

Secondly what false statement did I make? Would you care to expand, preferably with less rhetoric and more facts?

You equated fascism with the holocaust. Meanwhile you were engaging me in a semantic argument about me not using words in their 100% accurate (as decided by you) context

Or perhaps you should read more books. I am not for a moment denying that the term is used in literature or mobs, but that does not make it any more accurate or true.

So you're saying that Orwell's 1984 didn't refer to a kind of fascist society? Perhaps you'd like to write a dissertation semantically deconstructing 1984 because it wasn't an exact mirror image of the self described fascist dictators of the early 20th century?

You're trying t convey a message, but to do so you're happy to manipulate language and truth for that purpose, to "communicates the seriousness of the problem" as you put it. Essentially the end justifies the means.

Manipulate language? Isn't that called speaking? or communicating? You called my argument 'a steaming pile of crap' But it wasn't a steaming pile of crap which can not exist in cyberspace and does not technically refer to any kind of argument. How dare you manipulate language to convey a message?

Then preach to a more simplistic audience.

Your debating skills are pretty simplistic "I'm right, you're wrong" It's only "truth" if I say so

oscarBravo

Can we do this without the handbags, please?

kthxbye.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

I really do not appreciate being patronised.

I would have thought you'd be used to it by now.

[urlhttp://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/news/colloquia/pdf/spring2007/pham.pdf[/url]

Did you bother to read either what I wrote or the piece that you've just quoted? You'll find that I already pointed out what you've just quoted.

Words don't have one true meaning. That's the great thing about language.

Words however do have very wrong meanings. A woman who has had a few sexual partners is not a whore or prostitute. Certainly a mob may choose to see her as this and treat her accordinly, but those are not the actions of a reasoned debate, which is what we supposidely should be having here.

We can call McDowell a fascist, if it makes us feel better or because we don't like him, but factually there's very little in common between him and Fascits. Essentially you're confusing intellectual discource with soapbox rhetoric.

You equated fascism with the holocaust. Meanwhile you were engaging me in a semantic argument about me not using words in their 100% accurate (as decided by you) context

Actually I didn't equate Fascism with the Holocaust. Read what I wrote again.

So you're saying that Orwell's 1984 didn't refer to a kind of fascist society?

Actually you'll find we was talking about a dystrophic Socialist society.

Manipulate language? Isn't that called speaking? or communicating?

No, when you manipulate language to say something that is untrue, it's called lying, or deciving.

Your debating skills are pretty simplistic "I'm right, you're wrong" It's only "truth" if I say so

With respects I'm not terribly interested in your opinions of my debating skills.

The Corinthian

oscarBravo wrote:

Can we do this without the handbags, please?

OK, soweee...

DadaKopf

I've been around boards as long as you, OB, and I've realised that genuine debate about a particular topic is impossible. Threads only take off when people insult each other, politely or not.

DadaKopf

No, when you manipulate language to say something that is untrue, it's called lying, or deciving.

Everyone manipulates language. It's a tool of communication. Signs can be infinitely manipulated. I hope you're arguing about the form/content of those signs, and not the signs in themselves, which is bollocks.

So call a spade a spade. Either you're struggling over the word 'fascism' (in which case, Arturo Escobar is right in calling words "strategic sites of struggle"), or you're arguing over the substantive issue of just governance.

Neither are unrelated, but I'm afraid you're arguing the former at the expense of the latter.

Both of you have demonstrated my original point.

You guys remind me of Zappa.

Brad Wesley

Fascism is a confused term all i can say is read noam chomsky or even joseph stiglitz and make up your own mind.

The Corinthian

Brad Wesley wrote: »

Fascism is a confused term all i can say is read noam chomsky or even joseph stiglitz and make up your own mind.

While you're at it you can read Joseph Goebbels or even Joseph McCarthy and make up your mind on Socialism too :rolleyes:

If you want to make up your mind on a subject such as Fascism (or Socialism for that matter) you're better off reading authors who are both pro and against and make up your own mind, rather one side of the argument and have your mind made up for you.

Brad Wesley

Chomsky can be one sided granted but Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial.

DadaKopf

Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial

Hardly!

The Corinthian

Brad Wesley wrote: »

Chomsky can be one sided granted but Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial.

Chomsky is extremely one sided, TBH.

Joseph Stiglitz is certainly more 'impartial', but at the end of the day he would still fall into the 'anti' camp - and so really is not. As I said, if you want to make up your own mind on such things you really are better off reading both proponents and critics.

Of the former you could read historical proponents such as Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, while more modern (especially economic) viewpoints would come from such as Philippe Schmitter or Gerhard Lehmbruch.

Primo

I see that this thread contains the proposition that Italian fascism was not racist.

This commonly held view is a falsehood, an untruth and a lie.

Well before the introduction of anti-semitic legislation in Italy at Hitler's behest in 1938, the Italian fascist dictatorship had introduced racist policies in its African colonies, such as Eritrea.

Under the pre-fascist regime, Italian colonial rule had been (at least in principle - practice was another matter) paternalistic. After 1932, there was a clear movement towards an ideology of permanent African inferiority, and of the necessity of eternal white dominance in African. Just as in Nazi Germany, this new departure found a spurious, pseudo-scientific justification from academic supporters such as Professor Lidio Cipriani. Tekeste Negash, in his history of Eritrea in these years, notes that new laws against miscegenation, Eritrean-Italian marriage and cohabitation were introduced.

At the bottom end of what is now Liberation Avenue in Asmara, a system of apartheid was introduced, with the area being declared Europeans only, and off limits to Eritreans.

The wider context for all this was, of course, Mussolini's plan for an unprovoked war of imperialist aggression against Eritrea's southern neighbour, Ethiopia.

Those who continue to assert that Italian fascism was not racist are either ignorant, deluded, or deliberately telling lies.

Primo

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.

What do you mean by this?

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

Well before the introduction of anti-semitic legislation in Italy at Hitler's behest in 1938, the Italian fascist dictatorship had introduced racist policies in its African colonies, such as Eritrea.

So what? Racist policies existed even before the Fascist period, as they did i thought colonial Africa. It was only from 1937 as Italian Fascism adopted Germany's racialist approach that it could be differentiated from any other colonial power in Africa.

Indeed up until 1937 Eritrean-Italians were recognized as citizens (as long as the father was Italian) - something unheard of in, say, South Africa - that bastion of Western Liberal democracy. So if Italian Fascism was so fundamentally racist, why did it wait 15 years to introduce such a law?

The core premise of your argument is that Italian Fascism was fundamentally racist given it had introduced racist laws as early as 1932. Oddly, other than the recognition of mixed-race citizens long after this date, you ignore the fact that Italian Fascism had already been in power for 10 years at that stage.

Was it just biding it's time before going racist? :rolleyes:

Those who continue to assert that Italian fascism was not racist are either ignorant, deluded, or deliberately telling lies.

TBH, you have pointed out how Italian Fascism moved towards racist policies in the latter half of it's rule. No one has ever denied this.

However for you to successfully contend that racism was fundamental to Italian Fascism ignores not only the first ten to fifteen years of its time in power and completely ignores colonial racism as was practiced by the European powers in Africa.

Ignoring those two factors may help your case, but they are a manipulation of the facts at the end of the day. The reality is that Italian colonialism was racist - just like everyone else's, and in some cases even less so.

However it did indeed become a full fledged racialist ideology in the late thirties in an attempt to better align with Germany - a move prompted by Italy's international isolation following the Abyssinian war.

I suspect you are simply attempting to push your distortion for your own agenda. Anybody with only two posts under their belt and a user-name that looks suspiciously derived from the first name of an Italian who spent time in the concentration camps, probably has an axe to grind.

Primo

The Corinthian wrote: »

So what? Racist policies existed even before the Fascist period, as they did i thought colonial Africa. It was only from 1937 as Italian Fascism adopted Germany's racialist approach that it could be differentiated from any other colonial power in Africa.

The racism of both Italian and German fascism had clear roots in the European colonial regimes of the 1870-1914 period in Africa. There was direct continuity of personnel between the German colonial genocide of the Hereros in Namibia in the early 1900s and the later Shoah. The racism of the Italian fascist regime had its roots in Italian colonial policy in Libya and Eritrea. Nor were such crimes a monopoly of Italy and Germany; after the uprising of the Shona in what was then Rhodesia, British massared Shona civilians by dynamiting the mouths of the caves where the civilians (women, children and old men) were seeking shelter.

To say that racism existed throughout colonial Africa does not get Italian fascism off the hook in either Africa or Italy itself; it simply highlights the affinities between fascism and mainstream European conservative thought.

Indeed up until 1937 Eritrean-Italians were recognized as citizens (as long as the father was Italian) - something unheard of in, say, South Africa - that bastion of Western Liberal democracy. So if Italian Fascism was so fundamentally racist, why did it wait 15 years to introduce such a law?

The core premise of your argument is that Italian Fascism was fundamentally racist given it had introduced racist laws as early as 1932. Oddly, other than the recognition of mixed-race citizens long after this date, you ignore the fact that Italian Fascism had already been in power for 10 years at that stage.

A propensity for this or that set of policies may be latent in a regime, awaiting the correct circumstances for it awake; latency is not the same as absence.

I would not consider five years to be a long time. Nor is the 'recognition' of mixed-race citizens worth much, given the regimes prior prohibition of miscegenation, cohabitation and marriage between Eritreans and Italians, prohibitions justified on explicitly racist grounds.

TBH, you have pointed out how Italian Fascism moved towards racist policies in the latter half of it's rule. No one has ever denied this.

You are retreating, then, from your initial bald claim that Italian fascism was 'not racist'? You admit then, that it began to exhibit racist tendencies well before Italy was drawn into the German sphere of influence?

As for your distinction between racism and 'fully fledged racialism' - the latter is an outgrowth of the former, and it cannot be blamed on ideas imported under German pressure. Rather, Italian fascist racialism grew out of Italian colonial and fascist racism. To deny this is to sanitise the record of the criminal Mussolini and his criminal regime.

Primo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.

Of course this is not to say that they did not contain elements of racism, but then again you have to look at the period in question. Both France and Britain were happy to impose radical laws in their colonies too at the same time. Not nice, but that’s how the World was back then.

Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.

Note that in this post, The Corinthian denies that Italian fascism was racist. Later, he attempts to muddy the water with a vague and undefined distinction between 'racism' and 'racialism', and seeks to sanitise the history of the period by arguing that like Italy in Eritrea, other European colonial regimes were racist: indeed they were, but this does not let Italy off the hook.

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

The racism of both Italian and German fascism had clear roots in the European colonial regimes of the 1870-1914 period in Africa. There was direct continuity of personnel between the German colonial genocide of the Hereros in Namibia in the early 1900s and the later Shoah. The racism of the Italian fascist regime had its roots in Italian colonial policy in Libya and Eritrea.

That may well be the case, although you simply telling us this does not demonstrate it.

To say that racism existed throughout colonial Africa does not get Italian fascism off the hook in either Africa or Italy itself; it simply highlights the affinities between fascism and mainstream European conservative thought.

I don't think it gets Italy off the hook at all, but where I can't see your logic is were you jump from this to assigning it specifically to Italian Fascism as opposed to to anyone with a colonial possession during that period.

A propensity for this or that set of policies may be latent in a regime, awaiting the correct circumstances for it awake; latency is not the same as absence.

Then you'd have to prove how it was a case of latency and not absence, which you've not done.

I would not consider five years to be a long time. Nor is the 'recognition' of mixed-race citizens worth much, given the regimes prior prohibition of miscegenation, cohabitation and marriage between Eritreans and Italians, prohibitions justified on explicitly racist grounds.

Considering that mixed-race citizens were not recognised in many of the other 'liberal' European colonial possessions, would that not indicate that the liberal democracies had a greater propensity towards racism?

You are retreating, then, from your initial bald claim that Italian fascism was 'not racist'? You admit then, that it began to exhibit racist tendencies well before Italy was drawn into the German sphere of influence?

In the context of the 21st century World, yes. In the context of when it was in existence no. It is no doubt very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to consider people from that era to all be racist bigots, but the reality is that was the norm - and in the context of that period Italy was no more racist, and often much less, than that norm.

As for your distinction between racism and 'fully fledged racialism' - the latter is an outgrowth of the former, and it cannot be blamed on ideas imported under German pressure. Rather, Italian fascist racialism grew out of Italian colonial and fascist racism.

You've repeatedly failed to actually prove this point. As often as you want to repeat that one grew out of the other, you've yet to supply any evidence of this other than repeating yourself in the hope that we'll believe you.

Note that in this post, The Corinthian denies that Italian fascism was racist. Later, he attempts to muddy the water with a vague and undefined distinction between 'racism' and 'racialism', and seeks to sanitise the history of the period by arguing that like Italy in Eritrea, other European colonial regimes were racist: indeed they were, but this does not let Italy off the hook.

Let me spell it out for you. Italy, like any other Western nation, was racist. However the wholesale adoption by the Italian state of 'racialism' - racial ideology - as opposed to commonly held racial prejudice was something that occurred only in the latter half of the thirties, fifteen years into Italian Fascism's twenty years in power - and this occurred as a direct result of Italy's move towards Germany.

There's no obfuscation there - certainly in comparison to your repetition of your opinion in the hope that people may eventually stop asking how you arrived at it and accept it at face value as fact.

I also note that you neglected to respond to the last paragraph in my previous post. Care to comment or can I take it that I was correct in my assessment of your motivations?

Primo

Some racist and racialist quotes from the Fascist criminal Benito Mussolini:

Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...
Fascist Congress in Rome 1921

Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...

Ascension Day speech 1927

We need to be seriously vigilant in regard to the destiny of the race, we need to take care of the race.

Preface to Richard Korherr's 'Regresso Delle Nascite: Morte Dei Popoli' 1928

Because of the low birth rates in urban areas the city dies and the nation,without the vital lymph fluid of the young of new generations, no longer can resist, composed now of vile old people. A younger people will press against the abandonded frontiers. That will happen and not only among cities and nations but on an order of magnitude infinitely greater: the entire white race, the western race, can become submersed by other races of color that multiply with a rhythm unknown to ours.
Blacks and yellows are at the door?
Yes they are at the door,and not only because of their fecundity but also because of their race consciousness and their future in the world.

Racial Theories in Fascist Italy, Aaron Gillette, p40.

The singular enormous problem is the destiny of the white race. Europe is truly at the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.

And here's another one:

Giorgio Pini, Filo diretto con Palazzo Venezia (Bologna Cappelli 1950, p90)

Benito Mussolini wrote:

"I am a racist.."

He was discussing Giulio Cogni's racial theories here.

DadaKopf

Best thread in ages... keep it up, lads...

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

Some racist and racialist quotes from the Fascist criminal Benito Mussolini

"Fascist criminal"? I assume from this you are indeed a run of the mill anti-Fascist activist then...

How about you respond to the points I previously made rather than squirming out of them? Block quoting half of Gillette's book does not mean that you bothered addressing them, after all.

Why do you ignore racism within all western countries and colonial possessions during that period which in many cases was more pronounced than in Italy or her colonies? Why do you insist (upon ignoring the above) that there is a direct link between the two? Why do you ignore the political and social aftermath of the Abyssinian war which ultimately let to Italy aligning itself to Germany?

AngryHippie

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Fascism, in my view, has the folowing characteristics:
Economic: Dirigiste, corporatist, economic central planning with private enterprise "co-operating" with government decree, effectively becoming an arm of government. [Opposed to laissez-faire economics]. Trade unions suppressed or incorporated into state machinery. Prediliction for grandiose public works - "fascist architecture"
Civil Society: Authoritarian/Totalitarian. Concept of rights replaced by idealistic state paternalism.
Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.
Political: Single party government - opposition suppressed. Anti-communist.
Cultural: Government control of newspapers, media. Artists encouraged (often generously) to spout the party line. Firm control of education.
Gender Politics: Mysogynist, Anti-gay, espouses so-called "family values" Population growth often encouraged.
Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.

I'm after wading through the 3 pages of posts so far, Does Gobansaor describe our accepted version of Fascism correctly in his post, as little about it was refuted ???

If so, then does the US have more fascist traits than it does democratic ?


1 In that statement I am assuming that the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive choice as both candidates are highly lobbied by corporate America.

2 I am also assuming (correctly or not) that it has elements of central economic planning (Federal reserve controls , domestic and foreign).

3 My final assumption is that The opposition to Laissez Faire economics could be subdued in cases where the Govt. involvement in economic matters could be manipulated by lobby groups and vested interests inside of government.

Reasons why assumptions may be justified in case of USA:

1 Campaign money, president turns around and bases decisions on advice from more experienced unelected advisors anyway, instead of popular demand.

2 Private ownership of Federal Reserve Bank, Collusion and conflicting interests becoming unavoidable.

3 It has become clear since the events of 11th of November that many of the US advisors were not subject to the normal scrutiny involved with government officials, and stood to gain fortunes from the actions of their nation in the wake of those events. Cheney Rumsfeld and many of the Neo-Con advisors and policy-makers brought in during the period of confusion that seemed to shroud the constitution after that date.

DadaKopf

Fashion + Racist = Fascism?

The Corinthian

AngryHippie wrote: »

1 In that statement I am assuming that the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive choice as both candidates are highly lobbied by corporate America.

It depends; the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive only if you require or expect a radical one. There are definate differences between the two and even between the policies of the two, but that does not (and in a stable democracy should not) imply that those differences should be revolutionary.

2 I am also assuming (correctly or not) that it has elements of central economic planning (Federal reserve controls , domestic and foreign).

It does, but so does every economy to one degree or other. Traditionally the US actually has less than many other economies.

3 My final assumption is that The opposition to Laissez Faire economics could be subdued in cases where the Govt. involvement in economic matters could be manipulated by lobby groups and vested interests inside of government.

Again lobby groups exist in all political systems, be they 'think tanks' or courtiers.

1 Campaign money, president turns around and bases decisions on advice from more experienced unelected advisors anyway, instead of popular demand.

No different to pretty much any system that has ever existed, with the possible exception that in undemocratic regimes the campaign money tends to go direct to the principles in government rather than their campaigns.

2 Private ownership of Federal Reserve Bank, Collusion and conflicting interests becoming unavoidable.

The concept of a central bank that is not owned by the State would be unacceptable in Fascism, so this is a point against.

3 It has become clear since the events of 11th of November that many of the US advisors were not subject to the normal scrutiny involved with government officials, and stood to gain fortunes from the actions of their nation in the wake of those events. Cheney Rumsfeld and many of the Neo-Con advisors and policy-makers brought in during the period of confusion that seemed to shroud the constitution after that date.

Again oligarchy and corruption is not unusual in any system of government.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Fashion + Racist = Fascism?

That does appear to be the simplistic conclusion being reached.

AngryHippie

The Corinthian wrote: »

The concept of a central bank that is not owned by the State would be unacceptable in Fascism, so this is a point against.

If the central bank of the country was controlled by a cartel closely allied with those in power, then essentially it would be in state control, or the state in its control, which arguably could describe the situation in the US...... Aside from the fact that there are ,many common interests between those in power, and those who direct the policies of the Federal Reserve, The collusion evident between the two points towards those at the top using public funds as a private piggybank for their own ends. In this statement I am referring to allocation of traditionally public sector services (FEMA using Halliburton and Blackwater after Katriona, The US Military using same for occupation of Iraq) to private companies without any public referendum or tendering process for competing companies.
Aside from the epic levels of corruption shown in the current US administration I suppose it is less nationalist than the accepted fascist model, and more corporatist. We'll see if a democratic candidate gains power, They may push the social agenda in the way the OP discussed.....

The Corinthian

AngryHippie wrote: »

If the central bank of the country was controlled by a cartel closely allied with those in power, then essentially it would be in state control, or the state in its control, which arguably could describe the situation in the US......

To begin with Fascism would certainly not accept official ownership of such an asset to be held in private hands - "Everything for the State; nothing outside the State" after all. Of course, you could have a situation whereby a state body was de facto under private control or even ownership, but this would be a corruption of the principle of state control in Fascism, Communism or even basic Keynesian economics.

Aside from the fact that there are ,many common interests between those in power, and those who direct the policies of the Federal Reserve, The collusion evident between the two points towards those at the top using public funds as a private piggybank for their own ends.

So what? Private interests have courted those in power in every system of government from the year dot. This is certainly not unique to Fascism, Liberal democracy or even (in the shape of socio-political elites) to Communist states.

Aside from the epic levels of corruption shown in the current US administration I suppose it is less nationalist than the accepted fascist model, and more corporatist.

US politics is only corporatist in that it has a better established system of lobbying from corporate and non-corporate interest groups than most other Western states, but lobbying is not the same as being part of the official mechanism of the state and so qualifies as corporatist only on a very limited level.