learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by bluewater on December 03, 2024 22:28

Fascism manifests through a combination of hardship, lack of leadership, and desperation. It manifests as an extremist movement that brings together many groups of people to carry out the leader’s agenda. Fascist societies are usually ultra-nationalist, worship a leader, and spread ideas about an enemy within society. Fascist ideologies are appealing to people because they provide a great sense of hope and provide solutions for the current issues in these societies. After World War I, Germany was in a great state of disarray with hyperinflation and political unrest. The people of Germany were untrustworthy of the Weimar Republic because they felt betrayed by the fact that they were given false news about the war. With these factors combined, the Germans were vulnerable and afraid of the future which allowed for fascism to take over. Since fascism is an extreme right movement, it gained many followers who shared those beliefs. Other people who were lost or didn’t know which political party to choose often chose the fascists because they provided a sense of purpose and acted as a guide. Fascism often scapegoats a group of people paints them as the enemy and uses this hate for their cause. More people who have issues will join and oppress this group as a way of releasing their emotions and feeling more involved in society. Fascist societies also worship the leader of the movement and this creates a cultish following. In the case of Hitler, he was painted as a hero of Germany and as a role model for the children of Germany and many believed he was destined to save Germany. Similarly, in today’s world, Donald Trump is also worshipped by many and is seen as a savior of the United States by some. Trump’s followers are all mostly nationalists looking to bring back America’s glory and share his propaganda of “Making America Great Again”. These characteristics of Trump’s movement are highly similar to those of a fascist regime with the worship of a leader, a far-right movement, and ultra-nationalism. However, even though Trump shares many characteristics of a fascist leader, he is not inherently fascist. A key factor in previous fascist movements was the use of military units and violence to carry out their agendas. The Nazis and Italians used military groups for intimidation and power to keep an iron fist on their people. The belief in a superior race was a key part of Nazi ideology and led to the scapegoating of Jews and the Holocaust. The article, No, Trump is Not a Fascist, states how Donald Trump is against militarization and racism and states, “Rather than pursuing the classic fascist objective of territorial aggrandizement through conquest, he inveighs against his party’s own military hawks” and “Instead of pursuing a politics of racial purity, he is now trying to build a more multi-racial political coalition.”. Although many could argue that Trump is building a fascist regime, he has not taken his actions to extremes that mirror those of previous fascist societies. We should learn from previous fascist societies to prevent or limit the possibility of future harmful governments from happening today as they severely limit the rights and freedoms of their people.

This person mentioned many of the same points I did about fascism. Similarly to me, they talked about the origins of fascism in Germany and explained that it was a result of both the desperation of people and a convincing leader. They were specific and elaborated on the reasons, explaining why fascism appealed so widely to people. Something I liked that they did was that they talked about the factors of fascism and used it to tie other ideas in their response. For example, they talked about the cultish factor and heavy propaganda that was prevalent in Nazi Germany and tied it to modern American politics. They mentioned how in a similar manner Trump is almost worshipped by many of his supporters and the weird culture surrounding him and his fans. This ties to their most compelling argument, being their view on American politics and whether Trump is a fascist or not. In their response they acknowledged the similarities that people point out about Trump’s campaign, while also giving evidence as to why Trump himself isn’t inherently fascist. Although I don’t agree with all the points they made, I appreciate the use of evidence and agree with the overall opinion that Trump isn’t a fascist.

This writer’s sentence, “For a society to manifest fascism, it needs to be primed with political or economic weakness and fear of the future” provides reasoning for why fascism takes place in a country, but however I do not think this is an absolute necessity. I wonder how this writer thinks of this idea in terms of the modern day United States - why are some characteristics of fascism present in Trump and his supporters when there was no extreme political/economic weakness to cause this? I strongly agree with the writer’s statement, “Ultranationalism is the driving force for fascism to thrive and sits at the very core of the idea”. It is smart of the writer to categorize the characteristics of fascism in three ways: A cause for it, a way to enforce it, and a way to make it appealing to the people. In the second paragraph, the writer stated that it is unfair to judge the citizens of a fascist regime for being supporters of the government, or bystanders. I do mostly agree with this. When fascism is present, it is for a reason: there is a deep dissatisfaction among the people, and they are desperate to feel important. However, everybody has the personal responsibility to ensure that their actions are not hurting others, no matter their situation.

Originally posted by Camellia on December 03, 2024 21:39

For a society to manifest fascism, it needs to be primed with political or economic weakness and fear of the future. With feelings of instability present throughout the country, fascism can seem like a promising return to better times. For a fascist regime, there needs to be ultranationalism, an obsession with enemies, glorification of ethnicity, media control, and anti-intellectualism. Despite other common characteristics like supremacy of the military and violence being present in many fascist societies, I think those are side effects that are common in fascist societies but not exactly defining characteristics. Ultranationalism is the driving force for fascism to thrive and sits at the very core of the idea. In addition to ultranationalism, having the country be obsessed with seeking out enemies and having pride in their ethnicity keeps the movement important and personal to the people, making it another crucial part of fascism. Finally, media control and anti-intellectualism are necessary to create and continue the cycle of fascism. For a society to be considered truly fascist, it should embody all of these characteristics in some way.

Most people tend to have an opinion of fascism and those who fed into such societies, but forget to take into account the appeal behind having a change in a struggling country. In most fascist societies, the previous party had already ruined the perception of the government under their power, most citizens had lost faith in the government. Fascism as a novel idea not only brought change but with it hope that the country could reach its full potential. In times of crisis, such as economic turmoil or social unrest, fascism provides a straightforward view of the world. It pushes the idea that a strong leader and national unity will solve all problems, which at a surface level is not cause for alarm. During times of crisis, the people of a nation possess many fears about the future, fascism targets this and offers a sense of security to its citizens. Since we aren't in the extreme circumstances of those under fascist societies, it is unfair to judge from an outside perspective without understanding the different points of view and positives that come with embracing fascism.

Although I think it would be hard to have a completely fascist society in today's world, I think it's possible to have fascism prevalent in society. The hardest parts to overcome would be media control and an obsession with enemies. In first-world countries, it's close to impossible to have complete media control without there being a revolt. Even media control on a smaller scale, like the banning of certain books in schools, has been largely disputed and looked down upon, so attempts for this to be done on a much larger scale would be unsuccessful. However, it's important to note how first-world countries like the United States have expressed fascist characteristics. For example, the argument of Trump supporters being fascists exists. This idea is backed up with the ultranationalism and glorification of ethnicity present among supporters as well as there being an importance set on enemies and anti-intellectualism. But since this group is still under the confinements of the United States and its regulations, important aspects like media control cannot be enforced. It’s also important to realize that Trump supporters are commonly referred to as fascists by more left-winged people and the term has sort of lost its political meaning to a broader category of conservative ideals. The New Republic questions this and states the importance of wondering if “whether using a twentieth-century term that inevitably invokes images of brown-shirted thugs beating down doors and black-shirted psychopaths running death camps will help us solve the problems we face.”

In third-world countries, where media control is easier and in some cases already present, other fascist ideals like the glorification of ethnicity and ultranationalism are missing among the common people, making fascism unlikely in those parts of the world.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by perspective on December 06, 2024 13:23

Facism manifests out of unification by hate, rather than unification by love. It is the force built of the “character armor[s]” theorized by Reich in “The Psychology of Facism” where “negative feelings about oneself are projected against others…the weakest group in society”, which may be minorities based on religion, sexual orientation, or political/economic ideology. And many times the state prior to facism collectively experiences this widespread disdain with national identity, specifically, the instability and weakness of it.

Irving Janis’s groupthink theory describes the fundamental principles of facism and its appeal on a psychological level: for in times of conflict, uncertainty, and instability it is the human instinct to revert to what we are familiar in, to a strong leader, and to be part of a greater, unified social identity. It brings an illusion of strength in the face of the country. Historically, it has taken place with Michael Foucault’s exaggeration of the phenomenon, maintaining only what are deemed socially “acceptable” ideas out of internalization of discipline (self-regulation born out of fear of observation). If we consider what he called ‘biopower’ to be the instrument of facism, it is understandable how Hitler’s rule could have given way to genocide in a manner similar to the college professor’s confession in the Facing History article “No Time to Think”. Essentially biopower is the government’s normalization of individuals into obedient subjects fit for a broader modern working of society, equivalent to the fascist regime’s specific aims. Altogether, I would qualify the above discussed as additional required characteristics of facism: a strong and charismatic leader worshipped by the people, a social culture in which the nation’s aims are prioritized over the individual (resulting in hypernationalism), and identification as well as use of force against opponents by those in power.

The issue with facism, and classifying modern states as such, is that there are no universally agreed upon, indisputable qualifiers. The words “often” and “associated with” are used in facism’s definition, thus lacking an actual, firm meaning. In my opinion, comparative government historians should come up with such a definition, as they have for qualifying totalitarian vs. authoritarian vs. democratic regimes. Only then can there be true debates of whether facism is present. However, with rapid technological improvements, the expansion of social media as a platform, and global attention on human rights including several multinational organizations, the existence of facism has become considerably more difficult today. This further complicates the definitions as using conditions of earlier fascist regimes. Whether modern populist ideologies that have similar qualities to those forms of facism can in fact be called such, is debatable.

Our desire to use the term facism in the modern day perhaps derives from, as New Republic’s “Does American Facism Exist?” states, “an insult, a performative reflection of the user’s desire to make the object of their derision disreputable”. Or at least, without a definition, that’s how it may appear. I believe using the word facism can at times destroy the meaning and terror of the word. A para-fascist state might be more appropriate, which recognizes conservative authoritarian rule.

For the United States, and the rise of Donald Trump, we meet the conditions of a charismatic, worshipped, authority, a populist movement, and heavy conservatism that identifies and discriminates against the weakest groups, though it should be noted that Trump himself has not specifically mobilized forces against these groups. Undoubtedly, he has incited the violence through his speech, which led to a threat to democracy on January 6th, 2020. Therefore, it is remarkable and terrifying how much he has been able to do even in the modern states. I believe we can classify dangerous factors in our present, but due to the factors that do not exist, we should be grateful that we are not living in a fascist state. However, with Project 2025, and some of Trump’s supposed plans, there is certainly much to fear with increased use of force and anti-intellectualism – yet even after all this whether the state would be “fascist”, is still under debate. First it would, particularly in the United States, be difficult for the government to control the media, as it is one of our heavily fought for, fundamental, freedoms – the largest buzzword in the country since its very existence. Sure, as long as propaganda is out there on a large platform, whether it is support or opposition, the campaign is successful (thus the danger of polarizing platforms including Fox News and CNN), but it does not show the degree of control perhaps mandatory to call a state fascist. And in a more literal show of force, whether opposition could realistically, massively be crushed is unlikely. Again, I would return to the term para-facism, as the only possible transition from a democratic state such as the United States, even in an era of a neo-fascist mood.

I agree with the statement about Fascism being manifested by the unification of hate rather than love because it was seen how everyone who belonged to the “superior” part of the society came together against the minorities and hated minorities together as one which provided them with further power in the society. This type of unification through hatred was explicitly mentioned in one of the readings we had from an article. It states that hatred is a bigger unification than love itself, which is noticeable in the circumstance of the Nazi party in Germany. Furthermore, I agree with the argument mentioned about humans tending to revert to familiarity and a strong leader. The familiarity during this time was a value of being of the “Aryan” race and glorification of previous eras that were “good times.” Furthermore, the strong leader/dictator was a principal part of Fascism in Germany with Hitler seen by many as a strong leader, despite being a very horrible person, due to his ability to speak well to the public. I like how the evidence was sourced throughout this argument as it can back up most of what is said or mentioned. Lastly, I like the connection made near the end to the modern world/societies, especially Donald Trump and the event on January 6, 2020, as it brings up a good point to think about.

I would say that the main reason fascism manifests in a society would be an immense amount of distrust for the current government, or just simple appeal to the masses if fascism is all they know. This brings up how extreme nationalism, militarism, and censorship are the main characteristics that must be present for a society to be considered fascist. Extreme nationalism in itself is very interesting, and oftentimes the general public cannot tell the difference between that and simple patriotism. Refusing to accept or acknowledge any criticism of your country leads to harsh wake up calls and continuous ignorance that is allowed to grow and spread. Militarism can lead to the creation of child soldiers, and a very unstable, uncaring environment that treats people as just another number. If the sole focus of a government is paranoia through the use of having an extremely fortified military then that is definitely a clear factor in a fascist society. At the end of the day, most governments only survive if the people support them. Like in the Weimar years of Germany, the people heavily distrusted the government which made it easier for fascist leaders to rally support, and become “the better option”. Censorship for example is a crucial part of North Korean society, which leads to my belief that America is not a fascist society. “‘Fascism,” Kuklick’s exhaustive survey of U.S. politics and culture shows, has generally functioned as a so-called floating signifier. In the words of the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who originated the phrase, a floating signifier is a term “void of meaning and thus apt to receive any meaning.’” This quote really stuck out to me as it alludes to how the real meaning of fascism was almost lost overtime. Calling someone a fascist nowadays is no more than an insult meant to rile someone up, and what people define as fascist today is a warped definition that evolved over time. To me, America could never be a true fascist state because of how diverse of a country it is with no limits on the amount of information that can be found. While you can never fully trust anything you find on the internet, there are multiple avenues of opposing information you can find. I would say that currently, North Korea is experiencing a neo-fascist era. The three most prominent factors I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph are three things that North Korea is known for, and heavily focus on. I believe that many people find fascist ideology appealing because of the idea of having a common enemy. The nationalism gets a lot of people swept up in their emotions of belonging to the “in group”. That “in group” ideology is very present in fascist ways as it is a means to bring people together through a common goal which is often shifted into hatred of a certain group. If certain beliefs or stereotypes are already very visibly present in society it makes it much easier for fascist ideology to worm its way into an already unstable society.

Originally posted by H.G.Wells75 on December 07, 2024 13:21

When I reflect on the likely dismal next four years that our country faces, I can see all the signs of a state that is failing, in part the shortcomings of the people who live in it. Now not to insult those in the BLS community, who I believe to be incredibly well informed, but to many outside of the bubble we live in. I focus on the idea that a majority of our country is caught up in a movement with a man who, while not being outwardly intelligent, can rally people like no other. There are a few undeniable facts that we have to face right now in our country to understand this. First, we face one of the most suramount nationalist movements in American history. The Make America Great Again (or MAGA) movement has taken many by storm, in support for one whose promises say otherwise. Even in the article No, Trump is Not a Fascist a claim is made that Trump has “Opposition to the Elite”, a statement that in the appointment of certain people in his administration, and his intent to use the government to protect his personal wealth is dodgy. Secondly, there has been a revitalization of hate groups and hate crimes in America, especially against LGBTQIA+, African American, and migrant groups, and the condemnation of their efforts to retaliate. The large issue that ties these two points together are two central truths that we have on a global scale: fear and apathy.

Apathy entirely, is killing every aspect of our lives, and eventually will end up killing us. Consider so many common circumstances, the exhaustion of school or work, the monotony of a daily routine, and often the relentless bombardment of media. People have been told to care about too much, and that has turned into caring too little. In the talks in class I argued that while I fully believe that Trump may very well bring about a Neo-Fascist era, it is incomparable to call him Hitler. When I was thinking about this more, I realized that I needed more reasons to back this argument and found something very important to distinguish between modern day America and WWII era Germany. In WWII many nations, powerful at the time, united against Germany, condemning their efforts, caring about the integrity of their peoples and the world. Today however, other than entirely central powers, many if not most nations are fearful of the US, and in accordance wouldn’t dare rebel against it. We have established an imperialist regime over many parts of the world, inflicting skewed Democratic policy upon many. In short, America has more political, military, and global influence than Germany had ever had in the course of its existence. So when I circumstantiate the idea of Trump not being Hitler with this point, it ties all back those notions of apathy and fear. Either a country, made up of people who could care less about America, can be fearful, or instigating. In the fallout of the world conflicts that we’ve had and the weak systems of protection thereafter employed such as the UN or the various genocide agreements, there is no powerful barrier, especially of opinion. The implied barrier is the one between the world becoming a warzone, and it is one made of paper-mache and suggestions.

In Nazi Germany, very few were full believers in ideology, often they were forced to pretend to be, but those who followed Hitler often did it because there was something perceived to be gained. Typically what fell among those lines was influence or wealth. When Donald Trump began his platform, it quickly became understood he was exclusionist, cutting ties, destroying influence from other countries. He has targeted a specific group to a large degree, immigrants, who make up 13.7% of the population. He claims they take the wealth, they ruin our long destroyed economy, and our country will improve without them. He supports the common American, he supports the “rightful American”. Hitler succeeded in targeting a group that was less than 1% of his country's population, often blaming them for the economic crisis, supporting the “Aryan”.

I have reached what I think to be a final conclusion of what I believe to be happening in our “country of the free”. We demonize Hitler rightfully so, he represents so much that is deplorable, and is the bottom line for evil in politics for many. While one can only ever speculate, nobody can tell the future. When I face the condition of this country, the gullibility and greed of its citizens, its charismatic and dangerous soon-to-be leader, its total and undeniable unrest, I only ever come up with one central idea to our future. Donald Trump is not Hitler, undeniably Hitler did worse things, he incited an eradication of the Jewish people, and many believe that he unfortunately succeeded. The plausible deniability then is nothing compared to what is happening today. The most unsettling part to me though, is how one today could end the world with a command, the multitude more lives that weigh at disposal for the next four years to come, and how I sincerely guarantee that - despite my hopefulness for humanity - America and the world at large will still likely cease to care. So no, we don’t exist in Fascist Germany, Trump is not a textbook fascist, he's also not Adolf Hitler. To understand this shouldn’t quell worry though, because what will usher in has the potential and lacks the protection from being something more devastating than the elimination that Hitler caused, it may very well be a catalyst to threaten the world at large.

The fact that you decided to focus on Donald Trump for the majority of your post made it incredibly interesting to read. Multiple points were made that I completely agree with, one being that Trump cannot be called Hitler. As you proved, they are different people in power whose work intensity cannot be compared. However, I do believe it would be appropriate to call Trump a fascist leader, or, at least, an up-and-coming one. According to your post, Trump has focused on targeting the minority, specifically immigrants, very similar to Hitler’s agenda of punishing a significantly small group of people for the troubles of an entire nation. Additionally, Trump’s MAGA movement brings a sense of nationalism and, in some cases, intimidation to the United States. On top of that, if the list of regulations/limitations produced by the Trump campaign, Project 2025, were to be passed, millions of U.S. citizens would lose the rights we have fought so hard to gain. Now, I am not trying to prove that Trump is directly alike to Hiter, but rather that he possesses qualities and motivations of a fascist leader, which, as you said, may “bring about a Neo-Fascist era.” I believe that if Trump’s actions have the ability to transform our society into a neo-fascist one, he has to be a fascist leader.

Originally posted by facinghistorystudent on December 04, 2024 11:06

Fascism manifests in a society when the people are desperate for stability and a brighter future. Even governments that are supposed to be democracies can become fascist societies. Some characteristics that must be present for a society to be considered fascist are the presence of a strong, charismatic leader and a weak political/economic system. Looking back at Germany during the Weimar years, they were in a severe economic crisis and, although they had a democracy, their political system was also very weak. This allowed, in part, for Hitler and the Nazi party to rise to power because Hitler promised to bring stability to Germany. Additionally, there must be hatred or a common enemy present in the country for it to become a fascist society. Looking back at the Nazi party once again, they put a large amount of emphasis on their hatred towards communists and Jews in order to gain German support to win the election. The German people needed someone to blame for the problems that their country was going through, and the widespread hatred towards Jews that had existed in Europe for centuries previous coupled with the fear of communism due the Russian revolution happening nearby gave the Nazis something to capitalize on throughout their campaign. Additionally, fascism was able to take place in Italy because of their hatred for people who were not Italian. According to “Does American Fascism Exist” from The New Republic, fascism signified Mussolini’s “conviction that the Italian people were stronger when individuals acted as a coherent unit.” This gave reason for the Italian people to unite against anyone who was not Italian, and provided them with a stronger sense of nationalism. People are drawn towards fascism often because it provides a sense of nationalism in uncertain and unstable times. Leaders are able to capitalize on that instability in order to bring the people together with the common goal of a better future as a country. Particularly in Nazi Germany, the country lacked a sense of nationalism after the war because they lost unexpectedly after their government officials had been telling citizens repeatedly that they were winning. In light of these uncertain times, Hitler was able to rise and give people reason to trust their government. Many people blamed Jewish people and communists for their loss of WWI, so part of the Nazi campaign was to gain support in this widespread hatred. Their use of propaganda allowed people who shared this hatred to feel that Hitler agreed with them and wanted the best for Germany, and it made people feel that putting him in a position of power would allow Germans to get back the sense of nationalism that they had lost in the war. The use of propaganda in Nazi Germany highlights the importance of control of the media in the rise of a fascist regime. The Nazis were able to completely control the news that Germans were hearing so that they would be forced to agree with the ideas that Hitler promoted. This is one reason that the argument that America is headed in the direction of neo-fascism can be refuted. As Americans, we have full access to media and information and what we see on social media and the news is not controlled by the government. As a result, we are able to form our own educated opinions about politics, which makes a neo-fascist era difficult to achieve in our country.

Overall, there are many factors, including a strong leader, control of the media, and a common enemy present in order for fascism to manifest itself in a society. If a country has a stable government and a thriving economy, fascism is less likely to take over than if this were not the case. However, there is no society that is completely immune to fascism.

I really agree with their point on how there was no real political or governmental stability during the Weimar era and how those riffs in society allowed for the Nazi party to swoop in. Also, facinghistorystudents point about how the Nazi’s united the majority of the German people together in hatred was something I saw in a lot of posts which goes to show just how important of an aspect it was in not only German society at the time, but in the principles of fascism in general. The hatred towards Jews has been something that's been around in the making of society and continued to grow and change with the times. The Nazi’s were able to capitalize on this stigma in society not only to gain supporters but to completely shift Germany into a fascist state. My views on the topic are pretty similar to almost everything they wrote, especially the importance of nationalism. Nationalism is an amazing unifying agent, but having too much of it can be detrimental to the people because they stop accepting criticism and oftentimes see anything that's said negatively about their country as a threat. I like how they tied in the importance of media censorship, and the effects that all the Nazi propaganda had on the German people. They explained why exactly it was so effective with examples which I thought strengthened their point. Overall, I thought this was a well written piece with good arguments throughout.