Nice.I would if you were to do that in good faith.
I didn't. This case just doesn't dispel all of my suspicion.Why did you completely ignore this?
Eco's 14 features of fascism are honestly complete bollocks.my argument is that trumpism fulfills wholly or partially all fourteen determining characteristics of fascism as described by umberto eco (which, while far from the only or most modern definitions of fascism, is one of the most well known and thus makes a convenient list for a forum such as this).
Some of them are questionable, most of them can be applied to any authoritarian regime, including the communist regime.
He's not a political scientist, so he gets a pass. But using his ramblings to actually place someone on a political spectrum? Very smart.
Don't know about Stanley, but I did read Paxton back in the uni.if you don't feel like that, you could read jason stanley - "how fascism works: the politics of us and them". maybe you don't like that either. in that case go with "the anatomy of fascism" by robert paxton. all three are excellent reads.
I don't remember it very well, but as far as I remember he only talks about early XX cent. Germany, Italy and Hungary in his book. And his definition of fascism is pretty classical. What did I miss in Paxton's book?
That's pretty amateurish to call someone a thing if he fulfills only partially some characteristics of this thing, which are not even the exclusive and defining ones.by any of these, trump fulfills at least partially all of whichever determining characteristics of early stage fascism each author uses to define it.
And that's exactly my point. An intellectually dishonest person can always say that communism is not really about state-owned means of production and other staple Marxist stuff. So if someone somewhat fulfills at least some features observed in some communist regimes, he can be called a communist.and as a lovely bonus, communism is in fact neither "about" state-owned means of production nor planned economy at all, funnily enough (these being merely interpretations of one subbranch of the framework, and far, far from universal). colour me surprised that you'd get that wrong, you commie expert you.
Just like you're doing with fascism. You're calling someone a fascist because of strong-man political approach and populist anti-left rhetoric. None of those are exclusive to fascism. You also ignore everything else that absolutely can not be crammed into your "Trump is fascist" theory. You have studied this long only to be a more convincing propagandist.