In another thread, somebody asked me the following question. I thought it was a great question:
I feel like this issue deserves its own thread because it doesn't seem to really fit directly into any of the other threads. Before I post my answer, let's do a little defining because we all know the "f-bomb" gets thrown around a lot.

Source: http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/fascism

Please notice that fascism is not something that is confined to the spectrum of left or right. In particular, you can find societies throughout history that have fallen into extreme left wing and extreme right wing regimes, and these have each been fascist regimes quite often. Republicans often like to point out the failures of socialism in countries like Venezuela and Cuba, but it is important to know that this socialism is almost always a fascist style of socialist government. In this form of socialism, the government is completely controlled by one or a very small number of people and if people don't go along with it, well they disappear or they end up in prison camps, and possibly their whole family ends up in the camp if they flee the country. Think North Korea. Again, the important point to remember is that fascism is not confined to one economic philosophy. It's about control, and a lack of certain fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of enterprise, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and so on.

Now please note I am NOT saying that electing Donald Trump would make us North Korea overnight. As others have pointed out, we have many checks and balances in place and a very strong foundation in our country's founding documents. But that doesn't mean we can't be pulled in the direction of fascism by President Trump. We have already, to some extent been pulled towards the spectrum of fascism by accepting mass incarceration, a War on Drugs, and an assault on our fourth amendment rights by a Supreme Court which seems to no longer value such rights. It is crucial that we consider the consequences of electing any President, and what that would do to us as a country as far as pushing us on the fascist/not fascist spectrum.

With that introduction, here is my full reply to the question:
Alright, have at it then.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=17919

To quote the almighty wiki, 'Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[22]' and therein lies the rub. Anyone can define fascism however they like, and therefore your hudge wall o'text is just partisan flimflam. But to directly answer your question, both are.

Really? It seems like Trump's campaign personally embodies these two descriptions:
While Clinton's campaign does nothing of the sort. So please explain how she is as fascist as Trump is.

I do not see that numbered list of characteristics on www.wikipedia.org, therefore its like your opinion. I'm really not trying to be rude. I would define fascism as an organization of government where business is the primary influence.

It's from a page on Auburn University's website, "A Glossary of Political Terms," apparently written by a Dr. Paul M. Johnson. I agree that fascism has multiple definitions depending on who you speak to and that discussion should definitely be part of this thread.

Here's the link again: http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/fascism

Surely you've been here long enough to know that you don't put this much effort into responding to a Sklansky, right?

i appreciate his effort.

Good article, long read:

Just an excerpt. There's a lot more.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

You realize who beat the natzis right?

Not sure which is funnier: the insistence that all human knowledge can be found in wikipedia or the immediate advancement of some wonky, non-wikipedia endorsed theory of fascism.

Oh wait no it's actually "natzis." That's the funniest.

Russia and the RAF?

you guys must love trump

theres 4 threads on him on the front page

This is all gibberish. Gibberish of the Dictionary Thinking variety.

Sometimes peeps spew the f-word as a name for a school of ideologies, sometimes peeps spew the f-word is a description of a state of things, sometimes peeps spew the f-word as propaganda, sometimes peeps spew the f-word as an insult, sometimes peeps spew the f-word because they like the way it sounds. There's surely other reasons peeps spew the f-word, and none of these reasons are mutually exclusive.

Well, how are you spewing the f-word ITT?

First, you are explicitly excluding the 'school of ideologies' meaning ("fascism is not something that is confined to the spectrum of left or right"). Instead you are explicitly and exclusively identifying the 'description of a state of things' meaning ITT ("It's about control, and a lack of certain fundamental liberties"). IMO you are also spewing the f-word as propaganda, you're spewing the f-word as an insult, and you're spewing the f-word because you like the way it sounds.

Alright, have at me then.

Shame Trolly,

Again I refer you to points 1 and 2. They seem to sum up Trump's campaign quite effectively in just a couple of sentences. These are not my writing, again, but a Political Science Professor at Auburn University:

Well, what social scientists do, is they look for certain historical similarities that provide academically useful categories. To effectively communicate regarding these categories, they give them names. You're doing things the other way around, what I call 'Dictionary Thinking'.

In this case, social scientists noticed certain historical similarities in particular Euro regimes in the mid 20th century. They find this catagory academically useful as these regimes correlate perfectly with war mongering, among other outcomes. They named this category 'fascism'.

That's not what you're doing. You're editorially picking and choosing which of those similarities you wanna count as indicative of 'einbert-fascism' (ex: strongman cult), and which of those similarities you don't wanna count as indicative of 'einbert-facism' (ex: virulent anti-socialism).

Shame, seems like you're kind of nit-picking a bit. Would you disagree with the statement that: Much of Trump's rhetoric and proposals have strong similarities to characteristics of prior fascist leaders?

With the help of fascists, sure.

Or maybe it's that choosing the next leader of the United States is incredibly important to the country and the world in general, and so having discussion about an unqualified and dangerous candidate for the position is important. If Hillary were as dangerous to the country and to the stability of our nation / the world in general then there would be a lot more threads discussing those threats.

Imo Hillary is more of the same disaster. Trump is ??? surprise disaster.

US dropped slightly more bombs and flew slightly more missions on Germany than Britain did. We got into the war later, but 80% of allied bombs were dropped after the start of 1944.

Which is more value, $ or people?

If you think disaster is guaranteed, why bother voting?

I don't plan to vote for either HRC or DMFT

Hmm ok. What part of "more of the same" do you consider to be disastrous?

I understand why e.g. Sanders supporters who hate poverty consider the status quo to be a disaster.

But people like you who are more or less successful, and not overwrought with empathy for hungry African-American children...why do you think the status quo is a disaster?