It has become acceptable to misuse words, like "fascist" or "communist" in political contexts, to the detriment of rational and fruitful discourse. Often a false equivalence is drawn between denying something is "fascist" or "communist" and denying something is bad. This is false. Something can be bad without being fascist or communist.

There is plenty to be critical about in American politics and in tech, but calling everything you don't like "fascist" or "communist" isn't helpful. These seem to be go-to words used by those "defending" what is now a crumbling postwar liberal democratic order, i.e., anything that seems at odds with this order is reflexively called one of these two terms, depending on which faction of the American uniparty you align with.

Please explain how the trumpist movement significantly differs from most points of Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism. Because in my estimation, the word is entirely appropriate for what we're facing and people are shouting it down because they don't like the uncomfortable truth.

I'm open to changing my mind, especially if there is a better term that more accurately describes what we're facing. Because the dynamic isn't merely "crumbling postwar liberal democratic order", but rather a particular overly-simplistic reaction to that crumbling.

Citing Eco on this matter as an authoritative source is inappropriate, because that essay is a personal reflection, not a product of scholarly research. I, too, can reach for my personal family experience living under both fascist and communist regimes during the 20th century, and frankly, this ain't it, at least not yet. You're free to cite relevant passages here, of course. I would consider a better source.

And I agree that the MAGA/Trump style is on the whole a bad one (just as I think its Leftist counterpart is equally flawed in its own way; there's more overlap between them than intellectually superficial partisan-minded people think). There are tyrannical elements and impulses woven into these movements, yes. But it is important to realize that these are, in fact, the result of the procession of liberalism, not some repudiation or aberration of it. They are the way in which we can witness the self-immolation of liberalism as its internal contradictions, tensions, and weaknesses unfold in history. In other words, while liberalism flatters itself as the way to ever-greater freedom, its logic leads elsewhere.

Of course, scapegoating the other (party) is comforting, because it allows us to convince ourselves of our own purity, and that all we need to preserve that purity is the elimination of this pesky other. But the uncomfortable truth that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore is that the defect is deep, in the very cloth of liberalism itself. We may think that all we need is to want a liberal order for there to be one, but that's not how things work. Societies aren't static. Ideas stand behind our wants, and if the ideas are misguided, then the force of their errors will play out, eventually.

I'll give you that, and hopefully you can see that there is some common ground to be had.

What I see as the chief difference is that the populism hasn't take over the entire Democratic party, but rather is more confined to small vocal contingents (identity politics, eat the rich, etc). Or maybe it's more accurate to say that said populism is being prevented from taking over the Democratic party by the business interests that run the Democratic party, whereas in the Republican party the populism is compatible with the desired policies of the party's sponsors and is therefore embraced as a motivating force.

> it is important to realize that these are, in fact, the result of the procession of liberalism, not some repudiation or aberration of it. They are the way in which we can witness the self-immolation of liberalism as its internal contradictions, tensions, and weaknesses unfold in history. In other words, while liberalism flatters itself as the way to ever-greater freedom, its logic leads elsewhere.

I'm willing to entertain this, but you're going to have to lay out arguments for the precise mechanics rather than merely just asserting it. I can certainly fill in my own meanings for what you've said (eg the many terms used to criticize "liberals" like "identity politics" and "cancel culture" apply equally or even harder to the current Republican party). But I'm not going to make your argument for you!

Furthermore I'd point out that even if we're running aground because liberalism is running out of steam, this does not mean that the direction some people choose to respond in is attributable to liberalism.

> I, too, can reach for my personal family experience living under both fascist and communist regimes during the 20th century, and frankly, this ain't it, at least not yet

Would you please elaborate on what you mean specifically? Even though subjective through the eyes of your family, this would seem to lend itself to being somewhat objective criteria we could at least discuss.

I do have to ask though, about your hedging of "not yet". Do you not consider Hitler pre-Reichstag-fire as a fascist? If it walks like a baby duck, and quacks like a baby duck, does it not make sense to call it a duck?

As far as the burden of making the case, many people have spent more time than a message board comment making the case. For example here is an essay linked in a different reply: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-... . The second part is based on Eco (failing your standards), but the first part is not. I'd say the case has been made enough to put some burden of proof on people summarily rejecting the use of the word.