My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis.
My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis.
For example, how often do we choose to use the force of the state and how often do we choose to do nothing?
In this formulation, the big difference with Trump would be that he isn't very good at it. He's ham-handed about it, too obvious.
I'm pointing out that people probably objected to inserting a debatable & unpopular held view as a subclause in another argument. That forces people to either go along with accepting your point or getting into a pointless & unsettleable argument that's not even being discussed.
It would be amazing if he could actually bring jobs back into the US. I really really doubt this is possible, without making the corporations hurt in the short/mid term, so I doubt it's really possible, as they have essentially captured government.
Well, maybe any one of them taken alone. Combined together it seems to give a pretty helpful lens through which to view a society.
A related book is _Friendly Fascism, the New Face of Power in America_, by Bertram Gross. It highlights how modern "corporation/government" fascism differs from the earlier "strongman" fascism. It was written back in 1980 but is (even more) applicable today: https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-America-Forbidden-Bo...
But then... its early days.
Regarding "Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.", surely the author hasn't seen any other societies from the times of notable fascist regimes, they might realize that anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation were prettymuch everywhere. Until fewer than 50 years ago, both were completely illegal in Canada.
As for it aligning "well" with the president elect; I don't think that's accurate. "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" is off the table, since the unifying cause is "making america great again" and the stated avenues are "enforce immigration law", "reduce taxes for commoners, and simplify the tax code", and "maintain government infrastructure". As for "Corporate Power is Protected" he's got the fewest corporate sponsors of any candidate we've seen in quite a while, so it's hard to imagine who he owes. The rest of the points are largely questionable, and the descriptions largely sound like the ravings of a tween marxist.
Seems like it's just mostly bollocks, and some salty HNer just wanted to insinuate something.