This seems to miss one of the core components of fascism though, which isn’t just how to eliminate disagreement, but how to eliminate people who don’t fit the mold. I’d argue the resentment...
Fascist approaches, on the other hand, see diversity and disagreement as obstacles to fruitful coordination that are malleable. If coordination at scale is hard because people disagree, what if we could make them disagree less?
This seems to miss one of the core components of fascism though, which isn’t just how to eliminate disagreement, but how to eliminate people who don’t fit the mold. I’d argue the resentment towards difference is a stronger motivator for them than an aversion to disagreement. Aversion to disagreement more often leads to apathy and conflict avoidance. That seems to be more of a hallmark of contemporary neoliberalism than fascism to me.
I don't think aversion to disagreement is what he means here? It's not merely avoiding disagreement, or even attempting to persuade people to stop disagreeing (though propaganda can be important)....
I don't think aversion to disagreement is what he means here?
It's not merely avoiding disagreement, or even attempting to persuade people to stop disagreeing (though propaganda can be important). A key difference is attempting to make them disagree less.
This article as elegant summary of some of the high level tools of fascism. It does not adequately make the case for its proposition of the why, however. It proposes that fascism arises as some...
This article as elegant summary of some of the high level tools of fascism.
It does not adequately make the case for its proposition of the why, however. It proposes that fascism arises as some kind of meta-intelligent response to governing a large and pluralistic group of people.
My observation is that the impulse to fascism arises from the same place as its tools: our lizard brains. It’s scared people trying to make themselves feel safe by activating others’ evolutionary bias toward threat perception and seeking safety in the familiar.
Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see it as a meta-intelligent response so much as one of several "failure states" for a liberal political order. There's some basic conditions liberal...
Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see it as a meta-intelligent response so much as one of several "failure states" for a liberal political order.
There's some basic conditions liberal democracy needs to flourish. Chief among them are the ability to make evidence based decisions, a feedback system that holds leaders (and factions) to account for their actions and outcomes, and a political system that allows for decisive action while having just enough friction and veto power to prevent overreach.
That's not really democracy by itself, but those are the conditions under which liberal democracy can be effective. I think fascism likely arises when those necessary conditions become too weak to work properly. When majorities see outcomes they dislike they are likely to blame minorities instead of structural factors, so gridlock, corruption, ineffective governance, and dynastic political elites that never seem to go away all lead to people lashing out against vulnerable members of society.
Fear is definitely part of it, but I don't think it can be blamed on evolution because there are sometimes practical advantages to suppressing dissent. In a military, it increases the chances of...
Fear is definitely part of it, but I don't think it can be blamed on evolution because there are sometimes practical advantages to suppressing dissent. In a military, it increases the chances of your soldiers surviving and winning. People without training will usually become terrified and run away, for very understandable reasons. Fear of getting killed is an evolutionary response and the training suppresses it.
In peacetime, it seems like a tricky balance because when things are pretty safe, playing up threats encourages an us-or-them tendency and can lead to war. At the same time, enemies do exist and preparing for possible disasters is important.
This article ignores the historical definition of fascism (Authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, totalitarianism, militarism, cult of personality, opposition to liberal democracy, corporatism)...
This article ignores the historical definition of fascism (Authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, totalitarianism, militarism, cult of personality, opposition to liberal democracy, corporatism) and focuses only on those specifics that apply to Republicans today.
This article feels like a sneaky way to circumvent Godwin's law than a true analysis of fascism. I personally don't find the term fascist at all useful, as both sides use it frequently.
There are tools that Republicans are using which are similar to fascist movements, but given Americans can't even agree if Jan 6 was a violent insurrection or a peaceful self guided tour of Pelosi's office with a free laptop available for grabs, throwing terms like fascism is not going to help clarify.
America has a serious problem with media sponsored propaganda right now that is inflaming hatred and anger and violence. Calling that fascism is not interesting or helpful.
If you take this articles definition of fascism (engender social consensus, conflate the fasces/state with a personalist leader, sacralize the fasces, define enemies, internal and external, who menace the sacred fasces and leader, attribute to those enemies any form of dissent that the leader/fasces deems problematic, punish those they mark as enemies or collaborators harshly, and control or suppress media to prevent subversion by enemies) then you are effectively calling all organized religion fascist, which is not the common definition of the word.
I agree that talking about fascism is usually unhelpful. I'm not going to start calling things "fascist" since it's still an insult word that I think causes people to become less curious and more...
I agree that talking about fascism is usually unhelpful. I'm not going to start calling things "fascist" since it's still an insult word that I think causes people to become less curious and more intolerant. Usually you can reword what you're writing about in concrete terms. If you need to be vague, "authoritarian" and "populist" are alternative choices that don't mean the same thing, but you can sometimes use them to avoid getting into disputes over definitions.
The author attempts to treat fascism as a tendency rather than something with a strict definition, and I don't think using an insult word works very well for that, because there's no nice way to say that something's a little bit fascist.
But I don't think this post does what you say it does. Although it does mention Trumpism in passing and it's clear which side he's on, I thought it went to a more abstract level in a way that I found helpful rather than sneaky (since he's open about it). I don't think it implies that organized religion is fascist, because most organized religions aren't theocracies suppressing all alternatives. They are participants in pluralistic societies. (Though, sometimes the alternatives might not be all that great since it means leaving a community.)
You might instead talk about the level of tolerance for dissent in a society, but treating it as one-dimensional tends not to work very well either, because people are often very tolerant of some kinds of dissent and very intolerant of others, depending on what's considered a threat. There are usually boundaries. They are sometimes practical, sometimes ideological, and often a mix of the two.
If we take the articles definition, historically the Catholic Church shares key features with fascist governments. I think it's all too easy to focus on a subset of fascism and say that anyone has...
If we take the articles definition, historically the Catholic Church shares key features with fascist governments.
I think it's all too easy to focus on a subset of fascism and say that anyone has fascist tendencies.
Also, naming things as Autocratic or Authoritarian also isn't helpful. Usually there is a lot more going on than just that.
This seems to miss one of the core components of fascism though, which isn’t just how to eliminate disagreement, but how to eliminate people who don’t fit the mold. I’d argue the resentment towards difference is a stronger motivator for them than an aversion to disagreement. Aversion to disagreement more often leads to apathy and conflict avoidance. That seems to be more of a hallmark of contemporary neoliberalism than fascism to me.
I don't think aversion to disagreement is what he means here?
It's not merely avoiding disagreement, or even attempting to persuade people to stop disagreeing (though propaganda can be important). A key difference is attempting to make them disagree less.
This article as elegant summary of some of the high level tools of fascism.
It does not adequately make the case for its proposition of the why, however. It proposes that fascism arises as some kind of meta-intelligent response to governing a large and pluralistic group of people.
My observation is that the impulse to fascism arises from the same place as its tools: our lizard brains. It’s scared people trying to make themselves feel safe by activating others’ evolutionary bias toward threat perception and seeking safety in the familiar.
Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see it as a meta-intelligent response so much as one of several "failure states" for a liberal political order.
There's some basic conditions liberal democracy needs to flourish. Chief among them are the ability to make evidence based decisions, a feedback system that holds leaders (and factions) to account for their actions and outcomes, and a political system that allows for decisive action while having just enough friction and veto power to prevent overreach.
That's not really democracy by itself, but those are the conditions under which liberal democracy can be effective. I think fascism likely arises when those necessary conditions become too weak to work properly. When majorities see outcomes they dislike they are likely to blame minorities instead of structural factors, so gridlock, corruption, ineffective governance, and dynastic political elites that never seem to go away all lead to people lashing out against vulnerable members of society.
Fear is definitely part of it, but I don't think it can be blamed on evolution because there are sometimes practical advantages to suppressing dissent. In a military, it increases the chances of your soldiers surviving and winning. People without training will usually become terrified and run away, for very understandable reasons. Fear of getting killed is an evolutionary response and the training suppresses it.
In peacetime, it seems like a tricky balance because when things are pretty safe, playing up threats encourages an us-or-them tendency and can lead to war. At the same time, enemies do exist and preparing for possible disasters is important.
This article ignores the historical definition of fascism (Authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, totalitarianism, militarism, cult of personality, opposition to liberal democracy, corporatism) and focuses only on those specifics that apply to Republicans today.
This article feels like a sneaky way to circumvent Godwin's law than a true analysis of fascism. I personally don't find the term fascist at all useful, as both sides use it frequently.
There are tools that Republicans are using which are similar to fascist movements, but given Americans can't even agree if Jan 6 was a violent insurrection or a peaceful self guided tour of Pelosi's office with a free laptop available for grabs, throwing terms like fascism is not going to help clarify.
America has a serious problem with media sponsored propaganda right now that is inflaming hatred and anger and violence. Calling that fascism is not interesting or helpful.
If you take this articles definition of fascism (engender social consensus, conflate the fasces/state with a personalist leader, sacralize the fasces, define enemies, internal and external, who menace the sacred fasces and leader, attribute to those enemies any form of dissent that the leader/fasces deems problematic, punish those they mark as enemies or collaborators harshly, and control or suppress media to prevent subversion by enemies) then you are effectively calling all organized religion fascist, which is not the common definition of the word.
I agree that talking about fascism is usually unhelpful. I'm not going to start calling things "fascist" since it's still an insult word that I think causes people to become less curious and more intolerant. Usually you can reword what you're writing about in concrete terms. If you need to be vague, "authoritarian" and "populist" are alternative choices that don't mean the same thing, but you can sometimes use them to avoid getting into disputes over definitions.
The author attempts to treat fascism as a tendency rather than something with a strict definition, and I don't think using an insult word works very well for that, because there's no nice way to say that something's a little bit fascist.
But I don't think this post does what you say it does. Although it does mention Trumpism in passing and it's clear which side he's on, I thought it went to a more abstract level in a way that I found helpful rather than sneaky (since he's open about it). I don't think it implies that organized religion is fascist, because most organized religions aren't theocracies suppressing all alternatives. They are participants in pluralistic societies. (Though, sometimes the alternatives might not be all that great since it means leaving a community.)
You might instead talk about the level of tolerance for dissent in a society, but treating it as one-dimensional tends not to work very well either, because people are often very tolerant of some kinds of dissent and very intolerant of others, depending on what's considered a threat. There are usually boundaries. They are sometimes practical, sometimes ideological, and often a mix of the two.
If we take the articles definition, historically the Catholic Church shares key features with fascist governments.
I think it's all too easy to focus on a subset of fascism and say that anyone has fascist tendencies.
Also, naming things as Autocratic or Authoritarian also isn't helpful. Usually there is a lot more going on than just that.
This isn't the sort of thing I normally share, but it's the first article I've read where fascism is described in a way that I find helpful.