CamillePagliacci

No u

Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.

There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments

No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.

I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.

I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?

No, I'm "Correct".

Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.

I mean his attempt to stay in power? He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to. Isn't that pretty explicitly him losing a conflict with his bourgeois backers?
Or would that not qualify (And if so what specifically would qualify?)

Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?

I don't have a totally cogent and empirical definition, but I tend to agree with Franz Neumann (Well, the Chavismo reading of Neumann) that fascism is a conspiracy by big business and government. Where the interests of capital and the interests of the state in the face of crisis blend together and form a united front that rather than face the crisis begin to oppose their "common enemy" the proletariat and the "proletariatized", through a call to action that seeks to rally the population under a reactionary banner that still remains elitist even if the movement is supposedly a popular one.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes in that (If you can call a group of people "Oligarchs" without irony you're halfway there). The US would certainly qualify, as would Israel and the UK. On the other hand states like China, Venezuela, Cuba, et al obviously don't. Most states that still have vestiges of Keynesianism or developmental capitalism at least try to address their crises and so may escape, and others give no pretext to a popular movement and are essentially despotic or aristocratic without necessarily being fascist (But are certainly fascist adjacent. Like I'm not gonna complain if someone calls Saudi Arabia fascist, even if I don't think it technically qualifies)

Edit: also of course this definition imo does include the RoC with the KMT (Who at least tried to become a popular nationalist movement, and who did respond to crisis by blending together capital and state and going after anyone but the problem), Pinochet's Chile, and I'm not entirely sure about worst korea but it would at least be fascist adjacent.

"ur mad" is a bold stance to take given how fucking mad you guys are

No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied. It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.

Well it's certainly easy for you to try

No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.

I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.

That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist. Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state. I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.

I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.

If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don't think it's a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it. It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.

This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric),

Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive. I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist. I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.