The move of America towards fascism under a man with a criminal record is not dissimilar to Russian experience.

Should America be blamed or were they blindsided?

Stanley Wilkin I think in the state of crises or turmoil, species tends to covering their hope in authoritarianism. This is our innate, resulted from our long evolutionary process. American people felt that they are in phase of unpredictability. Their debts, their worsened name across the world, especially in Moslem countries and Middle East, their loosen economic power, those all create unpredictability. That's why Trump win election again, and he was chosen by the American people to relocate the predictability and allocating resources to them. People do not care whether fascism, authoritarianism, plutocratic government or democracy implemented, as long as their stomach filled enough.

Seta,

I see this as an ideological position as acting responsibly is difficult. US has given up its morality. Being moral is hard!

Sadly to say Stanley Wilkin , politics was grey area. Being morally or not morally they, the politician will say, subjectively question. But, as ordinary person we can see through their track record and some books as evaluating methods for them.

Where Trump is concerned (Putin's record is incidentally far worse) his life has been filled with appalling behaviour. I have used morally rather than employ something better, but it is clear that long term criminal activity (Trump and Epstein) does not prevent an individual holding high office and indeed adds to a myth.

Musk has been celebrating right-wing governments, including, of course, Putin.

Stanley Wilkin , I am sorry for lately response. For your reply on March 12, I think criminally record does not matter to a "crowd." I always thought that the intellectuals, politicians, and educated person whose worried about that. For commonly people, one and only they need is predictability. They need someone, whoever she/he was, whom can offer "hope" and proved it with a "little" or "big" effort.

Now, for your response on March 13, I think the entrepreneur always hope for political stability. Predictability of their product marketing depends on it.

Stanley Wilkin "Clearly Trump's government is turning towards fascism, and will continue in that way."

Are they implementing this particular ideology being combination of Gentile's actual idealism, syndicalism, spiritual nationalism and centralized state power? It's a bit counterproductive to increase state centralization by drastically reducing central bureaucracy and moving power to local level.

Because if you ignore actual political doctrines, while just use "fascism" as propaganda slogan against political opponents, then you should at least ask yourself whether this tactics is even working. Is it? This card has been played quite intensively before the last election and right now we see the results. Have you considered trying to ponder why voters become so deeply disappointed with their left-wing elites that they want to give right-wing populism a chance? Right now we see an ideological wave sweeping through the West. If you seriously want to diffuse that, you should make a careful analysis about which blunders voters are vivid and how to demonstrate to voters that the issues are going to be fixed.

"Musk has been celebrating right-wing governments, including, of course, Putin."

Calling a former KGB operative who mourns the SU collapse as "right-wing" is quite original interpretation.

Fascism is typically characterized by authoritarian nationalism, Central control of the economy, suppression of dissent, and often a strong leader. In terms of American politics, while there have been movements and figures at various points in history that have exhibited authoritarian tendencies, the U.S. has maintained democratic institutions.

In recent years, some critics have drawn parallels between certain political movements in the U.S. and fascist ideologies, often pointing to increased polarization, nationalism, and populism. However, the U.S. political system is still characterized by democratic processes, including regular elections, civil liberties, and a relatively free press.

In elections, people vote based on a variety of factors, including economic conditions, social issues, and personal beliefs. The outcomes of these elections can be influenced by discontent with the status quo, leading some voters to support candidates or movements that may exhibit authoritarian or nationalist traits. However, framing this as a collective "intention" to adopt fascism oversimplifies the motivations and beliefs of millions of voters.

While there may be discussions about trends toward authoritarianism in U.S. politics, it is not accurate to say that America as a whole has intentionally voted for fascism. Political landscapes are complex, and motivations can vary greatly among individuals and groups.

Seta, I need to make a few responses, as your remarks, while likely correct, require a gentle pushback.

While it may be the case in the past for entrepreneurs to require stable societies, the profession (sic) is now global and while Musk and Trump are ripping the guts out of America they could reclaim monies elsewhere. For global trade, instability has advantages.

You may be right about the general voting mass referencing stability and if so they need education. The stability brought by effective gangsterism is one with inbuilt threats to the general public.

Leave China to one side for the moment, but Putin's rule (like Trumps) has produced long term disaster for Russia, as Hitler's did for Germany. One problem is the need for short term results and practices. Hitler knew that economically Germany could not compete with the US longterm, and he suspected the German state would soon face decline as other bigger and wealthier states would rise. His conquests were built on obtaining land, wealth, industry and slaves so Germany would remain the top dog. America is in decline because of global competition, and Trump is merely papering over the cracks with his own hysteria. Trump is dumb, he never reads anything!

Trump's aim is to distablise and weaken other (friendly) economies while retaining US dominance-this is becoming a complete disaster as any good economist could have advised. Trump sees tariffs as one way and done in the mode of the mugger, but the person/states he mugs is kicking back causing world wide instability that mainly benefits China.

What people really need is good governance but yes they play into the ideological propaganda of self-serving thugs. My Hungarian acquaintances love Orban, they love him as a strong man, but strong men provide inflexible systems that bend and buckle easily. Such systems are kept going by poverty.

Marcin, my use of fascism is within the question, not outside of it.

I am not sure what Trump wants, but your notion of local governance is not in line with the more obvious oligarchal rule. Besides which, the US has always had local governance, more so than any other democratic state, which brought small time corruption, which America has never successfully dealt with.

Your notion that Putin's rule is not a form of fascism-

One man governance

Oligarchic ruling body

Citizens as slaves thrown into a war

Land grab.....

Through war

Power ideologies

What ordinary concepts of fascism have I missed? Ideology, oh its there based on nationalism (Hitler's Germany) and a disturbing version of Christianity (MAGA anyone).

Let me quickly add that Fascism was an Italian invention, and at best Germany's use of some of its original traits were embedded in Nazism. I have looked at the use of councils etc, in the present USA and to the extent they ever acted democratically rather than for the benefit of their own communities is another matter.

Many horror books and many American films dwell on the inconsistencies of these small democratic systems. In fact, Trumps model of rule is within these small constituons, or can be, the authoritarian power of mayors and sheriffs are the stuff of fiction. Usually with local religion-obsessed citizens acquiescence.

Stanley Wilkin

"Marcin, my use of fascism is within the question, not outside of it." You have two major options. You can use "fascism" in its actual historical use, though in this case we'd be talking about an ephemeral ideology which had evolved in Italy, slightly inspired other movements that were on rage in '30s and right now is effectively extinct. (with the most important fascist leader right now being... dunno... Keith Woods, as he at least bothered to read their scriptures and believes that unique and weird third-position spirituality. I don't think he even in Ireland is taken especially seriously as a threat to their political system.)

You can also try to stretch definition as tool for political games, but you have to handle quite intriguing impact on topology of political systems:

"Your notion that Putin's rule is not a form of fascism-"

Simple test, if you pick him as example, then let's look at his predecessors to see whether your classification makes any sense. Would Russian tzars from at least Ivan the Terrible miss any position on your fascism check-list? Would Soviet Union leaders miss any position? OK so, according to your definition monarchists and communists should be classified as a sub-branch of fascims, right?

Let's go deeper. Let's select at random any ruler before first half of the XXth century. Would according to your check-list that king, (prince, chieftain, warlord, pharaoh, first secretary of communist party, whatever) highly likely to be classified as fascist? Would it mean that according to your stretched definition of fascism our whole civilization has been built by mostly... fascists?

Stanley Wilkin I just noticed one more hilarious thing with your fascism check-list. Oswald Mosley, leader of British Union of Fascists and National Socialists, was kind of anti-war faction (wanted to avoid confrontation with Germany in WW2 and merely hoped for maintaining status quo on British colonial empire), so possibly failed on points like "Citizens as slaves thrown into a war", "Land grab.....", "Through war".

Marcin, you have there shown a lack of knowledge of Mosley, assuming I guess, that action and intention are the same.

Mosley hoped to keep Britain out of the war to help Hitler achieve his goals, There were a few influential Lords/Ladies who loved Hitler and worked hard to promote his views. Mosley eventually was imprisoned and maybe his wife as well. I cannot remember. Mosley was seen as a real or potential Fifth Columnist and the Black Shirts, his followers, were watched with immense suspicion.

Had the Germans invaded Britain, he and his men would indeed have tried to fight for Hitler as many Dutch and Danish fascists did.

Marcin pulling together effectively different cultures as with Ivan the Terrible, a product of Mongolian rather than Russian society, see my work on this. Fascism, under Mussolini, involved ideas on authoritarian society that evolved around the time of Mussolini onwards, and included obsessions with war and warfare on the back of WW1- The Cabinet of Dr Caligari is another development, an artistic one, and many of H. G Wells books. These were thoughts on the nature of brutal authoritarianism affecting bourgeois societies. Futurism was an art form which advocated the power of the inanimate, and the susceptibility of human flesh encouraging the essential sadism of Fascism and Nazism.

Certainly, it inoculated societies to killing and the effects of war on human beings, especially human flesh and readying them for the horrors of WW2.

Your view seems to eliminate distinctions between democracy and authoritarianism, but to what end? You compress different centuries pointing to human nastiness rather than institutions developed for specific authoritarian and violent ends. Your reflections on Communims equal brutality looks like a red herring, as there is evidence that Hitler copied Stalin in the same way Trump copies Putin.

End this, you are just being silly.

Stanley Wilkin "Marcin, you have there shown a lack of knowledge of Mosley, assuming I guess, that action and intention are the same."

No, it's just you failing here basic history knowledge.

"Mosley hoped to keep Britain out of the war to help Hitler achieve his goals,"

Mosley just wanted to keep out as he did not consider another major continental war as worth gambling British empire and especially with hindsight claimed being vindicated.

"Had the Germans invaded Britain, he and his men would indeed have tried to fight for Hitler as many Dutch and Danish fascists did."

Possibly. (though in this case they would write the pop history as winners, so to name calling people would rather use "communism" in that timeline to describe generic disliked regime)

"Marcin pulling together effectively different cultures as with Ivan the Terrible, a product of Mongolian rather than Russian society, see my work on this."

Reminder: to make your point you have to demonstrate that those cultures do not pass your fascism checklist. You have not even tried that. Instead you are trying to distract from that fundamental failure by going into some tangential discussion.

"You compress different centuries pointing to human nastiness rather than institutions developed for specific authoritarian and violent ends." I simply use your funny checklist. Yes, indeed, if your fascism checklist had been correct, it shouldn't have worked for ideologies predating fascism by centuries. Just those ideologies kind of pass your fascism criteria.

"Your reflections on Communims equal brutality looks like a red herring" It's funnier. By your checklist communism (or nastier feudal monarchy) is not just that brutal, but it's outright just a branch of fascism with different logo as it ticks the same boxes, though likely Mosley would fail this list as trying to stay away from another war.

Marcin, are you aware of Mosley-s attacks on Jews in London's East End in the 1930s. I have not yet except here found anyone see the statesman in Mosely.

Your point about Communism is valid but as I pointed out Hitler learned from them. Think of how Lenin dealt with problems, and for a long time was praised as different and not another killer.

Stanley Wilkin "I have not yet except here found anyone see the statesman in Mosely."

How pointing out that a person who literally managed to name his party "British Union of Fascists and National Socialists" fails to fulfill your definition of "fascism" constitutes calling someone "statesman"? I just use him as an example that something is hilariously wrong with your definition.

"Marcin, are you aware of Mosley-s attacks on Jews in London's East End in the 1930s.

Let's assume so. How it's even supposed to build your argumentation? This position wasn't on your checklist. Secondly, even if you'd try to move goalpost a bit to include attacking Jews on the list, then still it would not work well, as recently turned out quite many from modern far-left would score this point, while Mussolini would not (until he started to need to please Hitler).

I'm pointing out that the definition that you are trying to use conveniently catches some modern politicians but struggles with some actual historical, self declared fascists and catches some historical autocrats who deemed themselves as ex. communists or monarchs. The definition looks not only self-serving, but highly unhistorical.

Side note, as George Orwell put in essay Politics and the English Language (1946): "Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."" Yeah, indeed he was clearly ahead of his time concerning how this particular term is being misused.