Paying large sums of taxes for a school that is unquestionably failing my children, with no option to attend another school (without shelling an unfathomable amount of money for private schooling), feels like educational authoritarianism to me.
Either every university should get subsidies proportional to the effectiveness of their graduates or no universities should get any subsidies at all.
From what I understand it usually works better to pay for results rather than effort.
Anyways, moving is not an option for me, as I have local dependents that I am responsible for taking care of and who would be abandoned if I left.
I don’t see how that makes your child’s school better, can you explain how we get from A to B?
I’m guessing not the people literally using the slogans of the American movement that opposed fighting fascism.
> Or was the US fascist in 1923 when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that Indians aren’t white and therefore can’t be granted citizenship?
It was racist (which, alone, is not sufficient to be fascist, though fascist governments are often racists and the Nazis were specifically inspired by US race policy in their racism) when it adopted the naturalization law that the Supreme Court interpreted in that case, sure.
(The fixed country-based caps in current immigration law are also largely based in racism, but a much more mild expression of it than the whites-only naturalization rule.)
The Left has spoken of "bundling" for many years now (of issues or complaints, or, looked at another way, of identity or pressure groups). That too is the idea of the fasces. The word "bundle" again suggests it.
I also note that there is a certain irony here, because, besides "fasces", we already have a succinct two-syllable word meaning "a bundle of twigs".
There is also the tasty cognate, "fajita".
Many scholars consider that Nazism was greatly inspired by American racism. Calling 1923 America fascist would be anachronistic, but also American racist policies were less related to Italian fascism than to Nazi doctrines. But plenty of scholars make the connection. Here is an example: [0].
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-American-Model-United-States/...
I’m commenting on the apparent worldview contradiction or blind spot in people who are calling current events and people fascist.
To return your argument, if you poll people who call current events fascists and ask them if that 1923 Supreme court decision is fascist, would you be as confident that 95% would say it's not?
That people's view of fascism has changed after world war 2 is obvious and not particularity insightful. So has their view of antisemitism for instance.
I also should add that I agree with you on the great danger of labeling too many things fascists, including the current events. It is entirely possible to oppose Trump's second term and even think that it is a threat to democracy without resorting to calling it fascist. It is also possible to compare it with the rise of fascist regimes if one provides appropriate arguments.
I just don't think that your example with 1920s America illustrates that point particularly well.
My point is that during the time period where USA was considered fascist-fighting heroes according to the mainstream account, they themselves had many views that were considered normal back then but strongly “fascist” today. I guess the definition of fascist must have changed?
Check out this summary of Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism essay, with 14 characteristics of fascist movements/regimes.
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
Like many diagnostic criteria, it's not sufficient to only check one or two of the boxes. It's also worth being honest and examining the aspects of American culture that have made it particularly susceptible to fascism.
Nowadays fascism has become synonymous with right extremists in popular culture, I guess because it's an easy way to discredit a political opponent.
I believe that scholars who study political science have a different and more consistent definition of fascism, though it too likely evolved to capture the essential characteristics of related ideologies.
A significant difference between Jim Crow's America and fascist regimes is the concentration of power into the hands of one man (or a small group). That means that separation of power (executive, judiciary, legislative) that existed through American history did not exist in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Another one is nationalism. There are likely others.
I'm just one person. It's anecdotal but speaks volumes that I'd know that many.
2. If anything it's "fascism lite" and it's only for 4 years.
3. I'm not sure that forcing some belt tightening on a bloated academia is the worst thing in the world.
Now they have Project 2025 and people who know how to dismantle the system efficiently.
There won't be a fair presidential election in the US in 4 years unless something drastic happens, like the democrats winning a supermajority in the congress and house.
