Transcription
In a vacuum, this rhetoric is used to justify authoritarianism.
Hang on. Even if the rhetoric is used to justify authoritarianism, that still is not fascism.
According to you, no, literally according to all of the history around what fascism and not only that, according to your own def, dude, don't be a snarky little. You took the debate. Suffer. So, back to this. I am.
Yeah. Back to this.
It's more funny than suffering. I just like to talk about Trump at all.
We are talking about if Trump is a fascist. Trump has The first claim is Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith.
Sure, I concede the point.
Two, he uses his position of power to vilify, intimidate, and oppress his opposition and those he designates as member of foul groups.
I see the point.
Three, he builds, fuels, and justifies this movement with illusions to a once glorious, now desecrated past which can only be reattained through ultra nationalism.
See that point, too?
Cool. Uh, thanks for having us, James.
That's not me seeding to fascism.
Well, you're seeding that by my definition, Trump is a fascist.
No, because your definition has a key word here which is not in any of those three pillars. Ultra nationalist.
I just said it was at the end of the third pillar.
Here's the problem with it. No, no, no. You said he appeals.
You're saying he appeals to some like rhetorical ultra nationalism or something. That's not ultra nationalism.
To you. It's not.
No, it's just not.
Okay, cool.
It's just objectively not ultra nationalism. Even if I concede all three of these points, it doesn't demonstrate Trump's a fascist.
Why not?
Because the metrics for ultra nationalism are not in place. None of them. Because you're using a different definition of ultra nationalism with my definition of ultra nationalism.
So you're is there like a consensus ultra nationalism?
Yes, there's a consensus of ultra nationalism versus nationalism. That's the consensus between.
Well, in this case looking no, we're looking at the architects of fascism, what they considered it to be, which is gentility. While why appealing to the architects of this ideology, who are always going to dress up their methods with ideological flourish, is not really relevant in the descriptive analysis of whether or not someone is a fascist.
Most relevant is whether or not they follow the actual ideology. What you're trying to do is a name the trait some vegan name the trait argument for fascists. Veganism came from. You're the one who brought up bananas earlier.
Fascism is a. Yeah, but that wasn't to demonstrate anything vegan related. So anyway, the point is here is that uh fascists themselves told us what they considered ultra nationalism to be within the states.
And cult members tell us what their cult is all about.
Their ideology.
Yeah. Of the cult, but then they're going to conveniently ignore that ideology for a purpose. You're saying that you're going to be you're going to tell Christians what they believe more than Christians are going to tell you what they believe.
I'm not here to talk about religion. So, no, I'm not telling Christians anything.
Well, do you consider Christianity an ideology?
It's a religion. I mean, I guess it's an ideology. Sure.
Yeah. So, so the thing is is like, why would you yield to them on their ideology then and what they believe?
Because religions, especially organized religions, are by definition going to be formalized doctrines that you have to adhere to.
With dogmas, right?
Uh, yeah, sure.
Don't you consider geographitical? Yeah. Don't you consider these social political advocates of this particular ideology to have written dogma pertaining to the very ideology that they then instituted in their nation? In Gentilia's case and fascist Italy's case, they they brought on 22 sectors of new corporatism. They had dogma that they actually acted on. It wasn't in a vacuum. They acted on the dogma. The dogma.
Would they deviate from that ideological dogma if it meant expanding or consolidating their power or would they say no, no, no, I have to stick to the dogma like the fascist leaders in those situations?
Um, well, I think in Italy they would not have deviated. In Franco Spain, they may have deviated.
Sure. All I'm trying to get at here is that what a fascist says fascism is is probably going to be dressed up in a certain way that is going to offiscate or straight up omit certain aspects of how fascism actually functions. And again, diagnostic definition.
Why shouldn't I do the exact same thing? I'm giving you a a do whatever you want, not only a diagnostic definition. I'm giving you the most concise historical definition. It's a historical movement. It's not just capturing. It's not just capture. I gave you such a narrow definition, it's unbelievable. I'll give it to you again.
Right. Fascism is an ideology that proposes corporatistic ultraist state. That's as narrow as it could possibly be.
I know.
Do you want each of these to I can expand on each of these?
I know your definition. You talked about like the merging of the head and the body and the state and whatever. Like I know how you define. I just don't like that definition.
Oh, that's nice. I'm glad you don't like it. We could just ignore you like mine.
We could just ignore all. We'll just. Yeah. We'll just ignore all historic context for the thing you call the guy.
Just like you ignore all the scholars you don't like by calling them leftist hacks.
Wait, wait. The main one here, Paxton, right? I gave the olive branch. I was like, look, I I like like this guy's work. I understand he is actually a scholar who's actually focusing on the issue. He is giving you expounded beliefs. He does utilize some of the historic context, right? But he almost he almost stays completely away from the who cares. He stays completely away from the historic. He stays completely away though from the historic ideas of corporatism, third positionism, and instead he's trying to use a modern lens in which to gift to you leftists or some.
He stays completely away from all that, which is why so many people disagree with Paxton. Third position, by the way, we have modern third positionists right now who are advocating for their positions. We've got Keith Woods. We've got um, uh, what was his the other one who used to be a big trying to I can't think of his name. Uh, cultured thug. He ran a uh, a third positionist thing for a long time that gained a lot of steam. Uh, there's lots of third positionist actually who we can appeal to.
To tell us what the third position is.
Right? And what what it is that the foundational philosophy is this and that. All what you're trying to do is use morally ambiguous language in order to call your opposition that thing. But you're not actually prescriptive claim. Prescriptive.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, wait. Prescriptive or descriptive?
I'm saying the claim I'm making is descriptive that Donald Trump is a fascist.
Say, "Yeah, he is, but fascism is good."
Well, here's here's the thing. I'm going to make the descriptive claim that fascism is is both historic. It's a historic movement and historic movements deserve historic definitions and they deserve to have their histo play when it comes to you defining them in a modern sense so that you can understand what this ideology actually is and that you are completely bereft of that in your definition or even in explaining yourself here. I don't want you to pivot from the Jason Stanley thing. Like why do you think that he is.
Like, it's irrelevant and tangential.
No, it's relevant because you are the one who impugned his.
Okay, now now he's great. I I'll just say he's great.
Okay, cool.
Okay, anything else?
So, okay, great. So, anyway, it's tangential. It's irrelevant. That was the pivot. So, back to this.
Okay, that's kind of.
When we're talking about historic. When we're talking about his. Well, you you're the one who made the pivot. When we're talking about historic. When we're talking about historic uh def historic movements, they have historic definitions. Feminism does. Christianity has historic definitions. All ide communism has historical definitions. Uh, all of these things have historic definitions which are laid in to what they actually are. For some reason, you want us to believe we should just ignore that for fascism.
I don't want anyone to believe anything. I'm defending my position. If you think I'm wrong, I don't know what I'm supposed to do about that. If you want to be pedantic about what ultra nationalism means and ignore every single point I make, that's your right to do. I am curious. When you conceded to my three uh affirmative claims, well, is that like a sarcastic like, okay, liberal, whatever you say.
You're pointing out that even if I seed all these claims, it would.
But do you seed them?
It wouldn't demonstrate that. Well, let's go through them one at a time.
Sure. You want to start with number one. Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith.
Yeah, I'll seed that claim.
You actually fully agree with me on that?
No, I didn't say I fully agree with you. I just said I'll seed the claim. Whether I agree with you or not is tangential to the debate.
Well, I'm curious. Do you agree with.
I don't care what you're curious about is tangential to the debate.
What seems pretty. No, it's not relevant. If I agree or don't agree, what's relevant is.
Affirmative claim as to why Trump is a fascist is not relevant to the debate.
No, wait, wait, wait.
Okay.
That claim is relevant to the debate. Whether I agree with that claim is not.
And you don't want to share with anyone if whether or not you agree with that? Why why would that have anything to do with this debate?
Because then we could discuss substantively.
No, you want to get into policies. Next time ask for policies.
I want to get into Trump. We're asking the description of the debate. It's is Trump a fascist? What is fascism?
Here's the thing. I'm seating every one of these points hypothetically and still demonstrating he's not.
Okay. So, you think that even if we use the like the claim number one, Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by engaging with our laws and.
That's not fascistic. In conjunction with my other two claims is not fascistic.
I'm We'll start with claim one. That's not fascistic. So, claim two.
Well, you have to be all three together.
Okay. Go to claim two.
This is like pointing at a brick and saying it's not a house, liberal. You said a house has bricks.
Okay. I'm going to go through them one at a time and tell you if they're fascistic or not. And then we'll take the totality of them. Go ahead.
Okay. Trump is an authoritarian whose political project seeks to centralize and consolidate power by engaging with our laws in bad faith. He uses this position of power to vilify, intimidate, and oppress his opposition and those he designates as members of out groups. And he builds, fuels, and justifies this movement with illusions to a once glorious, now desecrated past which can only be reattained through ultra nationalism.
Well, wait a second. Can only be attained with ultra nationalism.
Reattained. Yeah.
Reattained. Okay. So, Trump is saying that he wants everybody to be the body of the state.
No, he's saying that we have to put America first to reach achieve American glory.
That just sounds like nationalism to me.
Okay. It sounds like ultra nationalism. When you look at the actual extent to which he employs this propaganda technique and when you combine it when you combine it when you combine it with the fact that it's not in a vacuum, this rhetoric is used to justify authoritarianism.
Well, saying it and even if the rhetoric is different question. Hang on. Even if the rhetoric is used to justify authoritarianism, that still is not fascism.
According to you, I guess. Oh, no. I mean, according to all of the historic. According literally according to all of the history around what do and not only that, according to your own defy. Little you took the debate. Suffer. So, back to this. I am.
Yeah, back to this.
It's more funny than suffering. I just like to talk about Trump at all.
We are talking about if Trump is a fascist. Trump has done not like.
Yeah. I'm not here. I'm here to talk about if Trump's a fascist.
I want to clarify with James, the debate prompt is not what is fascism. Is is Trump a fascist?
Yeah, that's right. So, we're talking about if Trump's a fascist. Anything else?
Yeah.
Just to be sure, do I understand? Right. So, if we were using Andrew's definition, in that case, Andrew, you would say, "No, Trump's not a fascist."
Yeah. By Andrew's definition, I would also say Trump's not a fascist. I wouldn't use his definition.
Right. You're just going to use a madeup non-historical definition.
Using using Adam's definition, where would you guys both land?
I would still say he's not a fascist because of the ultra nationalism. This is the. This is the critique. No, no, no, no, no. You're not actually using my definition when you say that. You're projecting your own definition of this, like the subp parts of the overall definition into my definition. So, you keep saying my definition doesn't work because ultra nationalism. But in my definition, I've explained what ultra nationalism actually means, which is a rhetorical strategy to justify power grais.
If you were to accept that ultra nationalism in this context is a justification or a premise used for power grabs, then would Trump be a fascist?
Ultra nationalism is not defined by rhetoric. It's defined by action. Action. And by the way.
Uh, Gentile points this out with his whole philosophy was called pure act. Pure act was his entire philosophy and fascist philosophy. Peer act.
It's an action.
Not a rhetoric. It's not a rhetoric. That's just ask the question. I just want to ask the question again. If you were to accept the way I am using the word ultraational in this cont if you were to it's called a hypothetical would Trump then be a fascist?
I can't. Listen, hypotheticals. Hypotheticals have to map on to logic, right?
No, I'm just asking if you if he were to accept the premise, then would it follow that.
If if it was the case that I decided to accept the premise is Trump that you say Trump is a fascist, would that make him one? Yes.
Oh, awesome.
If so, if You claimed Trump is a fascist and I said yes, he is. You're right.
Again, James, thanks for having us. I'm glad.
What have we established there?
Figured this out. I don't really know what we established, but you just conceded, I guess.
What are you talking.
Using my definition?
If I Listen.
You're saying my definition.
If it was the case that you accepted this, would it be the case that you accepted it? Yes.
If it were the case that I accepted it, then it would indeed be the case that I accepted it. Good thing I don't accept it. Well, no. [laughter] You could then say that even if you could then say that even if I accepted your definition of ultra nationalism in this context, your definition still would not qualify to Trump as a fascist because Trump did XYZ or didn't do XYZ.
If it's the case that you accepted this thing, would it be the case that you accepted this thing?
No.
Yes.
I said if it's the case that you accept my definition of one person.
I can be even more clear.
That's not what you said.
I can clarify what I said. People can also rewind. I said if you were to accept the way I am using the term ultra nationalism then.
Yes.
Yes, if I were to. So, now we're in hypothetical.
To accept what?
If I were to accept your framework for this in this case.
Framework for this specifically, my definition of ultra nationalism in this context. If you were to accept that, if I were to, then, then zooming out, would my overall definition and my affirmative claims of fascism apply to Trump?
I see. So, let me show you how stupid this is.
Please. If you accepted that this lighter was fascism, would this lighter be fascist?
It's not analogous to what I said.
Answer my question. If you accept. Yes. Okay. Oh, great. Look. Look.
Not analogous.
He just admitted the lighter's fascist.
Oh my god. Uh, no. Yeah, this is not analogous.
It's referring to a referring to me, bro. I'm referring to a subcomponent of my overall definition which you are taking issue with and saying if you were to accept the definition of that subcomponent and then zoom out would my overall affirmative claims then justify calling Trump a fascist.
Yeah. So, what you're asking me is if it were the case that you agreed with me Trump was a fascist, would he be?
No. No.
That's what I'm asking. Yes.
Because you could say, "Okay, even if you say that Trump didn't actually do this authoritarian thing or he doesn't engage in bad faith. He's trying to pursue novel legal theories. He takes legal advice from his lawyers. You could actually dispute on that basis that even if I accept your definition, Trump does not fit this category."
No. Me saying to you, even if it was the case that I accepted what you meant by ultra nationalism is true and therefore agreed with your position, would I be agreeing with your position? Yes, of course. Hypothetically, that would be the case. What's actually happen?
I don't agree with your definition that Trump meets the criteria for ultra nationalism for the 15th time. All you've done is ask me hypothetically, if you did, would he? And the answer is yes. feel like you know what I'm saying.
I don't know what you're.
Pretending not to.
I don't because it makes no sense.
I'm asking if you were to accept the premise, which is how we define fascism, then would you accept the conclusion that Trump meets that definition?
If Yeah. You're asking me the same thing. You're just saying if it's the case that you accepted this, would you be accepting this?
No, but I'm not asking you to accept that Trump's a fascist. I'm asking you to accept my definition of what fascism is. I don't accept your definition of fascism for the last time. For the 300th time, if you say but I don't know what you're saying.
Yeah, you do.
I actually don't. Use small words. Pretend I'm really stupid.
Okay. Do you understand that when we are applying pe applying labels to people, whether or not that label applies to the person is not just a question of how you define the label, but once you've established that definition, whether or not the person actually fits in line with the description of that label. So you could say, "I accept your definition, Adam, but Trump does not meet those affirmative claims that you've made because Trump actually, for example, legitimately thinks that he has the right to do these things." His lawyers tell him he has the right to do it. He legitimately thinks that James Comey and Leticia James are enemies of the state. And therefore, he's not engaging in bad faith. He's not punishing his.
So I understand exactly what you're saying. I just need you to understand that it's a complete tutology. You're what you're asking me to do is grant this so that we can move to something else. Okay, I get that. Well, you are what you're saying is can you accept that my definition within its framework is coherent if you accept my definition as being coherent.
I'm just saying if you accept my definition, would Trump meet it? I don't know why you're over complicating.
Yeah. If I accepted, yes. But it's tutological. Of course. If I accept your definition of fascism, would the guy you're calling a fascist meet the definition that you've tailored to the guy? Sure.
No. But if I gave the same definition of fascism and said, like, is Obama a fascist? You would say no. By your own definition, Obama does not meet that criteria.
I'm telling you that here right now with ultra nationalism.
No, but then you're using your definition of ultra.
What's going on here? Is this okay? Do you understand that if I said fascism is the belief that we should be moving towards a stateless society, right? And you're a communist, let's say, right? Would you accept that as the definition of fascism?
I wouldn't. But you're saying if I did.
And if I. But if you did, then you would be agreeing with me, right? If you did.
Not necessarily.
Hang on. No, no, no. If you accepted that as my definition, then you would read the definition again.
Yeah. That communism is a movement towards stateless or fascism is a movement towards a stateless society.
But then who would you be applying that definition to? Just give me an example.
Let's just say in this case, Bernie Sanders.
Okay. And then I could say, Andrew, I accept your definition hypothetically, but even by your ac by that accepting that definition, Bernie Sanders is not moving towards a classless society. Therefore, he's not a fascist. Right? So, I could take your premise and entertain it temporarily and see if within that framework, Bernie Sanders would or would not meet it. And you're not doing that with me.
So, if I tailor if I tailor fascism is just men who have brown beards.
They're all fascists. That's my definition. Can you tell me how you don't meet the criteria of being a fascist now?
Uh, I feel like my beard is more black, but I get your point. Yeah, I would say sure.
You would say sure. So, you're So, okay.
But that's not analogous to what I'm saying.
But hang on, hang on. So, it does apply. My definition's coherent and does apply to you being a fascist because you have a black beard, right?
If that's how we're defining it.
Right? So, what all you're saying there, do you understand how this is this becomes tautlogical? A fascist is you because you are a fascist. You have a black beard. Therefore, you're a fascist. Andrew, I accept. Hang on, Andrew. I someone has a black beard and then you ask, "Is Santa Claus a fascist by the definition?" I would say no.
Okay. Well, then here, let's just do it this way then, right? Anybody who's from Africa is a fascist by my definition.
That's what a fascist is. Do you agree?
Cool. I don't agree. But.
Anybody who has ancestry from from Africa, do you accept that as by definition of fascism?
I don't. But if I was to internally just say, okay, let's accept it as a premise for the sake of argument, then who are you calling a fascist by? Does does Barack Obama now fit the criteria for fascism? By my definition.
You said anyone who's descended from Africa? Uh, by that definition, every human being on Earth would.
Okay. But they have to have like, I don't know, 30% DNA or something.
Okay. I don't know Obama's exact racial makeup, I'd assume. Sure. Yeah.
Yeah. So, so then what have we established there, though?
Would you agree with me that that's what fascism was?
Or would you reject that definition?
I'd reject that definition. You You've been rejecting mine.
Yeah. And so you and you would reject that definition under the premise that hey, wait a second, that's not what it is. Here's what it actually is, which is what I'm doing to you.
It's how long are we gonna do this, dude? Like let me ask you.
As long as it takes. It takes. Love that.