Re-defining Donald Trump; a response to the Financial Times

I was unable to find the original English version, so this Spanish translation will have to suffice for now.

 

 This month, I read an article in the Financial Times, Defining Donald Trump, The US leader is often called a fascist but he represents a different kind of political authoritarianism  by Simon Kuper. I think it's one of the more intelligent attempts to grapple with Donald Trump I've seen from the mainstream news outlets. There are points in which I agree with Kuper, but fundamentally I disagree with how Kuper defines fascism.

Kuper's article contends that Donald Trump's administration is modelled on a mafia instead of a fascist police state. I agree that a mafia family is the closer model so far (we'll see how that develops in the future) but I disagree that this means we can discount the fascist content of the administration.

Kuper's article cites two sources of expertise on what is fascism. One is Umberto Eco's 1995 essay Ur-Fascism, and a collection of essays by German researchers called When Yesterday Knocks. Readers of Umberto have noticed the strong correlations between how Donald Trump behaves and the movement he is attached to, and the 14 features outlined in Ur-Fascism. The image at the top was created early into his first term, which started in 2016. And Kuper agrees with the connections, however the latter text has convinced him that the model doesn't quite fit.

I haven't been successful in tracking down a copy of the latter text, so I'll have to rely on Kuper's commentary, the key points are in summary.

1.  Hitler believed in a Volk and its highest aim was war, while Trump is not interested in war and only attacks nations too weak to strike back.
2. Trump has no interest in the state and openly believes in capitalism to extreme levels, he even brought in Elon Musk to break up parts of the state.
3. Hitler downplayed his family while Trump relies on them for key parts of his business and policy.

And I think there's series problems with all three if we're trying to use them to argue that Donald Trump isn't a Fascist.

1) Firstly, I think the WWII is muddying the waters somewhat. Yes, we know that Hitler was a fanatical racist, who had extreme fixations on war and conflict. However, Trump is also clearly extremely racist and his ideas on what constitutes a "real American" and a "Great America" is one with fewer ethnic minorities. His actions vis a vis Muslims are similar to early actions taken by Nazi Germany against its Jewish population. In addition both Hitler and Mussolini showed extreme caution in the early days, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Albania and Greece, nations he was convinced he could beat easily, and Ethiopia and Greece proved he was wrong. Italy didn't formerly join WWII until after the invasion of France. Hitler in 1934 pulled support for the Austrian Nazi party that was trying to seize control of Austria in the July Putsch when Mussolini declared he would back Austria. Yes, you read that correctly, there was once a time when Hitler was intimidated by Mussolini. His re-militarisation of the Rhineland was so controversial that the army had standing orders to withdraw should France respond. And in the Spanish Civil War it was impossible to hide German involvement, but steps were taken to limit knowledge of how much German assistance was provided and what that assistance was doing. The bombing of Guernica by German bombers, for example wasn't officially admitted until 1939, Franco's troops did their best to collect the bomb fragments and blame the devastation on the "Red Republicans". And the invasion of Poland did not happen until Germany had signed an agreement with the Soviet Union to divide it and the rest of Eastern Europe between them.

Hitler did become the global menace he was until after years of getting away with easy victories and the opportunity to build up his forces. This should concern us greatly, considering right now the same thing is happening with Trump.  

 2) I concede that there is plenty of difference between Trump and Hitler on the role of the state and capitalism, Hitler hated financial capitalism while loving heavy industry. While Trump loves financial capitalism, although he has also spent plenty of air time bemoaning the collapse of American industry and claims his economic policies will revive it. However, Hitler and the Nazis while fanatics did not live like monks. Hitler used his political power to become the richest man in Germany, he even associated himself with merchandising opportunities. The German post office had to use his face on their stamps and pay him for the use of his likeness as just one example. In general the Nazis inherited a German economy with a large state sector and then privatised most of it, awarding assets and contracts to loyal party members and industrialists who would toe the line.

 On the other hand, the activities of private business organizations and the fact that big
businesses had some power seem to be grounds for inferring that the Nazis
promoted private property. Privatization, according to this analysis, was intended
to promote the interests of the business sectors supportive of the Nazi regime, as
well as the interests of the top echelons in the Nazi Party

Against the Mainstream 

 Even the holocaust involved private capital, slave labour was leased to factories and IG Farben was a private company.

3) Sure Hitler was extremely weird about his family but other dictators weren't so shy. Two of Mussolini's sons served in the Italian air force and participated in carpet bombing operations in Ethiopia. I'll be honest I do not think this argument should be included, its taking a personal behavioural pattern of one man who had few friends and relationships and elevating them to an ideological standard. Hitler didn't use family as members of his important networks, but then he didn't have any close family left by the time he came to power in 1933. His inner circle of party chieftains divided up Germany and took on important international posts for him instead. Does it really matter that Goebbels wasn't a relation when he was given control over Germany's media? Or that Heydrich never married into the Hitler household when working out whether it was feasible to send the European Jewish population to Madagascar?

 In conclusion, I do not disagree that Trump acts like a Mob boss. However, I do not think that that means we can dismiss the fascist threat that he and his regime poses. I think the differences here are more the result of circumstance and the USA of the 21st century as opposed to Europe in the 1930s.