User talk:Rangooner

My perspective on the matter of whether Trumpism is fascism

I wanted to address you directly on this topic as I have been struggling to keep up with the conversation on this topic on the Fascism talk page and didn't look at the sources you mentioned. I have been very distracted with matters in my personal life that have needed attention and my mind has not been in the best of shape, so I want to apologize for not reviewing the sources. I completely agree that the Trump administration is moving rapidly in an authoritarian direction but I don't know if it is fascist, I think it may be a unique American form of authoritarianism just as fascism began as a unique Italian form of authoritarianism.

I want to admit my bias on this matter because I do admit that it affects my perception of this matter. I have read history books about fascism for the past 15 years, I have gotten a sense of what fascism is and what it is about, it is an ideology that developed into being a reaction against the rise of communism in the Soviet Union - it copied the Soviet Union having a single-party state and justified such a state as necessary to prevent a communist single-party state. With the fall of support for such single-party states as the Cold War came to an end there hasn't been enthusiasm for that kind of regime and in general the neo-fascist movements in the world have been small. There are very real right-wing populist authoritarian movements emerging and these are not advocating single-party states, the authoritarian model of these right-wing populists is Viktor Orban's government - Orban was invited to the CPAC conference. Orban has gradually pushed Hungary in an authoritarian direction and while opposition parties still exist there the Orban government makes it hard for them to be able to compete, he tried to ban the Budapest Pride Parade but people still went out anyway.

Sending the US military to cities to deal with the "enemy within" looks clearly like he is anticipating massive protests in response to something he is going to do, possibly an authoritarian power grab that will cause mass unrest in Democratic majority cities. There has been rhetoric by people in the Trump administration including Stephen Miller that the Democratic Party is an "extremist organization", and then talk about banning Antifa, that is a loose informal network of people and not an organization, and the administration appears to be doing this as a means to use it to arrest political opponents. If the Trump administration attempts to have the Democratic Party banned for being connected to people who it calls "terrorists" like Antifa then that would be fascist territory as the Republican Party would then be the dominant political party in the country and at that point would presumably seek to repress all opposition through military repression.

I think I have been being naive about the extent of the rapid push to authoritarianism by the Trump administration, I think I've been in denial as others have been and still are in denial of how serious the actions by Trump are because people can't believe that an authoritarian takeover is happening in the US. But I do not like to use the word fascist lightly, I am very reserved in what I use it as I've read about it for years. Where I am least convinced is in that fascism sought an economic order that brought together employers and workers with the state being the arbiter of disputes that could not be resolved between them - fascist regimes prohibited both lockouts by employers and strikes by workers. Workers did not have the right to strike but they were courted by the fascist regimes to take part in working with employers to take part in economic decision-making. Trump and his supporters do not appear to be promoting this, and this was a key part of fascism as like I said before it was a reaction to communism that claimed that fascists would include workers in economic decision making and prevent lockouts by employers just as the communists promoted.

I just wanted to state my opinions on this matter so that you understand my perceptions and biases that I acknowledge that I have to be aware of. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for taking the time to write this. I hope you're able to work through the issues you're facing in your personal life and wish you the best.

While fascism was incepted as a response to communism, I don't personally believe a movement must form under these exact circumstances to be considered fascism. Rather, the oppression of (especially left-wing) dissent is a more important consistent theme indicative of fascism in my opinion, regardless of whether that opposition is communist, socialist (which I'd argue much of Trump's opposition is, such as Sanders, Mamdani, and many voters), or what have you.

My goal since joining Wikipedia recently has been to ensure these topics are up to date and reflect the ongoing conversation on fascism amongst scholars who study the issue. Anyone educated on fascism can at least, at a bare minimum, acknowledge that there is a large overlap between Trumpism and fascism. What remains debated amongst them is whether or not Trumpism is in fact fascism, neo-fascism, proto-fascism, post-fascism, hypercapitalist, something else, or all of the above. To be honest, while I see the value in having these separate definitions, I think what's of greater importance is that Trump clearly has a playbook that mirrors those of historical fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. Refusing to label him as such due to subtle, nuanced differences only provides him and other fascists cover and serves to obscure the reality of his intentions. Those intentions align disturbingly well with those of past fascist movements. This reluctance to use the term 'fascist' not only shields him from accountability but also downplays the threat his movement poses to democracy.

Personally, in a time when many voters are misinformed or undereducated about fascism, I believe inventing new terminology to describe what is essentially fascism risks diluting public understanding and urgency, and it is certainly possible for a movement like MAGA to have qualities of fascism while simultaneously exhibiting those of newer terms like neo-fascism, which are less widely understood. I believe that calling it what it is—fascism—helps clarify the danger and reinforces the need to defend democratic values. And, given that scholars on this subject seem to consistently point in this direction as well, I feel it's dishonest and antithetical to Wikipedia's values to not present the findings of those most educated on fascism.

Thank you again for reaching out!

Rangooner (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the models that Trump's key advisors are following are Viktor Orban's government in Hungary and Vladimir Putin's government in Russia. Orban's invitation to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) was not a light invitation, Orban is a very controversial political leader including being controversial among European conservative parties committed to liberal democracy. Very unlike fascism opposition parties can exist in Hungary and Russia, but in both countries their influence is regularly challenged by the state. Orban's government has less power than Putin's and is not a dictatorship at least yet but is moving in that direction. Putin's government is a dictatorship and a dominant party state with controlled opposition of several political parties that technically run against Putin and United Russia while in practice cooperating. Given the rapidity of these authoritarian moves I think Trump and his advisors are aiming for more authoritarian control than Orban has, the military in the streets of Democratic Party majority cities is VERY extreme - even Putin did not do this, he slowly built an authoritarian state, Trump appears to me to be maximizing authoritarian control very quickly with every possible opportunity. BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too familiar with the political climate of Hungary, but Russia essentially functions as a one-party state regardless of whether its technically allowed for opposing parties to exist. Putin's political opponents are suppressed via intimidation, violence, and fixed elections. The US appears to be headed in a similar direction as well. Rangooner (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Pls review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Moxy🍁 04:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, new here and figured it was in the best interest of the RfC to be as responsive as possible since I opened it. I appreciate the info. I'll take a break from the page unless someone has a question for me specifically. Rangooner (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove other people's comments!

It's okay to update the RfC question, but you need to clearly indicate that you've done so (because others have been responding to the previous question). This rest of this edit, where you remove an exchange, was inappropriate: [1]. It will be a headache for me to undo and I have other things I'd like to be doing. Until you understand talk page etiquette much better, please refrain from removing any other user's comments. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Rangooner (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreicate that you're coming at this from a collaborative place, but this subsequent edit was unhelpful as well: [2] Such a broadening of the RfC to other pages is not appropriate given that several !votes have already been cast. If necessary, start another one later. I strongly suggest that you take several steps back and let others take it from here. It can be difficult to let go once you've set a process in motion, but WP:BLUDGEONING the process is always going to be counterproductive. Generalrelative (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can set it back to what it originally said, the phrasing which you deemed as not being neutral. I just updated your message to more accurately reflect what the original RfC said but in a more neutral tone. Also, read the above talk page message or the update I provides on the RfC regarding bludgeoning. Rangooner (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original RfC for reference:

Should we include mention of these consistent findings from such scholars and experts on pages related to fascism such as this one?

Please do not modify the context of the RfC to only reference the one particular article on fascism. That is not why the RfC was opened. Rangooner (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it to make it read in a more neutral tone per your request, and to add additional context without changing the purpose of the RfC. Your revision changed the objective of the RfC entirely. Please consult me here or on the RfC before modifying it again. Rangooner (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]