Dominic is a historian. He cannot in good conscience call Trump a fascist because there is so much literature, meaning and baggage attached to that term for historians. The Mooch has a definition in his mind that is perhaps just as scary, but not the same as Dominic’s highly specific and well formed idea of what a fascist leader is.
Dominic is getting so wrapped around the axle on terminology that he's missing the point: Trump is an existential threat to the US and destabilizing force internationally. Remember what's important here: it's not what you call the man, it's what he wants to do to America in order to save himself.
@@yj9032They're not disagreeing about Trump, they're disagreeing about what fascism as a term means. Personal experience with Trump is irrelevant. Nobody disagrees with Mooch about what Trump is like. Just about the definition of a historical and political term.
Mooch here is basically proceeding from the idea that fascist is a synonym for tyrant, which isn't really the case. A fascist system will obviously be tyrannical, but not all tyrants are fascists.
I think this does Mooch a disservice. He evidences a number of trademark fascist actions/behaviours and concludes Trump’s a fascist. As the historian appears to concede, these behaviours don’t make a ‘Fascist with a capital F’ - leaving room for the interpretation that Trump’s a ‘fascist with a small f’, which I think is all Anthony’s trying to argue!
@@tom_123I can't really agree. Most of his arguments essentially boil down describing to antidemocratic seizure and abuse of power. The examples he gives could just as well apply to, say, a communist dictatorship or even a pre-20th century monarchy. He doesn't really articulate any specific hallmarks of a fascist system. Dom points this out and the rest of the panel don't really properly grapple with the issue.
@@Nikotus1 Yes, I think that’s fair, though I don’t think Anthony was arguing that Trump had constructed a fascist system, which is the idea Dominic appeared to be rejecting.
@@tom_123Yeah, I wouldn't personally go so far as to say Trump *isn't* a fascist, I just really don't think Anthony made much of a case for it here. The fact that he's an antidemocratic authoritarian demagogue is of course pretty much beyond dispute. Anyway, I guess we're all about to find out.
Good to see Dominic explaining fascism and not backing down. The definition of fascism is just as loosely known and thrown around as communism there it seems
I take the knowledge and the word of general Kelly over Dominic's any time. Dominic is a historian so I'll may be interested in his opinion 25 years from now. What's his point?! Trump is an horrible man but not a fascist? What a smug! Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler was a fascist, Franco was a fascist, Perón was a fascist, Chávez was a fascist and Trump is a fascist. There are plenty commonalities between the way all of them acted and have governed to prove the point. When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. But in the spirit of an intelligent debate, lets pluck this duck's feathers: 1. Intention vs. Success in Defining Fascism Fascism isn’t just about achieving authoritarian control; it’s also about the pursuit of it. Attempts to consolidate power, undermine institutions, or control media all echo fascist methods. So, while Trump didn’t establish a one-party state, his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, along with efforts to delegitimize the press and judiciary, could indeed be seen as intentions that align with fascist practices. The fact that Trump was operating within an existing democratic framework, with checks and balances that ultimately limited his actions, does not erase the potential fascistic intent in his rhetoric and attempts to subvert democratic processes. In this sense, fascist aspirations or behaviors don’t necessarily require full success to be concerning or to be identified as such. 2. Media and Political Opposition as Key Targets Trump frequently attacks the media, labeling them as the “enemy of the people,” a phrase with fascist undertones. These attempts to delegitimize independent reporting and intimidate critics are characteristic of fascist regimes, which seek to monopolize information and marginalize dissent. Trump’s rhetoric often portrays political opponents as traitorous or dangerous, another hallmark of fascism, which frequently relies on demonizing internal enemies to unify its base and justify exceptional measures. 3. Cult of Personality and Nationalism Like fascist leaders, Trump fosters a strong, personalistic connection with his supporters, creating a movement centered around himself rather than a traditional party structure or specific policy platform. His rallies, symbols, and slogans helped build a shared identity around his persona, a tactic often used by fascists to mobilize and galvanize followers. His use of nationalist rhetoric, framing himself as the sole defender of a “real” American identity against supposed threats (immigrants, socialists, or elites), is in line with the fascist narrative of protecting a “pure” or idealized nation. 4. Authoritarian Actions and Intentions to Overthrow Democratic Norms Fascism typically involves not just undermining but entirely dismantling democratic institutions. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, while unsuccessful, show a disregard for democratic processes that can be interpreted as a move toward authoritarian rule. Fascism often begins with incremental attacks on democratic norms, and this erosion can be the beginning of a slide toward a more authoritarian state. 5. Unsuccessful Fascists? A tyrant doesn’t need to fully implement a fascist regime to exhibit fascist tendencies. Many scholars now analyze fascism as a sliding scale or a set of behaviors rather than a single, achieved political system. Fascist attempts, even when unsuccessful, still represent an ideological commitment to authoritarianism and the rejection of pluralistic democracy. Therefore, evaluating tyrants on their actions and stated intentions-as opposed to simply judging by outcomes-can indeed place them on a fascistic spectrum, even if they ultimately don’t achieve full control. This view aligns with modern understandings of “creeping authoritarianism” and “proto-fascism,” where leaders may not fully establish fascist states but nonetheless engage in behaviors and rhetoric aligned with fascist ideals. Conclusion In this light, one could argue that Trump exhibited fascistic tendencies-intentions and behaviors reminiscent of fascism-even if he did not succeed in creating a fascist state. This perspective acknowledges the serious nature of his attempts to undermine democratic structures, attack the media, and foster a cult of personality. Thus, while labeling Trump as a full fascist might still be pointlessly debated, recognizing him as a tyrant with significant fascist inclinations or tendencies, particularly in his efforts to disrupt democratic norms, is indeed reasonable and supported by his actions and rhetoric. The potential for fascist behavior is not only in full success but in the pursuit and normalization of authoritarian practices. So... When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
The problem is that fascism is a completely incoherent ideology. Unlike liberalism or communism, it has no intellectual history or great philosophical works. It's just based on vague vibes of resentment, jingoism, and a cult around the leader. That is Trump to a T.
But he doesn't get to define exactly what fascist is. That's the problem with some of the prescriptivists in debate shows. He's a clear prescriptivist that thinks there's only one definition of fascism. In reality the term has been loosely diluted and changed so much that it's not really a clear definition of what a fascist is. I also have to take umbrage with Mooch here as well saying he definitely is a fascist. He's also a prescriptivist but on the other side. I like the clarifying questions that the one guy asked in the beginning. "What is your definition of a fascist". Thats a very important point to get across because it's not clear what that is to every person.
@@srcarranzayou treat it like a matter of opinion, whereas the question is enquiring about the fact of the matter. You may well feel like Trump is a fascist because he looks that way to you, but that doesn’t mean he actually is. The unhinged nature of your reply does a disservice to any credibility you may have wanted to appear to have.
As Dominic says here: he's not really a fascist. He's a populist nationalist wanna be strongman but he's not a fascist. There are overlaps of course but someone taking your freedom isn't fascism.
Agree. The word “fascist” is so idiomatic that it seems like it has a wide aspect but in reality it’s incredibly narrow. Key thing for me is while Trump is a remarkably reckless populist, he has no such colonial aspirational/ethnic worldview which I think informed so much of Mussolini and Adolf. And just the further context of paramilitaries… both only existing because of the weakness of those respective states, all very new and flawed. I’d argue you can’t even be a fascist if you’re outside of Europe.
You can drop any number of names by Mooch's criteria, from Mao to Louis XIV and describe them as Fascist. It's not helpful and Scaramucci is a real gem to listen to, but he was very ungracious in his treatment of Sandbrook here. Incidentally, I think an erratic petulant 18th century Absolutist monarch like a Paul I of Russia is probably the best way of describing a figure like Trump.
@@billysmith7686 if they had Tom Holland on, he would be listing numerous Roman emperors who would've been classed as "fascist" but in many ways trump is more similar to those emperors than i would say he is to 20th century dictators but idk it was 2 thousand years ago so it's more difficult to make precise comparisons
@@rosalindgrxc0e Nearly every pre-Christian Roman emperor would be considered fascist given fascism draws its moral assumptions from Greco-Roman tradition and virtus / virtue in the strong, misfortune in the weak, masculine courage. There is a reason fascist art draws inspiration from these sources - see the plans for post-war Berlin - its all classical architecture designed to invoke a sense of national strength and endurance. Trump is an egotistical American businessman who is high on narc supply.
You're missing the point getting wrapped around the axle on terminology: Trump and project 2025 is an existential threat to the nation and therefore destabilizing to the world. Stay focused on the problem at hand.
It's incredible how Dominic, in a discussion with several very smart, experienced and well-read people, still comes off as far more intelligent than the rest.
To my mind, it goes to show the stark difference between Intelligence and wisdom. Dominic may be an Intellectual force, but a lifetime of insights on his own biases, and thus in turn, human bias, really seperated him from this panel. Especially so in context of their predictions, the results and their reactions.
This discussion is a tad tiresome. Stalin and Brezhnev had all the qualities of Hitler and Musollini but were bitter enemies of Fascism. As Dominic points out, the difference is in the desired long term results. Both groups wanted to re design the very nature of humanity but with very different outcomes in mind.
Purposefully changing the definitions of words to suit your narrative is one of the reasons the American public has voted the way they have. Well done Dominic for being the voice of reason and highlighting the incorrect inflammatory language.
Yeah but it cuts both ways. Trump and the other Republicans say that the Democrats are Marxists and Communists. I don't think the election was decided on who was using the most inflammatory language but on stuff like inflation or whatever
You sound about 20. I'm 47 and it's been thrown around loosely for as long as I can remember. As for the "left", that's just patently untrue. People have been calling leftists and feminists "fascists" for ages.
@@BtotheT-tz6vs Not really. There has always been an evolving debate on what constitutes racism, from scientific racism to legal and institutional racism, to structural racism, to implicit bias... And at every single stage, the broad mainstream of white culture has denied and pushed back, saying "We're not racist". And at every further stage, it was possible to look back at previous stages and realise, "Yes, they were".
Dominic was excellent for all of this coverage. While clearly not pro-trump, he was a sensible voice of reason who didn't let his dislike of the man cloud his views and overreact
This is the only clip I've seen so far, and as a huge fan of TRIH, I'm glad to hear that he is consistent in his commentary on current events, even if I do disagree with some of his political stances expressed in his history podcast w/ Tom Holland.
As Dominic said: he isn't disputing that Trump is a terrible person with dictatorial and authoritarian leanings and a threat to American democracy (flawed though their system may be), but fascism is a very specific thing, and I, as Dominic, remain unconvinced that Trump fits into that very specific box. A narcissistic autocrat, etc? Definitely. A fascist? More citations needed
@@anthonyedwards6409 Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[4][5] fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left-right spectrum.
Be kind. There are many ways to succeed in the world and having a wide array of viewpoints it healthy for the discussion. The Mooch understands Trump better than any of those people on the panel.
@@bjorn2625if he understands Trump so well why do all his predictions about him keep being wrong? I mean.. come on, he’s so consistently wrong about how Trump will behave and perform that I find it hard to believe he ever knew the man. He’s a great speaker and shmoozer, but he’s not intellectually equipped for this at all.
@@Spengleman2His predictions about BOTH debates were on point. His predictions about most of the Trump campaign were right. He may not be the most knowledgeable historian, but he DOES know Trump and reads him perfectly most of the time.
It’s like calling a murderer a psychopath. Unless they have psychopathy, no they’re not. They could be a sociopath, psychopath, any number of other things, or none.. but if you say ‘no they’re not.’ A person could question your morality ‘how can you say that!?’ Because they don’t meet the criteria for having psychopathy.
As an academic historian of fascism it seems to me absurd to call Trump a fascist. Fascism is built on nostalgia for empire, and the (re)creation of a greater territory built on ethnic or racial supremacy in the manner of Mussolini and Hitler. Trump is not an expansionist. He's an isolationist. He wants a smaller state, and limited engagement with the world beyond US borders. He has no designs on overseas territories. He is not seeking to create an empire - but arguably to cede power and influence to those who are - China, Russia, India etc. Trump is an authoritarian, certainly. A populist - sort of - but not a fascist.
It's funny you say that "facism is built on nostalgia of an empire" when Trump's most famous slogan is "make America great again". Sure, he is an isolationist but the main drive behind MAGA is to have a strong, white-majority America (this is cited in Project 2025). For me, Trump fits some of the criteria of modern facism.
He doesn't oppose liberalism, capitalism and want to heavily regulate society and the economy either. Trump's rhetoric has always been a red herring. He's a Megalomaniacal bullshitter who'll say anything if he thinks it will get him what he wants, which in this case is to be the most important person with the most attention and a big plane with President written on the side. He's not into political ideology.. he's into Trump and what Trump wants. Hitler would be appalled by Trump and horrified to learn that he has no real vision and is just in it for the status, grift and revenge on Obama for making fun of his Trump branded steaks. If they had met, Trump would probably think Hitler was an ok guy with a great mountain retreat and some interesting ideas but some of his views on non Aryans were a little bit extreme.😂
Even as an authoritarian, it's still mostly hot air. Looking through Umberto Eco's fourteen key features of fascism, I'd say Trump could be said to qualify for as many as ten. I mean, But the ones missing are pretty major: there's no cult of tradition, no rejection of modernity, and no militancy.
@@thedutchfoxxx _"It's funny you say that "facism is built on nostalgia of an empire" when Trump's most famous slogan is "make America great again"."_ That slogan doesn't even mean anything unless you can point out any political movement that has advocated for making their country intentionally worse. It should be rather obvious that every single political movement wants to make their country better, at least from their point of view. Therefore that slogan is the political equivalent of "water is wet".
Scaramucci knows what he is talking about it. The reason Trump is where he is, is because of those like Dominic, who make excuses for him. Trump is the definition of fascism.
Revisiting this after Dominic said Trump not having ‘expansionist ambitions’ is one of the reasons he’s not a Fascist. Have events of the last 24hrs nudged his opinion I wonder?
He’s not a fascist and the Democratic Party is only hurting themselves by throwing that term around inappropriately. Every day I hope and pray that democrats wake up to reality and start being reasonable again.
Good to hear from Dominic. Happy to hear him maintain his logical analysis and reasoning even with contentious issues. Not letting emotion dictate calculation.
Mooch was irritating here. Didn't seem to like being disagreed with. If Trump was born 50 years earlier there is a high chance he would be a fascist, but as we are now he is not a fascist.
Not really.. Trump and his supporters seem to like conservative liberalism and capitalism that isn't restricted by lots of regulation so it doesn't fit the definition of Fascism. It's an outdated and inaccurate term in this context.
As communism as practised in the Soviet Union was very much into trying to create a new version of humanity, by Dominic's definition as well, Stalin _was_ a fascist. And no, I'm not trying to make out fascism was a left wing thing, or that communism was a right wing thing. I think that the terms left-wing and right-wing are not very useful when it comes to that type of extremism, because there are other political axis than left vs right, and on the authoritarian vs libertarian political axis, both fascism and communism are very close. Which is why when fascism took over in Germany in the 1930s, the Nazis might have killed many of the communist leaders, but they were able to recruit many more of the lower tier communists. For examplethe Nazi State Secretary of the Riech Ministry of Justice, but sent many of the German resistance to Nazism to their deaths, was Roland Freisler who had once been a Commisar in the German Communist Party. And more recently, when communism collapsed as an ideology in Eastern Europe, the communist party of Yugoslavia/Serbia went directly from communism to an extreme fascist nationalism. And similarly Putin in Russia, who was once a loyal KGB communist, but who has turned Russia into a new fascist society.
@@terrystewart1973 Fascism is a far right ideology that opposes Liberalism as much as it opposes Marxism. In a modern context it is the wrong term to describe Putin or Trump. It is an outdated term to apply to world leaders in a world where Capitalism won the cold war and Apple has a store in Beijing. These people (Putin, Xi, Bin Salman etc) are global gangsters. Trump is not in the same league because the US is a liberal democracy. Putin has more in common with Sicilian mafia of the mid 20th century than he does with Hitler. It's not about ideology like it was in the early 20th century.. it's about power, legacy, wealth and retaining power as long as possible to avoid your own assassination by a successor. People will disagree about my Putin analysis but I would argue his actions and motivations all boil back down to his need for self preservation and legacy not a specifically fascistic ideology.
@@terrystewart1973 Russia is not remotely fascist. It's a silly talking point, but even Ukraine is more fascist than Russia, since you still have soldiers going out of their way in displaying Wolfsangels and Black Suns due to collaboration with Germany against the Soviets.
@@nicknewman7848 _" Fascism is a far right ideology "_ Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism). Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell [09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
Good on Dominic Sandbrook, he is absolutely right. It annoys me when people call autocrats and authoritarians fascists or nazis when both of those systems have specific definitions and contexts
What an intelligent panel, I have learnt a lot from these guys with their ability to debate and articulate, especially Dominic . It was also awesome to see Dominic stand his ground against the Smooch.
Why frame it as a high-stakes contest? They’re two guys having an impassioned discussion. Dominic’s clearly got a strong academic background in history and Mooch’s made millions through savvy investments and has been close to the political workings of the most powerful people in the world - they’ve both got their chops and neither’s harmed as a result of this debate. Not everything is a zero-sum glory vs humiliation game.
Mooch gives himself away so quickly as a man you just don't need to listen to on this subject. His own feelings are clearly more important to him than communicating to other people regarding a question that is in their minds.
He'll tease and try and charm Dominic in private because he feels inferior to him intellectually. Mooch is articulate, charming and clearly has good recall on the many books he reads. He is not an intellectual powerhouse though. He doesn't know what Fascism actually is. It's a redundant term in this context.
I think he was arguing from a position of knowing and working with Trump, he seriously believes that Trump has all the "tools" to go full fascist and we should be worried because he's been the closest.
Yeah, this was a case of Mooch being to blinded by the emotion behind what he was saying that he couldn't see that he was misunderstanding what the word "fascist" actually means.
Yeah but he worked with Trump didn't he? I know Italians and he was deadly serious but let's believe the historian in the knitted vest who's more interested in hair splitting semantics. There's a time for academic nuance and it's not when the President Elect of the United States is threatening to imprison journalists, shoot protesters and tear up the constitution.
Ouch.. If you get him on investment banking and Wall Street where he knows his stuff he's better. When he quotes Churchill to charm the Brits there are definitely shades of Don King quoting random Shakespeare lines to impress sports writers though.. and no, Trump is NOT the Fascist leader of the world biggest capitalist liberal democracy. Trump's a Megalomaniac real estate developer and reality tv personality who fell into politics late because he thought running for President would be good for business.
I agreed with Dominic. Fascism is both smaller and more defined than Americans might think. Trump is, if anything, worse because he is less smart and less disciplined than Hitler was. Yes, he shares features in common with Hitler as an authoritarian populist with a strong belief in a mythical, glorious past, but in many ways might become far more dangerous because he has no limits. Especially when he works with others (like Bannon) who are smarter and more determined.
@ well that’s obviously a ridiculous argument. Hitler being more socialist than trump does not make him better. I think the rabid ideologically driven, systematic genocide and the total war on Europe are just a tad more important in determining who was worse than health policy. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is basically the most horrific leader there could be in the American system. He is just obviously not on the same level as Hitler
Less limits than a man who thought it was justified to kill millions to create a “pure” and race defined society? Don’t be silly trump is authoritarian but comparing him to Hitler is not helpful
It has to be said the one panelist who correctly predicted the result is also the one speaking common sense. Even if you don't like trump the reality is he isn't a fascist and he proved that the last time he was president. That use of terminology only strengthens people like trump
I’ll bite…. Cambridge dictionary definition of fascism. a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed Very powerful leader - Trump definitely fulfills that - at least in how he projects himself and how he has effectively taken over the dominant political party. State control - project 2025 and Supreme Court capture will effectively mean the state is completely subservient to Trump. The rule of law will weaken considerably under his influence. Extremely proud of country - yes. Race - implicitly. Demonisation of immigrants.
Exactly, if we used the Mooch’s definition Obama, Bush, Clinton are all fascists (and arguably all 3 did much worse things when it came to expanding U.S. influence around the world through violence)
Credibility of the podcast is at an all time low. Stewart and Campbell basically agree on everything. Talked up Harris’s chances of winning to the final hours. Now ask a Sun-like question “is Trump a fascist”. Thank goodness for Sandbrook’s sanity. Will continue my subscription with TRIH.
First video I've seen from this show but I think it leaves much to be desired. Although I will say the way Dominic Sandbrook laid out his points and his use of historical examples definitely convinced me I need to watch more of whatever he's in. He articulated his points very well without falling into the drivel of some of the others.
So the problem here is that Everyone here except Dominic, who is far more intelligent and educated that anyone else in this room honestly, doesn't understand that Fascism is a political ideology. Trump may be authoritarian, totalitarian etc. but there is a problem with alleging him as a fascist be use he does not claim to be one and would likely deny he is one if asked. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco would all have been proud to say that yes they are fascists. The reason being that was the political ideology they claimed to be a part of. Trump does not, just because some of what he does appears similar does not make him a fascist which is different from just Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Even though Fascism very much incorporates aspects of both. Also claiming that Trump is now expansionist because of his Panama and Greenland does not make him a fascists. Expansionism is in no way unique to fascism or even authoritarianism. Fascism is an ideology almost unique to the early and mid 20th century. Trump has totalitarian and Authoritarian tendencies, just because those are part of fascism does not make him a believer in the fascist political ideology, he is not a fascist.
I think Trump is an empty sheet and as long as he feels he is winning and people love him, you can write into him whatever he projects… and that could be any idea that appeals. I think we should look at who’s standing behind him right now
Mooch is such a drama queen, he knows in a million years Trump isnt locking him up...but he likes to cosplay as this NY tough guy 'fighting the system' its honestly child like and pathetic 😂
"The greatest force for peace, we've got problems, we got Iraq, Vietnam etc." I guess "We've got problems, we've got Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Indonesia, East Timor, The Philippines, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, South Africa, Congo, Angola, Namibia, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela etc." didn't sound so good when you're making the case to be the "greatest force for peace the world has ever seen". Unless of course "peace" is a synonym for "war".
They're so delusional. Team America World Police = Be involved in most military conflicts in the world, supplying arms and/or troops, and having one the highest military budgets in the World.
This was hands down the best item from all the election coverage; so glad the producers knew it was funny. Also shout out to the husk of a man Rory Stewart; most jet lagged man on the planet.
It is refreshing to see the histrionics surrounding this accusation pushed back upon by well-reasoned argument and historically referenceable facts. No one who has not yet been pinned to the perpetual wheel of political doom-mongery can listen to this any longer without something between exhaustion and derision. It is - in a word -puerile, and would not be part of the ongoing dialogue of decent political commentary if it were not in corporate media's interest (whomsoever owns them) to peddle what is the equivalent of political fast food to the masses in order to stoke fear. Toxic to the brain. Toxic to the soul. Toxic to the stability of democracy. Dare I say shame on any and all political dilettantes who collect their paycheck off the back of these misleading statements and hyperbole. Yours, A Labour voter.
historians have continued to develop and evolve historical and political terminology throughout time. fascism is indeed exactly what dominic described but i fear he is retrojecting that term too far back within a political climate that does not exist anymore. i do think trump is a "fascist" but i do think that term needs to be updated and evolved to fit within this new political climate. some people do throw that word around without any actual knowledge of what it means. i read in a comment once that they thought Mao was a fascist because he prevented families from having more than one kid and that was similar to trump in his anti-reproductive rights policies. some ppl are so uneducated lol but it goes to show that these terms need to be more tightly defined and adhere to the modern geopolitical climate...
I would be very curious to see them discuss what would be difference between a fascist, dictator, emperor, king, consul, or king. Is there different levels of an authoritarian or are they all just different terms they call themselves
"No respect for free media" This, coming from Alistair Campbell lol, lmao even. I know full well we could dig up some "fascist" comments from him during his time as Blair's media officer.
As much as I dislike Trump and think he will be a disaster for the US and the world, I'm even more worried that he is being used as a useful idiot by people who are far more intelligent and far more dangerous.
Calling Trump a fascist is an insult to those who lived under a fascistic dictator. People are conflating populism / someone being a wanker with a genuinely terrifying political ideology. Americans live in freedom whoever is President.
This isnt a debate about if trump is fascist, its purely a disagreement about what the definition of fascist is.. all can agree that trump is not a good person
I would be OK if he was someone I had to work with or put with as a next door neighbour . When he's the most powerful man on earth him being ' Not a good person' becomes seriously problematic.
Anthony knows him better than everyone else. Dominic should go back to making more documentaries about how music and shopping became lovelier after Maggie Thatcher.
I'm sorry, but saying fascism is time-specific is incredibly stupid. Fascism is an ideology not a movement (though it can spawn movements) and as such can occur at any time.
_"I'm sorry, but saying fascism is time-specific is incredibly stupid"_ Nope. It is a historical fact and even Italian historians would agree, like Renzo De Felice and Emilio Gentile.
_"Fascism is an ideology not a movement (though it can spawn movements) and as such can occur at any time."_ Technically yes, however nobody has tried to imitate Mussolini's Fascism. Some have been influenced by it, hence Neo-Fascism.
'What's your definition of fascism?' 'The definition of fascism is that he would literally call a head of state and say Alistair Campbell has said bad things about me I want you to block his business from coming into your country'. 'What's your definition of total idiocy?' 'Anthony Scaramucci'.
This is the stupidest debate I’ve witnessed in quite sometime. You have Alastair Campbell smugly sitting there trying to define fascism when he’s the same man who was whispering in Blair’s ear when the UK and US illegally started a war in Iraq. Scaramucci is a pseudo intellectual who clearly doesn’t care what definitions mean. Marina Hyde is a withering public school girl who is driven by gimmicks. Rory Stewart for all the mass privilege given to him in his life has amounted to being a podcaster who is about as in touch with reality as Scaramuccis dyed 80s hair.
Fascism is a specific political ideology first practised by Mussolini. Its definition has no value connotation and should not be used as a pejorative slur. It has specific criteria and conditions that need to be necessarily and sufficiently present in order for a person, group or state to be considered fascist. And even then, it is not significant necessarily because of its negative connotations, which are contingent interpretations of its implications on liberal democracy. Just because someone may seem to be threatening liberal democracy in their political behaviour does not merit them this label if they are not satisfying all other necessary and sufficient criteria. The label should be indifferent to the connotations or value judgement. The negative connotations of fascism are irrelevant to the definition
Dominic is a historian. He cannot in good conscience call Trump a fascist because there is so much literature, meaning and baggage attached to that term for historians. The Mooch has a definition in his mind that is perhaps just as scary, but not the same as Dominic’s highly specific and well formed idea of what a fascist leader is.
Dominic is getting so wrapped around the axle on terminology that he's missing the point: Trump is an existential threat to the US and destabilizing force internationally. Remember what's important here: it's not what you call the man, it's what he wants to do to America in order to save himself.
Spot on.
Cope
I prefer the opinion of someone who worked with trump over a foreign history guy
@@yj9032They're not disagreeing about Trump, they're disagreeing about what fascism as a term means.
Personal experience with Trump is irrelevant. Nobody disagrees with Mooch about what Trump is like. Just about the definition of a historical and political term.
I found Dominic’s analysis the most comforting thing during this election.
Mooch here is basically proceeding from the idea that fascist is a synonym for tyrant, which isn't really the case. A fascist system will obviously be tyrannical, but not all tyrants are fascists.
I think this does Mooch a disservice. He evidences a number of trademark fascist actions/behaviours and concludes Trump’s a fascist. As the historian appears to concede, these behaviours don’t make a ‘Fascist with a capital F’ - leaving room for the interpretation that Trump’s a ‘fascist with a small f’, which I think is all Anthony’s trying to argue!
@@tom_123I can't really agree. Most of his arguments essentially boil down describing to antidemocratic seizure and abuse of power. The examples he gives could just as well apply to, say, a communist dictatorship or even a pre-20th century monarchy. He doesn't really articulate any specific hallmarks of a fascist system. Dom points this out and the rest of the panel don't really properly grapple with the issue.
@@Nikotus1 Yes, I think that’s fair, though I don’t think Anthony was arguing that Trump had constructed a fascist system, which is the idea Dominic appeared to be rejecting.
@@tom_123He worked with him, I think he knows him better than you and everyone else on the panel
@@tom_123Yeah, I wouldn't personally go so far as to say Trump *isn't* a fascist, I just really don't think Anthony made much of a case for it here. The fact that he's an antidemocratic authoritarian demagogue is of course pretty much beyond dispute.
Anyway, I guess we're all about to find out.
Sandbrook is the intelligent analyst on this panel.
They are all really intelligent but he does seem like the Rolls Royce
every government leader should have a historian on their team.
Only*
He’s the least biased
By a looonnnnggggg way
Good to see Dominic explaining fascism and not backing down. The definition of fascism is just as loosely known and thrown around as communism there it seems
I take the knowledge and the word of general Kelly over Dominic's any time. Dominic is a historian so I'll may be interested in his opinion 25 years from now. What's his point?! Trump is an horrible man but not a fascist? What a smug! Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler was a fascist, Franco was a fascist, Perón was a fascist, Chávez was a fascist and Trump is a fascist. There are plenty commonalities between the way all of them acted and have governed to prove the point. When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. But in the spirit of an intelligent debate, lets pluck this duck's feathers:
1. Intention vs. Success in Defining Fascism
Fascism isn’t just about achieving authoritarian control; it’s also about the pursuit of it. Attempts to consolidate power, undermine institutions, or control media all echo fascist methods. So, while Trump didn’t establish a one-party state, his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, along with efforts to delegitimize the press and judiciary, could indeed be seen as intentions that align with fascist practices.
The fact that Trump was operating within an existing democratic framework, with checks and balances that ultimately limited his actions, does not erase the potential fascistic intent in his rhetoric and attempts to subvert democratic processes. In this sense, fascist aspirations or behaviors don’t necessarily require full success to be concerning or to be identified as such.
2. Media and Political Opposition as Key Targets
Trump frequently attacks the media, labeling them as the “enemy of the people,” a phrase with fascist undertones. These attempts to delegitimize independent reporting and intimidate critics are characteristic of fascist regimes, which seek to monopolize information and marginalize dissent.
Trump’s rhetoric often portrays political opponents as traitorous or dangerous, another hallmark of fascism, which frequently relies on demonizing internal enemies to unify its base and justify exceptional measures.
3. Cult of Personality and Nationalism
Like fascist leaders, Trump fosters a strong, personalistic connection with his supporters, creating a movement centered around himself rather than a traditional party structure or specific policy platform. His rallies, symbols, and slogans helped build a shared identity around his persona, a tactic often used by fascists to mobilize and galvanize followers.
His use of nationalist rhetoric, framing himself as the sole defender of a “real” American identity against supposed threats (immigrants, socialists, or elites), is in line with the fascist narrative of protecting a “pure” or idealized nation.
4. Authoritarian Actions and Intentions to Overthrow Democratic Norms
Fascism typically involves not just undermining but entirely dismantling democratic institutions. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results, while unsuccessful, show a disregard for democratic processes that can be interpreted as a move toward authoritarian rule. Fascism often begins with incremental attacks on democratic norms, and this erosion can be the beginning of a slide toward a more authoritarian state.
5. Unsuccessful Fascists?
A tyrant doesn’t need to fully implement a fascist regime to exhibit fascist tendencies. Many scholars now analyze fascism as a sliding scale or a set of behaviors rather than a single, achieved political system. Fascist attempts, even when unsuccessful, still represent an ideological commitment to authoritarianism and the rejection of pluralistic democracy.
Therefore, evaluating tyrants on their actions and stated intentions-as opposed to simply judging by outcomes-can indeed place them on a fascistic spectrum, even if they ultimately don’t achieve full control. This view aligns with modern understandings of “creeping authoritarianism” and “proto-fascism,” where leaders may not fully establish fascist states but nonetheless engage in behaviors and rhetoric aligned with fascist ideals.
Conclusion
In this light, one could argue that Trump exhibited fascistic tendencies-intentions and behaviors reminiscent of fascism-even if he did not succeed in creating a fascist state. This perspective acknowledges the serious nature of his attempts to undermine democratic structures, attack the media, and foster a cult of personality.
Thus, while labeling Trump as a full fascist might still be pointlessly debated, recognizing him as a tyrant with significant fascist inclinations or tendencies, particularly in his efforts to disrupt democratic norms, is indeed reasonable and supported by his actions and rhetoric. The potential for fascist behavior is not only in full success but in the pursuit and normalization of authoritarian practices. So... When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
The problem is that fascism is a completely incoherent ideology. Unlike liberalism or communism, it has no intellectual history or great philosophical works. It's just based on vague vibes of resentment, jingoism, and a cult around the leader.
That is Trump to a T.
@@srcarranzaSomebody gets it unlike these "well actually 🤓" historians
But he doesn't get to define exactly what fascist is. That's the problem with some of the prescriptivists in debate shows. He's a clear prescriptivist that thinks there's only one definition of fascism. In reality the term has been loosely diluted and changed so much that it's not really a clear definition of what a fascist is. I also have to take umbrage with Mooch here as well saying he definitely is a fascist. He's also a prescriptivist but on the other side. I like the clarifying questions that the one guy asked in the beginning. "What is your definition of a fascist". Thats a very important point to get across because it's not clear what that is to every person.
@@srcarranzayou treat it like a matter of opinion, whereas the question is enquiring about the fact of the matter. You may well feel like Trump is a fascist because he looks that way to you, but that doesn’t mean he actually is. The unhinged nature of your reply does a disservice to any credibility you may have wanted to appear to have.
As Dominic says here: he's not really a fascist.
He's a populist nationalist wanna be strongman but he's not a fascist.
There are overlaps of course but someone taking your freedom isn't fascism.
Agree. The word “fascist” is so idiomatic that it seems like it has a wide aspect but in reality it’s incredibly narrow.
Key thing for me is while Trump is a remarkably reckless populist, he has no such colonial aspirational/ethnic worldview which I think informed so much of Mussolini and Adolf.
And just the further context of paramilitaries… both only existing because of the weakness of those respective states, all very new and flawed. I’d argue you can’t even be a fascist if you’re outside of Europe.
You can drop any number of names by Mooch's criteria, from Mao to Louis XIV and describe them as Fascist. It's not helpful and Scaramucci is a real gem to listen to, but he was very ungracious in his treatment of Sandbrook here. Incidentally, I think an erratic petulant 18th century Absolutist monarch like a Paul I of Russia is probably the best way of describing a figure like Trump.
@@billysmith7686 if they had Tom Holland on, he would be listing numerous Roman emperors who would've been classed as "fascist" but in many ways trump is more similar to those emperors than i would say he is to 20th century dictators but idk it was 2 thousand years ago so it's more difficult to make precise comparisons
@@rosalindgrxc0e Nearly every pre-Christian Roman emperor would be considered fascist given fascism draws its moral assumptions from Greco-Roman tradition and virtus / virtue in the strong, misfortune in the weak, masculine courage. There is a reason fascist art draws inspiration from these sources - see the plans for post-war Berlin - its all classical architecture designed to invoke a sense of national strength and endurance.
Trump is an egotistical American businessman who is high on narc supply.
You're missing the point getting wrapped around the axle on terminology: Trump and project 2025 is an existential threat to the nation and therefore destabilizing to the world. Stay focused on the problem at hand.
It's incredible how Dominic, in a discussion with several very smart, experienced and well-read people, still comes off as far more intelligent than the rest.
'Several very smart ... people'? A miscategorisation.
To my mind, it goes to show the stark difference between Intelligence and wisdom.
Dominic may be an Intellectual force, but a lifetime of insights on his own biases, and thus in turn, human bias, really seperated him from this panel. Especially so in context of their predictions, the results and their reactions.
I'd love to see him in discussion with other smart people... do you have a link?
The rest is history podcast, just watched about 8 hours on the french revolution@robertthornton5106
Probably because he is
This discussion is a tad tiresome. Stalin and Brezhnev had all the qualities of Hitler and Musollini but were bitter enemies of Fascism. As Dominic points out, the difference is in the desired long term results. Both groups wanted to re design the very nature of humanity but with very different outcomes in mind.
Purposefully changing the definitions of words to suit your narrative is one of the reasons the American public has voted the way they have. Well done Dominic for being the voice of reason and highlighting the incorrect inflammatory language.
Yeah but it cuts both ways. Trump and the other Republicans say that the Democrats are Marxists and Communists. I don't think the election was decided on who was using the most inflammatory language but on stuff like inflation or whatever
Agreed. Same as Starmer calling his own people far right just because they don’t agree with his Uber left wing stance. Traitor.
I don't think that's really why they voted Trump. Those people seem to be fine with Republicans calling all of their enemies satanic communists...
Fascism is a loose term thrown about today especially by the left. Dominic is right.
Same as racist. The words are losing their effect because people are using them at every opportunity
Scaramucci, isn’t from the left and neither are those 4* generals.
You sound about 20. I'm 47 and it's been thrown around loosely for as long as I can remember.
As for the "left", that's just patently untrue. People have been calling leftists and feminists "fascists" for ages.
@@BtotheT-tz6vs Not really. There has always been an evolving debate on what constitutes racism, from scientific racism to legal and institutional racism, to structural racism, to implicit bias... And at every single stage, the broad mainstream of white culture has denied and pushed back, saying "We're not racist". And at every further stage, it was possible to look back at previous stages and realise, "Yes, they were".
Dominic was excellent for all of this coverage. While clearly not pro-trump, he was a sensible voice of reason who didn't let his dislike of the man cloud his views and overreact
Which is sorely missing on most political commentary these days.
This is the only clip I've seen so far, and as a huge fan of TRIH, I'm glad to hear that he is consistent in his commentary on current events, even if I do disagree with some of his political stances expressed in his history podcast w/ Tom Holland.
As Dominic said: he isn't disputing that Trump is a terrible person with dictatorial and authoritarian leanings and a threat to American democracy (flawed though their system may be), but fascism is a very specific thing, and I, as Dominic, remain unconvinced that Trump fits into that very specific box. A narcissistic autocrat, etc? Definitely. A fascist? More citations needed
Out of interest what is the very specific thing you think fascism is?
@@anthonyedwards6409 Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[4][5] fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left-right spectrum.
The Mooch isn’t intellectually equipped for this match up
Be kind.
There are many ways to succeed in the world and having a wide array of viewpoints it healthy for the discussion. The Mooch understands Trump better than any of those people on the panel.
He is funny though
@@bjorn2625if he understands Trump so well why do all his predictions about him keep being wrong? I mean.. come on, he’s so consistently wrong about how Trump will behave and perform that I find it hard to believe he ever knew the man. He’s a great speaker and shmoozer, but he’s not intellectually equipped for this at all.
@@Spengleman2His predictions about BOTH debates were on point. His predictions about most of the Trump campaign were right.
He may not be the most knowledgeable historian, but he DOES know Trump and reads him perfectly most of the time.
Rubbish, he’s on point here.
It’s like calling a murderer a psychopath. Unless they have psychopathy, no they’re not. They could be a sociopath, psychopath, any number of other things, or none.. but if you say ‘no they’re not.’ A person could question your morality ‘how can you say that!?’
Because they don’t meet the criteria for having psychopathy.
As an academic historian of fascism it seems to me absurd to call Trump a fascist. Fascism is built on nostalgia for empire, and the (re)creation of a greater territory built on ethnic or racial supremacy in the manner of Mussolini and Hitler. Trump is not an expansionist. He's an isolationist. He wants a smaller state, and limited engagement with the world beyond US borders. He has no designs on overseas territories. He is not seeking to create an empire - but arguably to cede power and influence to those who are - China, Russia, India etc. Trump is an authoritarian, certainly. A populist - sort of - but not a fascist.
It's funny you say that "facism is built on nostalgia of an empire" when Trump's most famous slogan is "make America great again".
Sure, he is an isolationist but the main drive behind MAGA is to have a strong, white-majority America (this is cited in Project 2025).
For me, Trump fits some of the criteria of modern facism.
He doesn't oppose liberalism, capitalism and want to heavily regulate society and the economy either. Trump's rhetoric has always been a red herring. He's a Megalomaniacal bullshitter who'll say anything if he thinks it will get him what he wants, which in this case is to be the most important person with the most attention and a big plane with President written on the side. He's not into political ideology.. he's into Trump and what Trump wants. Hitler would be appalled by Trump and horrified to learn that he has no real vision and is just in it for the status, grift and revenge on Obama for making fun of his Trump branded steaks. If they had met, Trump would probably think Hitler was an ok guy with a great mountain retreat and some interesting ideas but some of his views on non Aryans were a little bit extreme.😂
Even as an authoritarian, it's still mostly hot air.
Looking through Umberto Eco's fourteen key features of fascism, I'd say Trump could be said to qualify for as many as ten. I mean, But the ones missing are pretty major: there's no cult of tradition, no rejection of modernity, and no militancy.
Hitler wasn't a fascist. You don't even know what the term means.
@@thedutchfoxxx _"It's funny you say that "facism is built on nostalgia of an empire" when Trump's most famous slogan is "make America great again"."_
That slogan doesn't even mean anything unless you can point out any political movement that has advocated for making their country intentionally worse. It should be rather obvious that every single political movement wants to make their country better, at least from their point of view. Therefore that slogan is the political equivalent of "water is wet".
Dominic was head and shoulders above the rest of the panel throughout the night.
Scaramucci absolutely yapping with no real substance or reason
Scaramucci knows what he is talking about it. The reason Trump is where he is, is because of those like Dominic, who make excuses for him. Trump is the definition of fascism.
He’s defending his position, perhaps Dominic had this one though, the word is banded about a little too glibly which was Dominic’s point.
That's what Scaramucci does. I'm seriously surprised that so few people see through his schtick and understand him as the Wall Street rat he is.
Revisiting this after Dominic said Trump not having ‘expansionist ambitions’ is one of the reasons he’s not a Fascist. Have events of the last 24hrs nudged his opinion I wonder?
Putin is not a fascist. He has the same ambitions that are very real.
He’s not a fascist and the Democratic Party is only hurting themselves by throwing that term around inappropriately. Every day I hope and pray that democrats wake up to reality and start being reasonable again.
Good to hear from Dominic. Happy to hear him maintain his logical analysis and reasoning even with contentious issues. Not letting emotion dictate calculation.
You tried Dominic, good to see some real critical thinking on here, well done.
I like how Dominic Sandbrook insists on precise use of language
Mooch was irritating here. Didn't seem to like being disagreed with. If Trump was born 50 years earlier there is a high chance he would be a fascist, but as we are now he is not a fascist.
Not really.. Trump and his supporters seem to like conservative liberalism and capitalism that isn't restricted by lots of regulation so it doesn't fit the definition of Fascism. It's an outdated and inaccurate term in this context.
Well that worked out well @Dominic Sandbrook
have to agree with DS here
By Mooch’s definition, Stalin was a fascist lol
As communism as practised in the Soviet Union was very much into trying to create a new version of humanity, by Dominic's definition as well, Stalin _was_ a fascist.
And no, I'm not trying to make out fascism was a left wing thing, or that communism was a right wing thing. I think that the terms left-wing and right-wing are not very useful when it comes to that type of extremism, because there are other political axis than left vs right, and on the authoritarian vs libertarian political axis, both fascism and communism are very close.
Which is why when fascism took over in Germany in the 1930s, the Nazis might have killed many of the communist leaders, but they were able to recruit many more of the lower tier communists. For examplethe Nazi State Secretary of the Riech Ministry of Justice, but sent many of the German resistance to Nazism to their deaths, was Roland Freisler who had once been a Commisar in the German Communist Party. And more recently, when communism collapsed as an ideology in Eastern Europe, the communist party of Yugoslavia/Serbia went directly from communism to an extreme fascist nationalism. And similarly Putin in Russia, who was once a loyal KGB communist, but who has turned Russia into a new fascist society.
@@terrystewart1973Stalin was absolutely not Fascist lmao
@@terrystewart1973 Fascism is a far right ideology that opposes Liberalism as much as it opposes Marxism. In a modern context it is the wrong term to describe Putin or Trump. It is an outdated term to apply to world leaders in a world where Capitalism won the cold war and Apple has a store in Beijing. These people (Putin, Xi, Bin Salman etc) are global gangsters. Trump is not in the same league because the US is a liberal democracy. Putin has more in common with Sicilian mafia of the mid 20th century than he does with Hitler. It's not about ideology like it was in the early 20th century.. it's about power, legacy, wealth and retaining power as long as possible to avoid your own assassination by a successor. People will disagree about my Putin analysis but I would argue his actions and motivations all boil back down to his need for self preservation and legacy not a specifically fascistic ideology.
@@terrystewart1973 Russia is not remotely fascist. It's a silly talking point, but even Ukraine is more fascist than Russia, since you still have soldiers going out of their way in displaying Wolfsangels and Black Suns due to collaboration with Germany against the Soviets.
@@nicknewman7848 _" Fascism is a far right ideology "_
Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism).
Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
[01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
[02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile
[03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri
[04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice
[05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor
[06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio
[07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio
[08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell
[09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
Dominic was really good on this show, I think him and Marina bought everyone back to reality on more than one occasion.
Dominic is clear, precise and knows his stuff. Period ❤
Good on Dominic Sandbrook, he is absolutely right. It annoys me when people call autocrats and authoritarians fascists or nazis when both of those systems have specific definitions and contexts
What an intelligent panel, I have learnt a lot from these guys with their ability to debate and articulate, especially Dominic . It was also awesome to see Dominic stand his ground against the Smooch.
Dominic is just so brilliant.
Dominic is making a very simple point. It amazes me that the rest of them don't get it.
Dominic showed the mooch up there, big time. Scaramucci is not in Dominic’s league, not even remotely.
Why frame it as a high-stakes contest? They’re two guys having an impassioned discussion. Dominic’s clearly got a strong academic background in history and Mooch’s made millions through savvy investments and has been close to the political workings of the most powerful people in the world - they’ve both got their chops and neither’s harmed as a result of this debate. Not everything is a zero-sum glory vs humiliation game.
Scaramucci a mob man
@@tom_123I agree with you, and I think Dominic would too. The Mooch, however, seemed quite intent on making it into a zero-sum argument.
I beg to differ; the Mooch isn't a plagiarist 🤷
@@tom_123Mooch consistently tries to make into a zero sum game because he’s still bitter about being fired.
The tragedy of this is that Dominic Sandbrook has to waste his time with these clowns.
Can't we just say "he has some concerning fascistic tendencies"?
I would say he has several of the most concerning fascistic tendencies.
not catchy enough for tiktok. Too long
Couldn't you say the same for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden?
@@EvsEntps I could, but since they don't have any fascistic tendencies that would be weird.
Yes, if you want to be the typical MSM sanewasher.
That’s because one of these people is an actual historian who understands what the word means, Dominic utterly owned the panel on the night
Usually, fascism is a word thrown around by people who don't know what it means. Mooch is an idiot.
Thank you, Sandbrook.
This rhetoric is what got Trump back in the Whitehouse. Please, keep going. It helps trump and the republicans stay in office
You can’t just apply a word with negative contractions against someone you don’t like, if the definition doesn’t fit.
Mooch gives himself away so quickly as a man you just don't need to listen to on this subject. His own feelings are clearly more important to him than communicating to other people regarding a question that is in their minds.
He'll tease and try and charm Dominic in private because he feels inferior to him intellectually. Mooch is articulate, charming and clearly has good recall on the many books he reads. He is not an intellectual powerhouse though. He doesn't know what Fascism actually is. It's a redundant term in this context.
"Trump does not have a plan for aggressive expansion"
Well, that aged absolutely perfectly.
Mooch was pretty annoying and unkind in the debate.
I think he was arguing from a position of knowing and working with Trump, he seriously believes that Trump has all the "tools" to go full fascist and we should be worried because he's been the closest.
What are you on about? He’s hilarious and its all in good nature.
@@paulbent6579He’s bitter and it shows.
"He doesn't have an aggressive plan for expansion" This quote has not aged well has it Dominic.
Let’s change definitions of everything shall we?
Dominic was great to listen to on every election stream. So intelligent, great asset to the panel
Yeah, this was a case of Mooch being to blinded by the emotion behind what he was saying that he couldn't see that he was misunderstanding what the word "fascist" actually means.
Oddly, I think this exchange was the single most interesting thing on the whole of election night.
Scarramucci is the most pseudo intellectual stocking filler bore I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to
Yeah but he worked with Trump didn't he? I know Italians and he was deadly serious but let's believe the historian in the knitted vest who's more interested in hair splitting semantics. There's a time for academic nuance and it's not when the President Elect of the United States is threatening to imprison journalists, shoot protesters and tear up the constitution.
Ouch.. If you get him on investment banking and Wall Street where he knows his stuff he's better. When he quotes Churchill to charm the Brits there are definitely shades of Don King quoting random Shakespeare lines to impress sports writers though.. and no, Trump is NOT the Fascist leader of the world biggest capitalist liberal democracy. Trump's a Megalomaniac real estate developer and reality tv personality who fell into politics late because he thought running for President would be good for business.
This is aging very well and he hasn’t even been sworn in
I agree with Rory, it’s a stupid and divisive thought terminating question.
Truth inside a den of liars is treated as heresy.
I agreed with Dominic. Fascism is both smaller and more defined than Americans might think. Trump is, if anything, worse because he is less smart and less disciplined than Hitler was. Yes, he shares features in common with Hitler as an authoritarian populist with a strong belief in a mythical, glorious past, but in many ways might become far more dangerous because he has no limits. Especially when he works with others (like Bannon) who are smarter and more determined.
He is absolutely not worse than Hitler...
@ well that’s obviously a ridiculous argument. Hitler being more socialist than trump does not make him better. I think the rabid ideologically driven, systematic genocide and the total war on Europe are just a tad more important in determining who was worse than health policy. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is basically the most horrific leader there could be in the American system. He is just obviously not on the same level as Hitler
Less limits than a man who thought it was justified to kill millions to create a “pure” and race defined society? Don’t be silly trump is authoritarian but comparing him to Hitler is not helpful
Nah Trump is Mussolini. A joke who became serious.
Utter bullshit
This guy is a disgruntled former employee who has an axe to grind. He was fired for a reason.
Semantics but if you have to choose I'd go with Dominic as meaning are important when talking about this kind of thing
Agreed
This is like the Mooch arguing with a biologist why "dolphins are obviously fish." ;-)
It has to be said the one panelist who correctly predicted the result is also the one speaking common sense. Even if you don't like trump the reality is he isn't a fascist and he proved that the last time he was president. That use of terminology only strengthens people like trump
I’m with Scaramucci. 😢
What has Trump ever done to be labelled a fascist? Ridiculous
I’ll bite….
Cambridge dictionary definition of fascism.
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed
Very powerful leader - Trump definitely fulfills that - at least in how he projects himself and how he has effectively taken over the dominant political party.
State control - project 2025 and Supreme Court capture will effectively mean the state is completely subservient to Trump. The rule of law will weaken considerably under his influence.
Extremely proud of country - yes. Race - implicitly. Demonisation of immigrants.
So Hitler became a fascist in 1938?
@@alisdar1234 : That is the definition of Authoritarianism though, not Fascism.
Exactly, if we used the Mooch’s definition Obama, Bush, Clinton are all fascists (and arguably all 3 did much worse things when it came to expanding U.S. influence around the world through violence)
Dominic talks with sense and authority.
Credibility of the podcast is at an all time low. Stewart and Campbell basically agree on everything. Talked up Harris’s chances of winning to the final hours. Now ask a Sun-like question “is Trump a fascist”.
Thank goodness for Sandbrook’s sanity. Will continue my subscription with TRIH.
First video I've seen from this show but I think it leaves much to be desired. Although I will say the way Dominic Sandbrook laid out his points and his use of historical examples definitely convinced me I need to watch more of whatever he's in. He articulated his points very well without falling into the drivel of some of the others.
There is a definition in the dictionary for Fascism.
Good on Dominic
Tds central
So the problem here is that Everyone here except Dominic, who is far more intelligent and educated that anyone else in this room honestly, doesn't understand that Fascism is a political ideology. Trump may be authoritarian, totalitarian etc. but there is a problem with alleging him as a fascist be use he does not claim to be one and would likely deny he is one if asked. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco would all have been proud to say that yes they are fascists. The reason being that was the political ideology they claimed to be a part of. Trump does not, just because some of what he does appears similar does not make him a fascist which is different from just Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Even though Fascism very much incorporates aspects of both. Also claiming that Trump is now expansionist because of his Panama and Greenland does not make him a fascists. Expansionism is in no way unique to fascism or even authoritarianism. Fascism is an ideology almost unique to the early and mid 20th century. Trump has totalitarian and Authoritarian tendencies, just because those are part of fascism does not make him a believer in the fascist political ideology, he is not a fascist.
I think Trump is an empty sheet and as long as he feels he is winning and people love him, you can write into him whatever he projects… and that could be any idea that appeals. I think we should look at who’s standing behind him right now
Educated people pretending to not know what a fascist is. Or worst yet “educated” people who really don’t know…
One reassuring thing about Trump is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff probably hate him and would never follow him
He'll change them in due course
Scaramucci is acting the part of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean".
Loving this. Great to have Dominic context insights
Have to agree with Anthony S.
Dominic is nuanced and right about this. Shame he writes for the Mail - a ghastly, small minded, xenophobic paper that is the worst of Britain.
Thought I'd tuned into Sky Sports for a minute there with the red and blue and the HEATED debate.
Dominic is the voice of reason here. A voice that is much needed.
Anthony's arguments are idiotic.
Utterly sick of that bully Campbell.
Scaramucci isn't from America, he's from Yapistan
Mooch is such a drama queen, he knows in a million years Trump isnt locking him up...but he likes to cosplay as this NY tough guy 'fighting the system' its honestly child like and pathetic 😂
"The greatest force for peace, we've got problems, we got Iraq, Vietnam etc."
I guess "We've got problems, we've got Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Indonesia, East Timor, The Philippines, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, South Africa, Congo, Angola, Namibia, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela etc." didn't sound so good when you're making the case to be the "greatest force for peace the world has ever seen".
Unless of course "peace" is a synonym for "war".
They're so delusional. Team America World Police = Be involved in most military conflicts in the world, supplying arms and/or troops, and having one the highest military budgets in the World.
Vietnam was a just war.
Absolutely preposterous question
Did Scaramucci actually ask if he actually had to debate Dominic?
He asked if he could.
People really need to stop using fascist as a synonym of authoritarian.
This isn't remotely heated, don't lie to us.
In English terms dear boy, this was a rip roarer! 😉
This was hands down the best item from all the election coverage; so glad the producers knew it was funny. Also shout out to the husk of a man Rory Stewart; most jet lagged man on the planet.
It is refreshing to see the histrionics surrounding this accusation pushed back upon by well-reasoned argument and historically referenceable facts. No one who has not yet been pinned to the perpetual wheel of political doom-mongery can listen to this any longer without something between exhaustion and derision. It is - in a word -puerile, and would not be part of the ongoing dialogue of decent political commentary if it were not in corporate media's interest (whomsoever owns them) to peddle what is the equivalent of political fast food to the masses in order to stoke fear.
Toxic to the brain. Toxic to the soul. Toxic to the stability of democracy. Dare I say shame on any and all political dilettantes who collect their paycheck off the back of these misleading statements and hyperbole.
Yours,
A Labour voter.
As usual Stewart and Sandbrook are giving thoughtful answers and Campbell is his usual self.
historians have continued to develop and evolve historical and political terminology throughout time. fascism is indeed exactly what dominic described but i fear he is retrojecting that term too far back within a political climate that does not exist anymore. i do think trump is a "fascist" but i do think that term needs to be updated and evolved to fit within this new political climate. some people do throw that word around without any actual knowledge of what it means. i read in a comment once that they thought Mao was a fascist because he prevented families from having more than one kid and that was similar to trump in his anti-reproductive rights policies. some ppl are so uneducated lol but it goes to show that these terms need to be more tightly defined and adhere to the modern geopolitical climate...
I would be very curious to see them discuss what would be difference between a fascist, dictator, emperor, king, consul, or king. Is there different levels of an authoritarian or are they all just different terms they call themselves
"No respect for free media"
This, coming from Alistair Campbell lol, lmao even. I know full well we could dig up some "fascist" comments from him during his time as Blair's media officer.
Wow, about 6 hours later you could hear Scarramucci dial his language WAY back.
As much as I dislike Trump and think he will be a disaster for the US and the world, I'm even more worried that he is being used as a useful idiot by people who are far more intelligent and far more dangerous.
Well of course, that’s his whole point.
He’s just the tool of Thiel, the Kochs and the billionaire class.
He’s just there to whip up the morons.
This is why the only person who called the election result was the only one correct in the debate.
Calling Trump a fascist is an insult to those who lived under a fascistic dictator. People are conflating populism / someone being a wanker with a genuinely terrifying political ideology. Americans live in freedom whoever is President.
He may or may not be a fascist, but he is without the shadow of a doubt an authoritarian. You may be in for a rough awakening in four years.
Is Alistair Campbell a war criminal 😳
This isnt a debate about if trump is fascist, its purely a disagreement about what the definition of fascist is.. all can agree that trump is not a good person
I would be OK if he was someone I had to work with or put with as a next door neighbour . When he's the most powerful man on earth him being ' Not a good person' becomes seriously problematic.
Anthony knows him better than everyone else. Dominic should go back to making more documentaries about how music and shopping became lovelier after Maggie Thatcher.
I'm sorry, but saying fascism is time-specific is incredibly stupid. Fascism is an ideology not a movement (though it can spawn movements) and as such can occur at any time.
_"I'm sorry, but saying fascism is time-specific is incredibly stupid"_
Nope. It is a historical fact and even Italian historians would agree, like Renzo De Felice and Emilio Gentile.
_"Fascism is an ideology not a movement (though it can spawn movements) and as such can occur at any time."_
Technically yes, however nobody has tried to imitate Mussolini's Fascism. Some have been influenced by it, hence Neo-Fascism.
'What's your definition of fascism?'
'The definition of fascism is that he would literally call a head of state and say Alistair Campbell has said bad things about me I want you to block his business from coming into your country'.
'What's your definition of total idiocy?'
'Anthony Scaramucci'.
This is the stupidest debate I’ve witnessed in quite sometime. You have Alastair Campbell smugly sitting there trying to define fascism when he’s the same man who was whispering in Blair’s ear when the UK and US illegally started a war in Iraq.
Scaramucci is a pseudo intellectual who clearly doesn’t care what definitions mean. Marina Hyde is a withering public school girl who is driven by gimmicks. Rory Stewart for all the mass privilege given to him in his life has amounted to being a podcaster who is about as in touch with reality as Scaramuccis dyed 80s hair.
The neck on AC having this convo when he is 100% going to hell for the death of hundreds of thousands of people. You couldn’t write it
@@AI_LIENS extraordinary. Sociopathic mentality.
Fascism is a specific political ideology first practised by Mussolini. Its definition has no value connotation and should not be used as a pejorative slur. It has specific criteria and conditions that need to be necessarily and sufficiently present in order for a person, group or state to be considered fascist. And even then, it is not significant necessarily because of its negative connotations, which are contingent interpretations of its implications on liberal democracy. Just because someone may seem to be threatening liberal democracy in their political behaviour does not merit them this label if they are not satisfying all other necessary and sufficient criteria. The label should be indifferent to the connotations or value judgement. The negative connotations of fascism are irrelevant to the definition