Thread by @An_Koer

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman Thanks. I have pondered this. It is again about binary thinking in asking historical questions. This is not to say that such questions are irrelevant, insignificant or futile? All these argumentations (not only the indivdual article by Evans linked here, but also all the .../2

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 1/... it reacts to; and, e.g., also the discussion on 'how to' assess and remember the German Kaiserreich of the last days) are very necessary in that they interrelate phenomena. Done prudently (and many of them, even disagreeing with each other, are), they help to sharpen .../3

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 2/... our perception, categorization, etc. What I think is problematic is the concrete form of a binary. Is someone X (or not), was sth Y (or not). Whatever even a diffentiated conclusion will be, it will override the differentiation and effectively negate the (presumed) .../4

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 3/ Surely, Evans is not say that there are no similarities whatsoever, and surely, whoever call him fascist does not want to negate any differences at all. So what do we gain by addressing these questions of comparing in this binary, far-reaching, quasi apodictic way? What .../5

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 4/... What difference would it make not to ask _whether_ Trup IS a fascist, but _in how far_ or _in what respect_ his actions, policies and politics and personality are commensurable to fascism and in how far they are different?
This would not only allow for differentiation, ../6

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 5/... but it would also reinstate the historical dimension. To ask in a binary way implies that there was sth as a prototypical fascism across times and cultures with no changes and adaptions. In that case correct identification of differences between _historical fascism_ .../7

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 6/... and some recent phenomenon would amount to acquittal: "No, it's sth else". But that is not what Evans and those criticising the usage of that term (or rather concept) want to imply.
On the other hand: if such a strict criterial comparison leads to a positive .../8

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 7/... identification of the present phenomenon with the historical one, it would deflect our gaze from possibly equally dangerous or criminal politics.

So we need to account for change in such phenomena, also. In doing so, we might suggest that what we agree to subsume .../9

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 8/... under a categorie is not fixed, but new conditions add to both the phenomenon and our knowledge of it. SO it may well be that what Trump or Bolsonaro or AFD politics are to be co-categorised with historical fascism and Nazi politics (on a certain degree of .../10

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 9/... resolution), but then the comparison with criteria derived only from one historical example is limited, also. Again, the question to be asked is not "whether or not" by likeness, but "in what way" and to what degree is it equal, in what way does it add to our .../11

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 10/... perception of functional equivalences and variabilty, etc.
So I am neither into saying Trump and/or his politics IS fascist nor into saying it isn't (in any way), but rather into asking what are similarities, wjat is different, and in how far do the differences lead .../12

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 11/... us to able to say "all clear"?
This holds true already in cases of synchronic or systematic comparison. If the question at hand is historical, the answers need to account for changes both in circumstances of the recent phenomenon and of our categories.
This .../13

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 12/... provides for a third caveat against the question: it is phrased in the present tense. It may well be that we change our perception through time. Not only because the recent phenomenon can only be fully assessed in retrospect, but also because our scope of experiences ../14

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman 13/... with the categories changes.

That said, each of the articles within this debate is totally legit, but it is the BODY of the debate, the different perspectives and arguments which need to be interrelated.

@s_lvesque @ArthurJChapman @threadreaderapp unroll