I tend to conflate totalitarianism and fascism, and I suppose it is because the two can overlap so readily. The subjugation of a diverse group of people to a simplified or abstract idea/governor as I understand totalitarianism is conducive to the ideas of struggle and group identity as in fascism - and vice versa.
Crimethinc has published a reading of Trump as a fascist, to which they answer: "There is, in fact, nothing fascist about Trump."
www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/trump/,
Here's their analysis:
QUOTE
"Fascism is not just any extreme right-wing position. It is a complex phenomenon that mobilizes a popular movement under the hierarchical direction of a political party and cultivates parallel loyalty structures in the police and military, to conquer power either through democratic or military means; subsequently abolishes electoral procedures to guarantee a single party continuity; creates a new social contract with the domestic working class, on the one hand ushering in a higher standard of living than what could be achieved under liberal capitalism and on the other hand protecting the capitalists with a new social peace; and eliminates the internal enemies whom it had blamed for the destabilization of the prior regime.
Trump showed contempt for democratic convention by threatening to intimidate voters and hinting that he might not concede a lost election, but his model of conservatism in no way abolishes the mechanisms that are fundamental to democracy. In another four years, we’ll be subjected to the electoral circus all over again. Trump did appeal especially to cops and border guards, but in no way began inducting the police into a para-state organization designed to cement his hold on power. He gave shout-outs to the militia movement and tickled the fancy of the Ku Klux Klan, but has done nothing to centralize those groups into a paramilitary force under his command. He promised a new deal for the working class, but will not even take the first steps towards instituting it, and whatever his intentions he will prove utterly unable to reward the owning class with social peace. He will make life harder for those he identifies as the enemies of society (Muslims and immigrants, especially), but he will not eliminate them."
It appears fascism here is described as a passing phenomenon - a strategy perhaps- by which one group can gain total power over an existing (necessarily democratic?) system. So rather than being a sort of permanent state of (collective) mind, as Eco tried to analyse it, the Crimethinc analysis identifies a set of tactics as defining characteristics to the fascist strategy.
I find this an interesting line of thought, as it brings the analysis down from some complex set of philosophies, which are hard to identify in any group or individual, to the utilisation of some fairly specific modes of action. Those tend to be less ambiguous. And, if fascism can be thought of as a strategy for power, it helps to untie its concepts from those of totalitarianism, though that fractures Eco's list.
The article above hence does not agree with alernet's identification of Trump as a fascist, and instead places him in a history of white supremacists (before moving on to a system-wide rejection of the status quo). Though I suspect it is too soon to rule out that he will prove to be a fascist, even using the crimethinc pointers. Maybe the disadvantage of using an identifier on the basis of past actions is that your analysis will always be one step after the facts at the earliest.
