I need to make a bot to post this any time fascism gets mentioned.
The western left’s use of the term fascism, is borderline white-supremacist at this point. Fascism was a form of colonialism that died by the 1940s, and is only allowed to be demonized in public discourse, because it was a form of colonialism directed also against white europeans. It was defeated, and Germany / Italy / Japan reverted to the more stable form of government for colonialism (practiced by the US, UK, France, the Netherlands, Australia, etc): bourgeois parliamentarism.
British, european, and now US colonizers were doing the exact same thing, and killing far more people for hundreds of years in the global south, yet you don’t hear ppl scared of their countries potentially "adopting parliamentary democracy”. They haven’t changed, and their wealth is still propped up by surplus value theft from the super-exploitation of hundreds of millions of low-paid global south proletarians.
This is why you have new leftists terrified that the UK or US or europe “might turn fascist!!”, betraying that the atrocities propagated by those empires against the global south was and is completely acceptable.
Make no mistake about it: parliamentary / bourgeois democracy is not only a more stable form of government, it’s also far more effective at carrying out colonialism, and killing millions of innocent people.
I get where you’re getting at: the role of past and ongoing colonialism is still being downplayed. But you’re wrong. There are very good reasons why we should fear fascism in particular.
The USA genocided an entire continent under it’s current form of government, and committed and is still committing countless other atrocities. Look at what Europe did to Africa and Asia under that same form.
Bourgeois parliamentarism is a much more stable shell for colonialism than any other form of government has proven to be. Demonizing a dead form of colonialism (fascism) lets them off the hook, and never forces them to look at what their own governments are currently doing. They get to keep their chauvinist / supremacist myth about “liberal democracy” being the superior form of government, without challenging it.
I’d also like to add that hitler was very specific about his desire to emulate the US model of colonialism: and do to eastern europe, what the US had already done to its native peoples.
The only difference between lebensraum and manifest destiny, is that bourgeois democracy was far more effective at indigenous genocide than fascism was.
Yeah, the Nazis weren’t really subtle. If you instead maintain a civil front inward for public support, you can wreak havoc more effectively.
That’s why fascism is a different kind of danger. It wouldn’t leech off of other places for centuries, it would explosively and directly attack internal and external enemies.
Literally just read the list. It’s not ahistorical because it gets history wrong, it’s ahistorical because it has nothing to do with history. It has no ability to explain how and why fascism emerged when it did rather than sooner or later and thereby has very little understanding of what it actually is. It’s like defining a disease by a very loose checklist of symptoms, the fundamental causality is completely absent, so there is very little you can even do with it besides make a shaky diagnosis.
Incidentally, Trump isn’t a fascist. He flirts with being a fascist and in many ways has lit the way [something something tiki torches] for future fascists, but fundamentally, he’s just doing fascist-like rhetoric as a way to sell people on relatively normal neoliberal policy. Probably the most strange thing he did was bomb Qasem Soleimani, something that Democrats didn’t even really oppose on any grounds other than it being rash, despite Soleimani being a leader in the fight against ISIS. If I had to pick a second thing, it was probably lowering military funding to South Korea, which was just him being stupid and accidentally a clearly good thing to do. He’s not harder on immigrants than Democrats, he’s not harder on China or Russia, he’s just a normal rightist wrt to queers, he likes giving tax cuts to rich people, and he’s fussy in diplomatic meetings. He had very few policies that Biden didn’t immediately perpetuate. If you want to call the whole neoliberal edifice fascist, fine, whatever, but he’s not special in anything but aesthetics.
Umberto Eco completely ignores the material basis for fascism, which is usually the downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie. Fascism takes advantage of superstructural elements, which is why Eco’s list contains the elements it does in a kind of grab bag fashion. But it still has a material basis, itself being a response to a crisis within capitalism. Would highly recommend The Jakarta Method for further reading on what people are discussing in your replies and in this thread.
But scapegoating poor whites keeps the conversation away from fascism’s real base: the petite bourgeoisie. This is a piece of jargon used mostly by Marxists to denote small-property owners, whose nearest equivalents these days may be the “upper middle class” or “small-business owners.” FiveThirtyEight reported last May that “the median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000,” or roughly 130 percent of the national median. Trump’s real base, the actual backbone of fascism, isn’t poor and working-class voters, but middle-class and affluent whites. Often self-employed, possessed of a retirement account and a home as a nest egg, this is the stratum taken in by Horatio Alger stories. They can envision playing the market well enough to become the next Trump. They haven’t won “big-league,” but they’ve won enough to be invested in the hierarchy they aspire to climb. If only America were made great again, they could become the haute bourgeoisie—the storied “1 percent.”
Trump isn’t a fascist. In action he is actually a pretty standard reactionary liberal. You will notice that Biden has continued the salient policies that made liberals call him a fascist, such as extreme and horrible border policies (Dems actually outflanked the GOP on this from the right), anti-China policy, and extending militarism (like maximum pressure on Russia via Ukraine).
He’s mostly just openly racist whereas the political class usually wraps itself in polite jargon bullshit before it fucks with a bunch of brown people.
It’s not perfect, but it’s good introductory material for people who fell for the right-wing propaganda of “everybody’s called a fascist now, there isn’t even a definition”.
Yes, suckers, there are people with an understanding of what fascism is, and they agree for a reason about the dangers of things like calling people vermin, casting doubt on election integrity, and strong man rhetoric.
I need to make a bot to post this any time fascism gets mentioned.
The western left’s use of the term fascism, is borderline white-supremacist at this point. Fascism was a form of colonialism that died by the 1940s, and is only allowed to be demonized in public discourse, because it was a form of colonialism directed also against white europeans. It was defeated, and Germany / Italy / Japan reverted to the more stable form of government for colonialism (practiced by the US, UK, France, the Netherlands, Australia, etc): bourgeois parliamentarism.
British, european, and now US colonizers were doing the exact same thing, and killing far more people for hundreds of years in the global south, yet you don’t hear ppl scared of their countries potentially "adopting parliamentary democracy”. They haven’t changed, and their wealth is still propped up by surplus value theft from the super-exploitation of hundreds of millions of low-paid global south proletarians.
This is why you have new leftists terrified that the UK or US or europe “might turn fascist!!”, betraying that the atrocities propagated by those empires against the global south was and is completely acceptable.
Make no mistake about it: parliamentary / bourgeois democracy is not only a more stable form of government, it’s also far more effective at carrying out colonialism, and killing millions of innocent people.
Fascism is a pretty specific ideology. If you want to learn more, Umberto Eco made a list.
I get where you’re getting at: the role of past and ongoing colonialism is still being downplayed. But you’re wrong. There are very good reasons why we should fear fascism in particular.
The USA genocided an entire continent under it’s current form of government, and committed and is still committing countless other atrocities. Look at what Europe did to Africa and Asia under that same form.
Bourgeois parliamentarism is a much more stable shell for colonialism than any other form of government has proven to be. Demonizing a dead form of colonialism (fascism) lets them off the hook, and never forces them to look at what their own governments are currently doing. They get to keep their chauvinist / supremacist myth about “liberal democracy” being the superior form of government, without challenging it.
Yes, that’s why I wrote the part after “I see what you’re getting at”
I’d also like to add that hitler was very specific about his desire to emulate the US model of colonialism: and do to eastern europe, what the US had already done to its native peoples.
The only difference between lebensraum and manifest destiny, is that bourgeois democracy was far more effective at indigenous genocide than fascism was.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-american-dream-hitler-modeled-his-concept-of-racial-struggle-and-global-campaign-after-americas-conquest-of-native-americans.html
Yeah, the Nazis weren’t really subtle. If you instead maintain a civil front inward for public support, you can wreak havoc more effectively.
That’s why fascism is a different kind of danger. It wouldn’t leech off of other places for centuries, it would explosively and directly attack internal and external enemies.
Neither of these things can be risked.
Eco is not a definitive authority and his little checklist is extremely ahistorical.
Source?
Literally just read the list. It’s not ahistorical because it gets history wrong, it’s ahistorical because it has nothing to do with history. It has no ability to explain how and why fascism emerged when it did rather than sooner or later and thereby has very little understanding of what it actually is. It’s like defining a disease by a very loose checklist of symptoms, the fundamental causality is completely absent, so there is very little you can even do with it besides make a shaky diagnosis.
Incidentally, Trump isn’t a fascist. He flirts with being a fascist and in many ways has lit the way [something something tiki torches] for future fascists, but fundamentally, he’s just doing fascist-like rhetoric as a way to sell people on relatively normal neoliberal policy. Probably the most strange thing he did was bomb Qasem Soleimani, something that Democrats didn’t even really oppose on any grounds other than it being rash, despite Soleimani being a leader in the fight against ISIS. If I had to pick a second thing, it was probably lowering military funding to South Korea, which was just him being stupid and accidentally a clearly good thing to do. He’s not harder on immigrants than Democrats, he’s not harder on China or Russia, he’s just a normal rightist wrt to queers, he likes giving tax cuts to rich people, and he’s fussy in diplomatic meetings. He had very few policies that Biden didn’t immediately perpetuate. If you want to call the whole neoliberal edifice fascist, fine, whatever, but he’s not special in anything but aesthetics.
Umberto Eco completely ignores the material basis for fascism, which is usually the downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie. Fascism takes advantage of superstructural elements, which is why Eco’s list contains the elements it does in a kind of grab bag fashion. But it still has a material basis, itself being a response to a crisis within capitalism. Would highly recommend The Jakarta Method for further reading on what people are discussing in your replies and in this thread.
The Nation, 2017: Trumpism: It’s Coming From the Suburbs
another good read on the subject https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Funny how Trump is a fascist no matter what definition you use.
Trump isn’t a fascist. In action he is actually a pretty standard reactionary liberal. You will notice that Biden has continued the salient policies that made liberals call him a fascist, such as extreme and horrible border policies (Dems actually outflanked the GOP on this from the right), anti-China policy, and extending militarism (like maximum pressure on Russia via Ukraine).
He’s mostly just openly racist whereas the political class usually wraps itself in polite jargon bullshit before it fucks with a bunch of brown people.
Almost as if he is one and the definitions agree for a reason.
It’s not perfect, but it’s good introductory material for people who fell for the right-wing propaganda of “everybody’s called a fascist now, there isn’t even a definition”.
Yes, suckers, there are people with an understanding of what fascism is, and they agree for a reason about the dangers of things like calling people vermin, casting doubt on election integrity, and strong man rhetoric.
A much better read on how fascism inevitably arises out of liberal capitalism https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/