I think there's kind of a misunderstanding of fascism baked into this analysis. America is already a fascist country. It is genocidal, racist, imperialist, martial, anti-communist, patriarchal, has a hyper religious section of the population, a semi-theocratic government, it puts millions of people into prisons, etc. The slim veneer of democracy we have doesn't meaningfully separate us from fascism.
We all go along with the fascism unless you cook up a definition of anti-fascism that you fit into. The funny thing is that there are a lot of people opposed to this fascism, probably even a majority. The problem is that they'll never actually do anything to combat it. Most of the fascists will never actually do anything either. Americans have been so neutered of any political power we simply exist like specks if dust floating around at the whim of the currents. Whether we agree with them or not is largely meaningless.
I don't think there's necessarily been a growth in fascist activity either. I live in the north but the Klan was active up here for most of the twentieth century. Birchers were all over the place. The Tea Party rose up after them. Those right wing nuts out in the Northwest are the descendants of ten generations of right wing nuts, and the same for their comrades all over the country. Polite society was forced to acknowledge the fascism baked into our reality because of the progress that has been made on social issues, not because it has grown. It's like the 2020 protests didn't happen because of some uptick in police killings, they were because those killings were always happening.
When you make this assertion you end up needing to talk about different levels of fascism. Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, and then the Big Three: they're not all exactly in the same category, and not the same as what we have in the US now.
It behooves us to have a rigorous definition of what fascism looks like, connected to a rigorous definition of who fascists are.
I've opted for defining fascism as the petty bourgeois policies that the big bourgeois are comfortable with. Fascism manifests itself differently depending on the material conditions of the time and country so this is definition is general enough while also being clear to anyone with a basic grasp of Marxism. It also covers left-fascism (reactionary social democracy).
Congratulations, you have a definition of fascism that includes the majority of present governments on earth. Do you have any subcategories to separate them from the Third Reich, or are you just fueling the "everything far enough from my position is fascism" allegation?
Like I said, how fascism manifests depends on the material conditions of the place and time. There are some versions that are more violent no doubt, but all of them can and will be as deadly as Nazi Germany if it serves capital. As a Marxist I say that the bourgeoisie are the enemy and fascism is the poison they inflict on us all.
It is worth noting that the US and Western Europe, both the inspirations for fascism and the crevices it was forced back into by the Soviet Union, are now the center of the world system. Their rehabilitation and reintegration of fascists into society is well documented. Their meddling in foreign governments to establish puppet states is well documented. The complete disregard that they and their puppet states have for human life is abundantly clear. Is it that absurd to call the majority of states fascist when they are so clearly controlled by countries that were so intimate with fascism? What could be more fascist than being told that millions of people will die if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions, having the power to do so, and then choosing to exacerbate the problem by increasing greenhouse gas production? This is exactly what most of these countries are doing at the behest of their financiers in Europe and the US.
I would say that it's more useful to have an umbrella term of "reactionary" that encompasses pro-bourgeois policies, and includes fascism as a specific subset.
It is genocidal, racist, imperialist, martial, anti-communist, patriarchal, has a hyper religious section of the population, a semi-theocratic government,
you could say all this about Spain in the years before the civil war--many things about the imperial nations are fascistic, unjust, and awful, but that doesn't mean they can't get more fascist or transition to an acknowledged and outwardly anti-democratic dictatorship.
growth in fascist activity is expected by the acceleration of climate crisis & deepening crises of capitalism and US hegemony. the right now evidence is less charlottesville rallies but immigration policy & ICE concentration camps. the purpose of this exercize is shooting into the dark on how the next decades are going to look as things will get worse and the left & far-right necessarily rise to compete with one another
I think there's kind of a misunderstanding of fascism baked into this analysis. America is already a fascist country. It is genocidal, racist, imperialist, martial, anti-communist, patriarchal, has a hyper religious section of the population, a semi-theocratic government, it puts millions of people into prisons, etc. The slim veneer of democracy we have doesn't meaningfully separate us from fascism.
We all go along with the fascism unless you cook up a definition of anti-fascism that you fit into. The funny thing is that there are a lot of people opposed to this fascism, probably even a majority. The problem is that they'll never actually do anything to combat it. Most of the fascists will never actually do anything either. Americans have been so neutered of any political power we simply exist like specks if dust floating around at the whim of the currents. Whether we agree with them or not is largely meaningless.
I don't think there's necessarily been a growth in fascist activity either. I live in the north but the Klan was active up here for most of the twentieth century. Birchers were all over the place. The Tea Party rose up after them. Those right wing nuts out in the Northwest are the descendants of ten generations of right wing nuts, and the same for their comrades all over the country. Polite society was forced to acknowledge the fascism baked into our reality because of the progress that has been made on social issues, not because it has grown. It's like the 2020 protests didn't happen because of some uptick in police killings, they were because those killings were always happening.
When you make this assertion you end up needing to talk about different levels of fascism. Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, and then the Big Three: they're not all exactly in the same category, and not the same as what we have in the US now.
It behooves us to have a rigorous definition of what fascism looks like, connected to a rigorous definition of who fascists are.
The Big Three: Hitler, Mussolini, and a dang cheeto in the White House.
I've opted for defining fascism as the petty bourgeois policies that the big bourgeois are comfortable with. Fascism manifests itself differently depending on the material conditions of the time and country so this is definition is general enough while also being clear to anyone with a basic grasp of Marxism. It also covers left-fascism (reactionary social democracy).
Congratulations, you have a definition of fascism that includes the majority of present governments on earth. Do you have any subcategories to separate them from the Third Reich, or are you just fueling the "everything far enough from my position is fascism" allegation?
Like I said, how fascism manifests depends on the material conditions of the place and time. There are some versions that are more violent no doubt, but all of them can and will be as deadly as Nazi Germany if it serves capital. As a Marxist I say that the bourgeoisie are the enemy and fascism is the poison they inflict on us all.
It is worth noting that the US and Western Europe, both the inspirations for fascism and the crevices it was forced back into by the Soviet Union, are now the center of the world system. Their rehabilitation and reintegration of fascists into society is well documented. Their meddling in foreign governments to establish puppet states is well documented. The complete disregard that they and their puppet states have for human life is abundantly clear. Is it that absurd to call the majority of states fascist when they are so clearly controlled by countries that were so intimate with fascism? What could be more fascist than being told that millions of people will die if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions, having the power to do so, and then choosing to exacerbate the problem by increasing greenhouse gas production? This is exactly what most of these countries are doing at the behest of their financiers in Europe and the US.
I would say that it's more useful to have an umbrella term of "reactionary" that encompasses pro-bourgeois policies, and includes fascism as a specific subset.
who? Mussolini, Hitler, and ?
Hirohito, although that government doesn't quite fit the mold of the others.
Anti-fascism is when you're me and the more me you are, the more conventionally attractive you are.
you could say all this about Spain in the years before the civil war--many things about the imperial nations are fascistic, unjust, and awful, but that doesn't mean they can't get more fascist or transition to an acknowledged and outwardly anti-democratic dictatorship.
growth in fascist activity is expected by the acceleration of climate crisis & deepening crises of capitalism and US hegemony. the right now evidence is less charlottesville rallies but immigration policy & ICE concentration camps. the purpose of this exercize is shooting into the dark on how the next decades are going to look as things will get worse and the left & far-right necessarily rise to compete with one another