Credit to the Los Angeles Times & David Horsey

A political presentation given at a meeting of the Queens, NYC branch of the International Socialist Organization on what fascism is, how it manifests in the US and how the Left can fight it.

The American public should get ready to witness a sharp rise of hate crimes and bigotry in the country now that Trump is President. He hasn’t even started his first (and we hope, only) term and New York City alone has experienced a 32% rise in hate crimes this year when compared to 2015.

As organizers for social change and revolutionary socialists, being clear on where this hate is coming from and what dynamics are pushing it forward are crucial to understanding how to fight it, isolate it, and ultimately, destroy it.

And while the Democratic Party establishment is asking the public and their party base to give Trump a chance — in which we should respond “No Chances for Bigots”, the Left outside of the Democratic Party is scrambling to make sense of how Trump won the presidency as well as what the best strategy is for beating back Trump’s agenda.

One of these debates, is whether or not the Left should see Trump as a Fascist or as a harbinger of American Fascism. It’s important to remember that Trump hasn’t substantially introduced anything new to the political discussion that wasn’t already normalized by center left Democrats and center-right/right wing Republicans over the last couple of decades.

For example, Trump’s statement that Mexicans are rapists can only be tolerated by a public whose mainstream politicians has campaigned on the vilification and deportation of millions of immigrants. Employing the framework of “illegal” immigrants, these mainstream politicians have justified an altogether separate set of rights and penalties, including deportation, for an historically oppressed section of the people in this country.

But to understand Fascism, we have to make sense of where its support is coming from, how it’s manifesting politically, and even what the current state of the Far Right movements are as well as the dynamics and contradictions we see within them.

To quote Trotsky, who developed a theoretical understanding of Fascism as it developed in the 1930's, “to insist that Fascism is already here, or to deny the very possibility of its coming to power, amounts politically to one and the same thing. By ignoring the specific nature of fascism, the will to fight against it inevitably becomes paralyzed.”

In the spirit of Trotsky’s words, we need to understand the Marxist definition of Fascism, in contrast to theories of Fascism put forward by liberal academics as well as what the current state of the Far Right is in the US and how we can fight it. In the process, it will become evident that current manifestations of Fascism reflect the changes society has gone through since the 1930’s and 1940’s.

What is Fascism?

So how is Fascism defined in the mainstream?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of Fascism is described as so:

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

This definition points to some typical political forms we see in Fascist governments — “forcible suppression of opposition” — as well as references to typical Fascist rhetoric — “extreme nationalism and racism”. But this definition is largely focused on what Fascism looks like when in power. We see nothing in the definition on what conditions give rise to Fascism, how it achieves power, nor what its origins are.

This is typical of liberal definitions of Fascism because liberal political frameworks fails to understand how Fascism can come into being, let alone into power, in a liberal democratic society. Often times it attempts to paint Fascism as something alien to liberal society altogether.

In contrast to liberal theories, Marxist theories of Fascism understand it as a reactionary ideology rooted in capitalist society. And here I mean reactionary not as “reactive” or in contrast to passivity — I mean reactionary in contrast to revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movement where somebody who is a reactionary is seeking to further entrench traditional social ideas and prejudices in society — a sort of harkening back to a better time where order and rigid social norms prevailed.

Marxists identify Fascism as a combination of a reactionary ideology combined with a mass street movement that is largely rooted in the middle class.

As David Renton wrote in his article, After Fascism, What?, Fascism’s specific form is less important than the fact that it’s a reactionary politics backed by a mass movement interested in state power and the total imposition of its ideology on society.

What this means is that those who practice a Fascist type of politics may not openly identify in the typical and historical forms or rhetoric of classical Fascism.

Classical Fascism, the Fascism of Hitler and the Nazi Party as well as Mussolini and Franco, was the most developed form of Fascism in power and the one that occupies the imagination of most people who hear or utter the word Fascism. Classical Fascism, along with the various different forms of Fascist politics, came to power in large part due to the support the middle classes gave it.

Further context is necessary to explain why the middle class of various countries flirted with Fascism.

As Marxists have argued since Marx himself, the middle class, known as the petit-bourgeois in Marxist terminology, finds itself straddled between the two major classes in capitalist society.

At the top sits the Bourgeoisie, a minority class, who own the means of production (factories, buildings, corporations, and who typically wields state power) and who exploit the majority class, the working class, to make profits for themselves at the expense of working people’s labor, time and energy.

Because of this in-between position of the middle class, it is incapable of forming a distinct vision for society, one that isn’t capitalism or socialism. Historically, the middle class is constantly pushed and pulled between the interests and aspiration of these two classes.

The upper sections of the middle class share aspirations with the bourgeoisie and tends to identify with their interests whereas the lower sections of the middle class share their conditions and work in close proximity with working people. The Bourgeoisie treats the middle class with contempt, as a competitor, who is constantly being thrown back into the ranks of the working class every time small business owners lose the competition with big capitalist interest.

This is why large sections of the middle class, in periods of upheaval where an organized and revolutionary working class has been effective at putting forward an alternative to capitalism, can be won over to the vision and leadership of a socialist working class rule.

But in times of social and economic crises, reaction can also grip the middle class where it can develop forms of a reactionary political ideology and street movement that talks anti-establishment within the framework of returning society to its “greatness that it once had” in the near past. What a middle class in power ends up doing though is smashing resistance to the capitalist status quo, often times, at the behest of the bourgeoisie.

These dynamics were present in Mussolini and Hitler’s rise to power where the German and Italian Bourgeoisie were willing to bankroll and reluctantly support the Fascist movement in order to destroy the powerful worker’s movement that had arisen in the wake of revolutionary upheavals in Germany and Italy, with socialist revolution in Russia on the other side of the German border.

At the time, capitalism seemed to be on the brink of collapse as World War 1 wrought incredible social destruction that paved the way for a massive shift of political consciousness for millions of working people.

A decade after World War 1, large sections of European society, especially those on the losing side of the great war, found itself in economic crises and paralyzing political polarization. Large sections of workers felt that capitalism was on the brink of collapse but without socialist and communist parties capable of decisively ending capitalist rule and with capitalist forces too weak and too scared to smash anti-capitalist resistance, fearful of antagonizing workers back on the political offensive, society was stuck in an insufferable impasse that weighed heavy on people.

It was this situation of political paralysis in the face of economic crises that Fascists were able to cohere a mass movement composed of middle class supporters tired of the social impasse and fearful of what socialist revolution could mean for them. Fascists also appealed to the disenfranchised and demoralized elements of the working class who never felt any connection to the traditional working class institutions or who didn’t trust the political leadership of the worker’s parties.

In the period before Fascists came to power, Nazi street thugs, known as the “Brownshirts”, marched in working class districts in the hundreds of thousands while thousands of Italian Fascist squadrons traveled across Italy smashing worker’s trade unions, political organizations and other left wing institutions through mass violence and intimidation.

Playing off the prejudices of European societies, the Fascists used anti-Semitism and extreme nationalism to build their presence, promising salvation to various sections of society, while focusing most of their threats and ire on Marxism/Social Democracy, promising to destroy it as the greatest threat to capitalist society and Fascist’s state project.

Once in power, the Fascists sought to atomize the working class, by smashing democratic institutions and any chance of resistance. Fascists in power rightfully feared the working class’s dynamic capacity to overthrow it and did what they could to break working class consciousness and the collective solidarity that had been built by the worker’s movement and their political parties over two generations.

The Fascists were able to accomplish this by creating Fascist institutions of the state that penetrated into every aspect of social life. This presence created a distrust between people who feared the Fascist police and their ability to disappear them to a concentration camp or death.

To reiterate and underscore what Fascism is, as laid out in Donny Gluckstein’s book, Nazis, Capitalism and the Working Class :

1) Fascism isn’t some “third way” out of the socialism vs. capitalism struggle. Its ideas are a grotesque expression of capitalist ideology, with its elitism and contempt for ordinary human beings.

2) It works within the context of capitalism to preserve, by the most brutal methods, the dominance of the system and to secure it from internal threats.

3) Fascism is not a ruling class conspiracy. It seeks to create a mass movement out of the misery and despair that capitalism engenders, directing that energy down paths harmless to the ruling class.

4) Fascists have used democratic structures in order to build up support but unlike other parties, its fundamental purpose is to destroy any form of democracy which is why it cannot be treated like any other democratic parties. There must be no platform for Fascists.

Fascism in the US

Now that Fascism has been thoroughly defined as well as how it came to power, where Fascist ideology finds social support and what its aims are, we can investigate the state of Fascism in the US.

Before that, it would serve to help our understanding of Fascism by parsing out two related but distinct questions and their corresponding answer.

- One — is Trump a Fascist?

- Two — Is Fascism on the rise in the US?

Is Trump a Fascist?

If we were to look at the criteria of Fascist movements of the past or what are to be considered generalizations of Fascist movements across the country, the claim that Trump is a Fascist just doesn’t hold.

Trump doesn’t command a mass street movement of reactionary thugs nor is he leading some sort of independent Fascist political party bent on destroying democratic institutions. Trump doesn’t make speeches where he demands obedience from the public nor does he make promises to smash Marxism.

And while there is an element of middle class support for Trump, more of the middle class either voted for Clinton or chose not to vote at all. Lastly, Trump offers no real coherent vision or alternative for society as his talking points stumbles between the entrenched neoliberalism of the mainstream parties and fantasies of conservative protectionism and economic nationalism.

It’s also important to point out that Trump’s electoral victory was in spite of the ruling class’s overwhelming support for Hillary Clinton. Lastly and unfortunately, there is no powerful working class movement that is threatening the social hegemony of the capitalist class.

Rather, Trump’s rise is a reckoning with decades of political gridlock in government, political polarization and all around anger to the neoliberal status quo that has marched on for too long in making profits for certain sections of Capitalists at the expense of nearly everyone else.

What we have witnessed over the past decade is a radicalization in society, uneven in its development, that began in earnest after the economic crises of 2007. With no alternatives on offer from the mainstream parties, millions of people are turning to anti-establishment figures and politics in anger and desperation. The excitement around Sanders and Trump are representative of that sentiment. But with neither mainstream party willing to make drastic changes, the ground is fertile for further radicalization. What direction this radicalization takes is dependent on which class is victorious in the coming social struggles and what type of political organizations arise in the course of said struggles.

Again, there are elements in Trump’s election where we can find some parallels to previous Fascist movements. For example, Trump saw marked support from the middle class, police and military leadership. Trump at times showed visible contempt for democratic convention and mainstream rhetoric.

But Fascism isn’t just any extreme right-wing position. Rather, it is a complex phenomenon that is qualitatively different from any single manifestation of reactionary politics. And we’re still quite far from a major Fascist movement that finds significant support from the American public.

Is Fascism on the rise in the US?

However, a question may present itself to us — how far are we from a strong Fascist movement?

Without a doubt, there have been tiny Fascist groups in the US since before Trump and there definitely will be after Trump. Many of these Fascist organizations have been emboldened by Trump’s presidency and are more confident now about their prospects of moving out of the margins of mainstream society and into its center.

One of the latest developments on the Far Right, is the rise of what is being called the Alt-Right which recently has garnered extensive coverage from the mainstream media. This is not to suggest some sort of conspiracy as the mainstream media’s interests are less about promoting Fascism and more about selling ad space and making money through sensationalized and “click-bait” articles.

But who are the Alt-Right and what relation does it have to the more traditional manifestations and small forces of the American Far Right? What does the Alt-Right’s ascendancy mean about the development of American Fascism?

According to an insightful and well researched article written for an anarchist anti-fascist website, Its Going Down, the Alt-Right is, at this point, largely “a collection of ideological tendencies, groups, websites, podcasts, think tanks, internet culture and talking heads that have created a new breed of white supremacist within the millennial generation”.

It’s origins have more to do with the white reactionary push back to the Ferguson Insurrection, Black Lives Matter movement, Feminism, Transgender movement than it does with Trump’s campaign for President.

The Alt-Right “is much more dangerous than a reserve twitter of angry men posting memes of Pepe the Frog wearing red Trump hats while harassing women and people of color from the safety of their mom’s basement. It was and is a growing collection of people, that while currently acting as an auxiliary force for the Trump regime, is poised to become, if it continues to evolve, more of a potentially street based and ‘revolutionary’ movement.”

Importantly, the Alt-Right represents a shift in strategy and aesthetic from the traditional forms of Fascist organizations in the US.

Whereas the traditional forms of Fascism in the US look to the past Fascist movements for political strategy and rhetoric, the Alt-Right’s strategy differ with them “on targets of recruitment, base of operation, class positions, aesthetics and rhetoric used, their view on women and homosexuality, as well as political positioning and where the two camps place their energies through action and propaganda”.

Whereas traditional white supremacists look to the disenfranchised elements of the white working class for recruitment and operate in rural areas of the United States, the Alt-Right are actively targeting young upper middle class people in urban and university settings.

Instead of dressing up in all black while donning skinhead haircuts, the Alt-Right dress in suits and rock hipster haircuts.

Instead of concern for threats to white worker’s social status, the Alt-Right is concerned with threats to “whiteness as a social position and caste in the American system”. The Alt-Right also differs politically in seeing women as a “waste of time” for recruitment efforts. One finds many “men’s rights” activists within their ranks.

Clearly, the Alt-Right differs with traditional White supremacist organizations in that it is an elitist movement where many of the Alt-Right members come from “upper-middle class backgrounds many of whom went to private schools, prestigious universities and belonged to upscale fraternities.” In other words, the Alt-Right’s presentation and political strategy is a reflection of modern day neoliberal society and its victims.

Currently, certain sections of the Alt-Right are putting lots of effort into breaking out of the anonymous confines of the internet which ironically is the only place where white supremacists can gather and mingle without fear or confrontation.

So while its presence is found largely on the internet, there are Alt-Right forces that are setting up organizations to break out of it. Here I’m referring to Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and Portland Students for Trump.

But these differences are also divisions on the American Far Right.

In the post Trump victory moment, sections of the Far Right are calling for unity in order to project their forces and grow but these differences within it will make unity difficult to achieve.

Our focus on the difference between the traditional Fascists and the Alt-Right shouldn’t smooth over the divisions within traditional white supremacists as well. These differences have been on the orientation to Trump’s presidency and how much support traditional white supremacists organizations should render to the Trump regime.

But this is to illustrate that the divisions that do exist won’t be overcome anytime soon nor does it point to a clear unity of effort within the American Far Right.

So while there is some cross over between some of the Alt-Right with Trump’s regime, where Trump’s campaign took “talking points, sound bytes and ideas from the Alt-Right” and has chosen a few of the Alt-Right’s role models, like Stephen Bannon, it’s likely that the Alt-Right nor traditional white supremacists will be content with Trump’s eclectic policies and contradictory administration.

As it stands, the American Far Right is still a very marginalized political force who are somewhat visible to the mainstream in their celebration of Trump’s presidency as it represents for them a political opening for their politics and organization.

This is in a way similar, not in politics nor in formation but in exposure to the mainstream, that the socialist Left enjoyed when Sanders was making strides in the Democratic Party primaries. In the post-primary period, Socialist groups have grown modestly but one cannot say that American Socialism is experiencing a sharp nor quick ascension into mainstream consciousness and neither is Fascism.

Nonetheless, both sections of the American Far Right are growing, just not as quickly as those who call Trump a Fascist make it out to seem it is. We can thank a broken political system and the elites who maintain it and who will continue to do so providing that no oppositional forces pose any challenge to it.

But neither is the American Far Right growing using the same rhetoric or outlook that classical Fascism did in the 1930’s and 1940’s because of the changes the world, the capitalist system and relationships between classes has gone through since then.

How do we fight Fascism?

It is again worth repeating that understanding the specific nature of the American Far Right is important in fighting it because outdated rhetoric or a misunderstanding of the aims and goals of the Fascists make it easier for us to underestimate their strategy and make incorrect arguments when debating them or people pulled by their worldview.

When the German social democrats and communists faced Hitler, they underestimated Fascism in a number of ways.

Social Democrats believed that the Nazis could be beaten back through the accepted channels of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarianism. Fearful that mobilizing workers against Fascism could bring back a workers movement that they couldn’t control, the Social Democrats relied on a strategy that would be non-existent once the Nazis smashed all democratic institutions.

The Social Democrats also believed that the ruling class would never back the Nazis and were stunned stupid and caught flat footed when the German Bourgeoisie did.

The German Communists, on the other hand, treated Fascism as just another passing form of capitalist reaction and not as a thoroughgoing threat to democracy. Believing that Nazism was a momentary reaction, one that would soon pass, the Communists treated the Nazis and Social Democrats as opposite sides of the same coin under the notion that a revolutionary upheaval and “Soviet Germany” were right around the corner once German society had seen the true face of Nazism in power.

Both party leaderships refused to engage in united fronts against the Nazis and only called for united front efforts and mass mobilizations once the Nazis came to power.

However it was too late as the German working class had been too demoralized and confused by the stupid maneuverings and political perspectives of both parties. While the social democrats slunk back into the shadows of German society once the Nazis took power, German communists waged a full frontal struggle against the Nazis, losing thousands of their experienced cadre to murderous repression and concentration camps.

Socialists and radicals have to understand that while they call for united front formations with liberals, social democrats and revolutionaries, in an effort to strike together against Trumpism and the Right wing while marching separately — they must remember that they cannot downplay the necessity of breaking people away from the very status quo that paved the way for Trumpism.

The Democratic Party leadership and erstwhile liberals will follow a similar strategy of the German Social Democrats, that of adhering to the accepted channels of making social change, i,e, voting for a Democrat politician. They’ll do this while speaking even less about the nature of the American Far Right and its origins in capitalist social crises than the German Social Democrats did in their time. Democratic Party politicians will do this to avoid being held responsible for the policies they are their Republican colleagues put in place that created this economic and political crises to begin with.

If, in our struggles to form united fronts with reformist forces, we downplay the need to break people away from Liberal politics and strategy, we risk the danger of the lesser evil strategy of centrist Democrats allowing for even greater Right Wing reaction in the near future. We can see this unfolding in front of our eyes through their irresponsible normalizations of Trump’s politics.

This is to say that although we need to fight the Right, we must also build the Left in the same process, through engagement and solidarity with the various social movements of the oppressed such as the immigrant rights movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, the rising women’s rights movement and of course, the rank and file labor movement.

Importantly, we need to build up our own socialist forces and present the vision of a socialist alternative with confidence and without shame.

Whereas in the past, the two options for humanity stood between Liberal Capitalist society and a distorted form of “Communism”, in our time, the options posed now are between the decrepit welfare state of a rightward shifting center Left or a technocratic neoliberal state that may welcome the rise of right wing reaction.

Only the demand for a socialist society by the broad masses, led by the revolutionary and organized working class, can humanity once and for all end capitalism, the social and economic crises it creates and the forces of reaction it uses, even when it’s willing to sacrifice its political rule, to maintain and continue its economic domination of society.

Now, more than ever, there is a need to raise a different alternative to the two dead ends humanity is offered. With political, economic and ecological crises lapping at the edges of our possible future, the failure to systematically put forward a socialist alternative in collaboration with broad social forces that can measure up to the challenges, we risk a barbarism that humanity as we know it may not be able to overcome.