25. What’s There to Love About Fascism?

Fascism, in case you haven’t seen or heard, is on the rise in the West. In Europe, far-right parties have been making headway in governments throughout Europe. Most recently, tensions have been ratcheted up by a wave of Muslim refugees flooding in from the Middle East (which is ultimately a result of Western machinations throughout the region). In the United States, Fascism has a name: Donald Trump. Trump’s presidential campaign has been a deluge of misogynist, racist, reactionary verbal diarrhea, and has elicited a frightening degree of approval from amongst a significant portion of the American working class.

What gives? As anarchists, we love to hate fascists. And for good reason. But why, despite all the problems of late-Capitalism, does fascism and reactionary ideology continue to make headway? How is that despite all the problems of capitalism, most people in the working class continue to violently and militantly call for more capitalism? How do these fascists do it?

Like it or not, anarchists and fascists are more similar than we would want to admit. What’s more, there’s a lot that we, as anarchists can learn from fascism, and use it to our own advantage. If we are to defeat the enemy, we must understand the enemy, and learn from the enemy. Most importantly, we must steal from the enemy and use what works. So let’s begin.

Among anarchists and fascists alike there is a certain recognition that the world is a dynamic, rather than a static place. In other words, society is ever changing, and this change is the only constant.

In this sense, those of us in society who recognize the reality of this dynamic, ever shifting, ever expanding flow of society, can be understood in two categories: reactionary and revolutionary. The reactionary sees the flow of society as a fundamentally degenerative one, and calls for a radical social movement (fascism) to halt this degeneration and to restore the society to its former (mythological) glory. The revolutionary, if she is wise, does not see the fundamental flow of society as inherently, or necessarily, one of progress. Rather, in a way that is fundamentally different from a reactionary, the revolutionary sees in this inherent dynamic social flow the potential for the betterment of society. In other words, for the revolutionary, it’s the old adage that “another world is possible.” And so the revolutionary sees this flow as containing the seed for a better world, waiting to be sown through a new social movement (revolution) and seeking a future (utopian) glory.

So what’s the difference between these two? Two understand the differences, I think it’s important to first understand the similarities. Firstly, both anarchists and fascists tend to be people situated on the fringes of society. Perhaps “fringe” is a poor choice of words, as it implies ideological weakness or defectiveness, and most anarchists and fascists are anything but. Perhaps it is better to say that both anarchists and fascists operate on the outer, leading edges of society. Usually people in both of these parties have been forced to recognize the dynamic nature of society because of life experience (usually negative). Hence, the comfortable illusions of staticity held by those in the “soft” middle are untenable, unsustainable, and unconscious. Each party possesses, to some degree, a “wake up sheeple!” attitude towards the status quo. There are a myriad other similarities as well, and these are primarily aesthetic.

So the question of differences ultimately comes down to the ideology, or narrative held and espoused by fascists and anarchists. And the power of this ideological narrative can be boiled down to the two primal forces that operate in the universe (or at least in the human psyche): fear or love. Like oil and water, these two forces are antagonistic, and cannot be present within each other. Keep in mind that when I say “fear”, I am not talking about “caution” or “mindfulness”. Caution says “Be careful not to touch the hot stove” while fear of a hot stove would prevent somebody from using it at all. Do you see the difference? In the same way, “love” should not be confused with attachment, sentiment, or desire. “Love”, in the cosmic sense is a fundamental desire for the well-being of others (both human and non-human), and can only really be understood or utilized when one understands the fundamental unity of nature and hence, society (which is just another way of saying “our relationships with others”). Love is different from desire, sentiment, or attachment in that it is fundamentally non-attached. Desire and sentiment would say: “Don’t ever leave me”, Love says, “I want what’s best for you no matter what, and only because I understand that what’s best for you is what’s best for me too.” Fear, not hate, is the opposite of love.

And so it is that almost every dynamic in the human cosmos can be boiled down to these two forces. All of our actions, thoughts and desires are rooted in these two forces. And where there is fear in our hearts, there can be no room for love.

Hence, the fundamental flaw with fascism, and the fundamental glory of revolutionary anarchism. Despite our myriad similarities not the least of which is our mutual alienation from “mainstream” everything (as much as it pains me to say that, and I’m sure for you to read it), the vital difference is that you and I, as anarchists, possess a revolutionary ideology based on love, not fear (or its wicked subsidiary: hate). Another difference is that where the mythological “golden age” of the past sought out by the forces of reaction is precisely that, a myth based on ignorance, distorted facts, and fantasy, the better world sought through our revolution of love is very much within our reach (so long as we understand that the “utopia” sought is merely the perpetual guiding light that directs our society forward).

And I suppose here is as good a place as any to point out that our “revolution of love” need not be, indeed cannot be, some soft, new-age hippie-dippie revolution. The revolution won’t be a dinner party, and it won’t be a dance party either (at least not all the time). We should not fool ourselves into thinking that because our hearts and minds are full of love that we shouldn’t be militant, disciplined, and ready to defend ourselves effectively (and violently, if necessary). It is a fantasy to believe, as Hunter S. Thompson had naively believed about the hippies, that “our energy [will] simply prevail.” No, the act of empowerment (spiritually, psychologically, and physically) is the act of love, because it is only through empowerment that we can eradicate fear, and create more love within ourselves and within the world around us.

My point is that this process of empowerment won’t always look like what we think it should. In other words, we shouldn’t get caught up in aesthetics. Fascists aren’t fascists because they tuck their shirts in, comb their hair, and stand in neat looking lines. Fascists aren’t fascists because they hold parades, wave lots of flags, and have symbols and paraphernalia. Let’s face it: Nazi uniforms look cool. Not only that, but the order, discipline, and use of symbols made the Nazis extremely effective in what it was that they were trying to do. The problem was precisely that: what was it they were trying to do? And we all know the bat-shit crazy answer to that question. Again, the reason that Nazi ideology was batshit crazy was because it was rooted in fear and hate, not because they had a special salute and believed they belonged to an ancient race of white-boy warriors.

My point in saying this is that in the future, we as revolutionaries will need to employ some of the tactics traditionally associated with fascism and reaction. Order, (self) discipline, diligence, and a non-compromised attitude towards ideology will be the order-of-the-day if we are to have any chance at actually realizing the new world we all hold in our hearts. But just because fascists eat their vegetables and lift weights, does that make it a bad idea? Just because reactionaries spend their weekends cleaning guns and hanging out with militia buddies doing drills, does that mean there is something inherently fascist about these things?

And that brings me to my final point. And that is that the aesthetics, order, and discipline of Fascism are so appealing to so many primarily because they are effective at constructing a narrative, a mythology. The true power of fascism (particularly in its historical hey-day) was and is that it is extremely effective at telling a story about ourselves. For the Nazis, it was the mythology of the German connection to the ancient Aryan warrior peoples, a fair skinned race who conquered and civilized India through their courage, discipline, and warrior ideology, and from whom the German people were genetic and ideological heirs. Hence, the grand narrative of the Nazi party was that it was a continuation of an ancient White civilizing force on the world. The Japanese fascists of the time held a similar ideology, positing Japan as a divinely protected land of noble warriors, led by the Emperor (who was God-incarnate). They saw themselves as a civilizing force in Asia, hoping to create an “Asia for Asians” as an alternative to the barbaric reign of White colonialism. Amongst American fascists today (both the fringe Neo-nazis and the more mainstream reactionaries of the Christian right), the narrative is quite similar. According to contemporary reactionary ideology, America was a pure, white-man’s land of noble values and ideals, but we have lost our way because we have turned away from our traditional Christian values. Hence, to return to the mythological Golden Age of early America, Americans must purify the country of all liberal, secular values (which are explicitly or implicitly seen as a reflection of non-white, non-Christian ideas).

What’s interesting and important about all of these narratives is that that while they are obviously mythological in the commonly understood since (i.e historically or metaphysically inaccurate), they are also peppered with grains of truth. What’s more, each relies on specific kinds of iconography and rituals to perpetuate their narratives. The point is, the problem with the above narratives isn’t the specific techniques and story-telling. It’s not inherently fascist to believe that one belongs to an ancient, divinely-connected culture. Even the warrior aesthetic itself, as unseemly and unfashionable as it has become (a result of its being connected to fascism) isn’t problematic in and of itself. The problem is that these mythologies were rooted in reaction and fear, rather than love and progress.

The fact is, as human beings, we organize our lives and our societies around narratives. The roots of this have to do with the evolution of human consciousness and the fact that for the vast majority of human history we have been illiterate, and have therefore had to rely on stories and myths to pass along our wisdom, history, and ultimately, understanding of the world. So the term “mythology” is problematic in that it implies that a story is not true (which may or may not be the case). The term mythology is useful because it points to the ways that stories and narratives hold a deep power within the human psyche, both individually and collectively.

The problem with many anarchists, and leftists in general, is that we are afraid to see the world in terms of narrative or mythology. We tend to reject “grand narratives” as relics of a previous, less enlightened age in which reactionaries are still stuck. And while it is true that the Right-wing narratives are, themselves, stuck in a less-enlightened paradigm, the use of mythology in and of itself is not intrinsically fascist or reactionary. In fact, it is a vital and inescapable necessity if we are to have any success at all towards implementing our revolution.

Grand narratives are inescapable. Even the idea that “there are no grand narratives” is itself a Grand narrative. And that’s precisely our problem: we’ve found ourselves stuck in the Postmodern intellectual mud and mire of telling ourselves “there is no grand narrative.” We want to be “enlightened”, so we view the universe from a merely physical point of view, believing that it is a chaotic, meaningless place. We chide those below us for believing in fairy-tales, not realizing that we ourselves are believing in an exceptionally dark, brooding, Rust Cohle fairy-tale of our own.

Perhaps we need to update Pascal’s wager: even if the world is meaningless and chaotic, isn’t it better and more fulfilling to assume that our lives do have some meaning, just in case? Isn’t it possible that in assuming our lives have meaning, we give it meaning? If we ultimately choose what story to tell ourselves, why would we choose one as disempowering and full of despair as the one Postmodern “intellectuals” choose? Rust Cohle may be glamorous or sexy in his own brooding way, he may be an interesting character to watch on TV, but do you really want to be Rust Cohle?

My point in saying all this is that for a revolutionary social movement to be effective, for it to be possible, it is has to give meaning to people’s lives. More accurately, it has to help people become aware of the meaning that is already available to them inherently, but that lies outside the realm of dogmatic religion or mere physical comfort. A true revolution doesn’t give them meaning, it awakens the meaning that is already there.

So moving forward, we will need to find ways to express this grand narrative, the narrative of a deep, empowering, revolutionary love, that as anarchists we have already found within ourselves. But to give life, and action, and embodiment to this love, to be effective and to combat the tide of fear and destruction that threatens to destroy us, we will need to be disciplined, militant, and most importantly make use of the deep power of mythology. This may make us look like fascists, most frighteningly, to ourselves. But we must be wise and ever vigilant, not mistaking appearance for content.

Fascism continues to appeal because, for now, it is better at constructing a mythology that gives meaning to people’s lives. This fear-based mythology is frightening and ugly, but also very powerful. But only in the short term. Ultimately this fear and hatred leads to implosion and self-destruction. The fascists may be good at telling the story, but the story they tell sucks. It’s ugly, boring, and tired, but most importantly it’s not true. And reality and experience have a way of clearing up lies. We, whose hearts are full of love, possess the real story. Let’s not be afraid to tell it.