💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-confronting-the-nucleus.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:36:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Confronting the Nucleus
Author: Joshua Curiel
Date: May 1st, 2018
Language: en
Topics: Fascism, anti-fascism, capitalism, fascist, anti-fascist, neo-liberalism

Joshua Curiel

Confronting the Nucleus

Introduction

I’ve written this analysis as an introduction to the structural and

social politics of fascism and anti-fascism. This text is meant to

examine mechanisms of the fascist ideology not often touched on in

popular media discourse, while also examining possibilities for

confronting the fascist influence in our political and economic system.

Usually, a vague and misrepresented description of fascism accompanies

popular media analyses on the rise of fascism in the United States.

Everyone knows Fascism is dangerous and to be stopped at all costs, few

know how to identify it when it’s revealed to them. Since this is the

case, we must find an accurate description of fascism before we can

begin this analysis.

If you get your politics from conservative leaning media, the narrative

is often that the defining “fascistic” attribute is “violent suppression

of political opponents and free speech”. Therefore, you will understand

fascism as, generally, illegitimate political aggression. This

definition is extremely similar to the tactical implications of defining

“terrorism” as an outside phenomenon, dissolving all nuance and

complicity. This definition used to define fascism ignores all

structural and ideological mechanisms of fascism while also leaving room

to excuse it for “legitimacy”.

If you get your politics from more progressive leaning media, the

definition is “authoritarian nationalism and the destruction of

democratic institutions”. This is a bit more coherent, but it’s

fundamentally inadequate and almost indistinguishable from

neo-liberalism. This shows that the economic engine of fascism is being

outright ignored by progressive media, leaving fascism misunderstood and

covered in a mask of cognitive dissonance.

The fundamental difference between neo-liberalism and fascism is the

interest being served by the private institutions. If the private

institutions operate for the interest of the capitalists, we have

neo-liberalism. If the private institutions operate for the interest of

the nation-state, we have fascism. Within this context, fascism can more

accurately be described a tool of the state to manage the economic

system for it’s own supremacy. By fault of the dangerously expansive

nature of private interest, fascism can also be described as a defensive

mechanism for our modern capitalist market economy.

In the Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini describes this transfer of the

“Liberal State” to the “Fascist state”:

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its

character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an

absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are

relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The

conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force,

guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a

collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording

results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and

has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic"

State."

This relationship between the capitalist market economy is fundamental

in understanding how fascism manifests as a reactionary ideology as well

as a phenomenon of capital accumulation.

The Reaction

Since the election of Donald Trump there’s been an emergence of

generally fascist and anti-fascist movements trying to solidify their

political influence through radical propaganda. Marches and rallies

especially so, as they are ultimately propagandist demonstrations. The

far-left wants to silence the political influence of the far-right and

the far-right wants to silence the political influence of the far-left.

So much so that they’re willing to engage in illegal and violent

activity to gain political power over the other.

To the general public, that’s what this conflict consists of, stripped

of any nuance.

The Debate

As a result, a public “debate” emerged around the ethics of violent

tactics against fascism and, furthermore, what fascism is in the first

place. Consequentially, we’re given opposing narratives of either:

fighting the fascist ideology with public debate, or fighting fascists

themselves with tactical violence. Either option leaves us with very

little to work with for a tactical defensive or offensive strategy

against fascism. To that point, the way this argument is framed leaves

little room for analyses of fascism’s ideological formation in the

social realm or as an elite phenomenon.

Hitler’s insight on what could have stopped the Nazi movement echoes the

same strategic incoherence on both accounts, “…if our adversaries had

understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our

ideas, and not offered any resistance; or, alternatively, if they had

from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of

our new movement.” [1] While this advice is upheld as some sort of

tactical secret, it derives from his social Darwinist conviction that

applies the evolutionary concept of natural selection to social nature.

His belief holds that not only does violence beget violence; violence is

necessary to social progress. This is to say that if there’s no

violence, the fascist ideology could not reproduce, if there is

violence, it will be the most brutal who survive.

Non-Violence

Liberals often refer to the first half of Hitler’s insight, that we must

“not offer any resistance”, and we must confine the conflict in what’s

often called the “marketplace of ideas”. The problem with this fixation

on public debate in the “marketplace of ideas” is that “public debate”,

ironically, takes place through media platforms that exist within a

market. Thus, the sides of discourse fluctuate as irrationally as

capital in a market economy. If you’ve ever been on the Internet you

probably noticed it’s not the rational media that goes viral and gets

advertising space. The way far right ideologues and personalities spread

their propaganda so effectively is by poking at the viewers insecurities

and alienation while providing scapegoats and easy answers. This also

happens to be the perfect click-bait. In this way, debate can often

serve to push the fascist narratives over the more rational ones.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t challenge fascist ideologies where they

present themselves. The fascist propaganda must be confronted. However,

we must be extremely careful not give them a platform through debate.

Fighting fascism through discourse must adequately confront the fascist

narrative and leave no room to be derailed.

Violence

I have to emphasize here, as it’s often overlooked, fascism shows its

true face in violence. As the liberal narrative desires to confine the

conflict in a peaceful way, we cannot use this to discredit

self-defense. Whatever faith you have in non-violence won’t save you in

a war zone. We have to keep in mind that there are in fact legitimate

forms of violence. It’s a line in the sand that has to be identified

while debating “tactical violence”.

In leftist circles we are only given the second half of Hitler’s

insight, that we must “annihilate the nucleus”. For those of you paying

attention to the social presence of the "alt-right" fascist movement, it

would seem far left anti-fascist action has beaten their charisma to a

halting point. In fact, alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer admits this

fact outright. In reference to his particular movement, he said “When

they become violent clashes and pitched battles, they aren’t fun… Until

the situation changes, we are up a creek without a paddle.” [2] If this

is the case this would stand as evidence to the liberal narrative that

confronting their movements head on would inspire a greater reaction and

thus a larger presence. This evidence is given to us by the left as a

complete tactical guide to confronting fascism.

The fixation on tactical violence as a means of combating fascism can

overlook non-violent tactics in combating fascism. It’s easy to overlook

the peaceful resistance that accompanied the violent resistance when

it’s the violent tactics the fascists give credit to. However, it was

the peaceful resistance that legitimized the militant self defense of

the left. Both can be credited to the derailment the alt-right movement.

The Reactionary

The problem is we’re lead to believe that these movements are the

“nucleus” itself. However, the “nucleus” is not going to be located in

the actions or organization of fascists. This would assume that fascism

is a byproduct of simple mis-education and wise propaganda. The

“nucleus” is going to be located in that which produces the conditions

for the fascist ideology. If we take a look at the beliefs held by the

fascists we can gain a better sense of where they might originate from.

The ideas most common to fascism include:

1. Anti-Immigration

2. Racial Purity

3. White Supremacy

4. Anti-Semitism

5. Social Darwinism

6. Extreme Nationalism

7. Extreme Authoritarianism

What’s important about identifying these ideas is not so much about

identifying their incoherence, but identifying where they come from.

This is where we will find the so called “nucleus”.

In most cases, those involved in the fascist movements are members of a

privileged group who have become dispossessed, such as poor whites. In

the public realm, fascism can be seen as a reaction to broken promises

of privilege. These groups of people are referred to as “reactionary”

fascists. They are foot soldiers for the fascist ideology, but they do

not manage their own conditions. This dispossession and alienation

manifests by material conditions created by capitalism. It is the

scapegoating that directs their reaction away from the ruling class.

The Nucleus

The true fascists are those who benefit from the ideology.

Institutionally, these ideas originate from the far right and

conservative members of the ruling class who are afraid the expansive

strategies of the progressive elite will destabilize our economic

system. Fascism for the elite is a way to manage labor, preserve social

hierarchy, preserve traditional values and defend against progressive

and revolutionary activity among the working class. In other words, it

is a defense mechanism by the state to manage the capitalist market

economy. The ideas of social Darwinism and authoritarian nationalism

convey this ideal, while ideas of anti-immigration and white supremacy

convey who’s targeted by the fascist ideology.

Anti-Fascist Action

So when we’re told that the conflict between fascists and anti-fascists

is the division created by the fascists in power, we have to understand

who the real victims are. Immigrants, people of color, Jewish people,

the lgbtqa+ community, the disabled, the poor, the houseless, etc. These

are the people the fascists in power are trying to divide us from.

Anyone who wishes to further divide us from them are enemies of the

working class.

In our inevitable conflicts, we have to be clear about how and when

these tactics of violence and non-violence actually respond rationally

to the motives of the state and the threats of the reactionaries. Yes,

we must disrupt the public response to fascist propaganda. However, we

can’t be confused by this tactic to define this disruption as a victory.

These tactics can silence an infant movement, but they do not remove the

fascists from the state who put it together, and it does not remove the

alienation of capitalism which form the tools for these elite fascists.

Conclusively, if we wish to confront the “nucleus” of the fascist

movement, we must build an intersectional, anti-authoritarian and

anti-capitalist movement focused on decentralizing power away from the

state and restoring political power to the people. This means that the

most important tactic in confronting fascism is building networks of

democratic power to create a new form of politic. This new form of

politic is essential not only for confronting fascism, but for creating

a future that’s sustainable, rational and liberatory; A new form of

politic that confronts the corruption of power and hierarchy that

persist the expansion of capital and the necessitation of fascism.

Without this new form of politic we will be stuck in the streets

fighting the tools of the state until we’re eventually crushed and all

prospects for progressive revolution with it.