💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-is-trumpism-fascism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:48:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Is Trumpism Fascism? Author: Wayne Price Date: October 07, 2016 Language: en Topics: Trump, Fascism, anti-fascism Source: http://anarkismo.net/article/29669
Whether Donald J. Trump wins or (more likely) loses the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, the movement which he has stirred up will
continue in one form or another. A question which is widely asked is,
whether this movement—call it Trumpism—is fascist, semi-fascist, or a
forerunner of fascism?
Unquestionably, he has been supported by out-and-out fascists, U.S.
Nazis, white supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, and others of the
“alternative right” or “alt right,” as they call themselves. He has
repeatedly re-tweeted posts from Nazis and Klanspeople, he has quoted
Mussolini, and he adopted the slogan “America First” from the
pro-fascist-dominated America First movement of the pre-World War II
era. He has expressed admiration for dictators and “strong” rulers of
other countries. He appointed a notorious anti-semite and racist as a
top official (“C.E.O”) in his campaign (Bannon, formerly the main person
of Brietbart News). When asked about his supporter, David Duke (Nazi and
Klansman), he coyly denied knowing anything about him, until a later
date when Trump officially rejected Duke; Duke and other white
supremacists took this as “something Trump had to say.” Hillary Clinton,
his opponent, has denounced Trump’s support from the alt right and
similar “deplorable” people. Trump responded that his followers were all
good, patriotic, Americans. Meanwhile various alt right groups held a
joint press conference in Washington D.C., laying out their support for
Trump and openly expressing their white racism. (They claim to be an
“alternate” to the more mainstream far-right “conservatives,” who
present themselves as opposed to racism and for “small government.”)
These actions are in the context of an election where the establishment
candidate, Clinton, is widely disliked, or at most, is uninspiring to
the mass of voters (despite being a woman). A large proportion of the
electorate is disgusted with both candidates and rejects voting for
either.
The overall point is not just that Trump is playing footsie with
previously marginalized crackpots and has opened the door for them or
that Clinton does not seem to offer much of an alternative. Even more
significant is that these people see something they like in the campaign
of the nominee of a major U.S. political party. They like his openly
expressed hatred of immigrants, Latinos, and Muslims, and his implicit
hatred of African-Americans, his misogyny, his isolationism somehow
combined with militarism, and his general authoritarianism and
opposition to civil liberties. They like his appeals to violence and his
posing as the “strong” leader who will fix everything for the U.S.
people. Are they correct? Is Trump a fascist or Trumpism a fascist
movement?
“Fascist” is often used as a broad insult, a label for politics we don’t
like of the right or even left. Many people (even some anarchists) have
an essentially liberal vision of capitalist democracy. They believe or
believed in the picture of a free, democratic, society which they
learned in school. They are then shocked to learn that the U.S.
government spies on its citizens, tortures prisoners, discriminates
against workers, the poor, and People of Color, wages unjust wars, and
generally is a servant of the rich. This isn’t democracy! they cry. It’s
dictatorship, its fascism! They do not understand that this is what
capitalist democracy is. Bourgeois democracy is and has always been
limited. Every democratic gain in the system has been won by the blood
and struggle of the mass of people.
We have only to think back to the 50s, when the U.S. was proud of its
freedom and democracy, having defeated the fascist powers in World War
II and now facing off with the Communist states in the Cold War. In
fact, U.S. politics was overwhelmed by anti-communist hysteria, when
thousands of leftists were purged from jobs in government, universities,
schools, and unions. Meanwhile a third of the country lived under Jim
Crow legal racial segregation, enforced by the terror of the Klan. To
change all this took the massive rebellion of the African American
population, and its white allies, and the demonstrations and rebellions
of the movement against the war in Vietnam—and a virtual mutiny in the
armed forces. (It was not elections which changed society for the better
but independent mass actions—something worth remembering in this
election year.)
There are also people who think “fascism” should be used only for the
historical examples of the Fascist Party of Italy, the German National
Socialists (Nazis) led by Hitler, and various other movements and
parties in Europe in the 20s and 30s. However, I believe that certain
traits of the historical fascist parties may be drawn out and applied to
current events. While history never repeats itself exactly, lessons may
be learned from the past.
The single most important trait of fascism is its goal of overturning
bourgeois democracy and replacing it with dictatorial rule. Under a
capitalist economy, society is dominated by a small number of very rich
people (capitalists, the bourgeoisie, a fraction of the “one percent”).
Without any democratic control, they own the corporations and
semi-monopoly businesses for which just about everyone works, directly
or indirectly. From the labor of the mass of people (the working class
or proletariat), they draw their vast profits, while paying the workers
the least they can get away with.
They insist on a government which will guard their interests: enforce
contracts, keep the money supply stable, keep the workers from
rebelling, protect their interests internationally (going to war when
needed), and so on. So long as the government carries out these tasks,
it is a bourgeois state. Yet the government may take various forms,
while protecting capitalism.
Under a capitalist democracy, the people are allowed to vote for
officials in leading positions, such as president. (After voting, they
go back to their jobs where they take orders from their unelected
bosses.) Of course, the alternatives are kept limited. In 2016 we get to
chose between two rich people both of whom are enthusiastic supporters
of capitalism and its national state—and so it has been throughout U.S.
history. (Third party candidates haven’t had a chance since the
Republicans got elected on the eve of a civil war.)
There are advantages for the capitalist class in this limited political
democracy. It permits different factions of the ruling class to fight
out their differences and make joint decisions, without (much)
bloodshed. It lets them fool the majority of the people that they are
free and run the government. It brings up new talent from the masses
(think of the Clintons or the Obamas). If they get a crazy or
incompetent leader (say, if Trump were elected), they can get rid of him
or her at the next election, instead of being stuck with him (as the
German establishment was with Hitler, by the tail-end of World War II).
On the other hand, there are disadvantages for the corporate rich,
especially if popular forces use their apparent freedom “too much.”
There may be riots and strikes and other expressions of discontent.
Someone might actually run in a major party as a “socialist” advocating
“political revolution,” as Bernie Sanders did (although his program was
always mild—no expropriating the capitalists—and he quickly fell into
line once he lost the primary, as he was certain to do). Or a candidate
might be chosen for a party’s nomination who would obviously be unable
to effectively run the executive branch of the national government (the
bourgeoisie is more worried about Trump’s obvious incompetence than his
reactionary program).
Meanwhile the openness and rights of a bourgeois democracy are immensely
valuable to radicals (anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists,
black nationalists, radical feminists, etc.). Although tiny minorities,
they are able to organize, to work out theory and strategy, to publish
their views, and to speak to others. This is in spite of their
opposition to capitalism, the state, and other institutions of
oppression (patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, ecological
destruction, etc.). The bourgeoise tolerates this so long as the
radicals remain tiny minorities; but there is always the “danger” that
they will grow during times of crisis.
The capitalist system as a whole is in decline, facing crises, long-term
stagnation, and an expensive, drastic, need to deal with climate change.
This requires the capitalists and their state drive down the standard of
living of the working class in order to boost overall profits. There has
been a steady long-term attack on the working class. A reaction against
it fueled both Sanders’ movement on the left and Trump’s appeal on the
right (speaking of popular motivations, not of the value of actual
programs). If the crises continue to worsen, and if the reaction to
capitalist conditions causes further rebellion, and if the radical
minority grows in numbers and influence—then the bourgeoisie may decide
to junk the advantages of political democracy and replace it with an
open dictatorship.
In its history, capitalism has existed under a series of different
political systems—while maintaining its economic system. Besides various
forms of political democracy (some quite limited), it has existed under
monarchies, police states, military juntas, “democracy” for only one
race (apartheid South Africa and the U.S. South), as well as fascism.
Under fascism and other undemocratic capitalist governments, there were
no elections, no alternate political parties, no unions, no strikes, no
radical political organizations, no opposition press, no right to
assemble. These regimes differed in the degree of suppression. Some
(most monarchies for example) permitted people a lot of freedom so long
as they did not challenge the regime. Fascism was the most repressive,
seeking to totally dominate every aspect of society, from politics to
religion to chess clubs. Thus they were called “totalitarian.” They
required everyone to declare their support for the state, the party, and
the Leader.
To totally crush all independent organizations and groupings, of the
working class and all other parts of society, required more than a
military coup. It requires a movement of millions of people. The Nazis
and Mussolini’s Fascists organized large numbers of discontented people,
mostly from unemployed veterans and lower middle class people who hated
the rich but were afraid of falling into the working class. They did not
just publish newspapers and make speeches, but went out to beat up—and
murdered— socialists, communists, anarchists, and unionists.
While always extremely nationalist, fascism has not always been racist.
Italian Fascism was not racist (it had Jewish members) until its last
days when it became dominated by the Germans. In the U.S.A., as
mentioned, the standard conservative (really reactionary) far-right has
denied being racist, either anti-Black or anti-semitic. While most of
these conservatives are still for bourgeois democracy, fascist
sentiments are expressed at times. Occasionally spokespeople will say
that if the “tyranny” of the government continues, then “second
amendment remedies” will be called for and “patriots” will have to take
to the countryside to defend themselves with guns. In fact there are
various groups of armed “militias.” They have various ideologies, but
some are preparing to resist the government when it comes to take away
their guns (they think). This may be expressed in terms of local
democracy or a wacky interpretation of the Constitution, but what is
implied is the armed overthrow of the elected government. That is an
element, at least, of fascism. (Similarly, Trump has hinted, in his
speeches, that supporters of the Second Amendment should assassinate
Clinton if she is elected.) Also, parts of the anti-choice movement have
insisted that “God’s law” should be above “man’s law.” This is a way of
calling for the replacement of bourgeois democracy with a theocracy, in
which their leaders would dictate to the rest of the population, while
claiming to speak for the Almighty.
But racism is deep in the U.S. consciousness, despite its decline among
some sections of the population. Even the supposedly non-racist
conservatives advocate programs which specifically target
African-Americans and Latinos (such as voter suppression laws and cuts
in public services). Despite denials of anti-semitism (and support for
Israel), the right emphasizes its Christian faith and calls for a
“Christian America.”
It is not surprising, then, that there is a section of the far-right
which is openly white supremacist and anti-semitic. They say explicitly
what the respectable right only implies. They believe that to whip up a
mass movement to overthrow political democracy, it is necessary to
openly appeal to the racism of much of the U.S. white population. (Why
anti-semitism? Because the racist stereotype of African-Americans and
Latinos is that they are “stupid” and “lazy.” Their stereotypes are not
useful for a fantasy of an evil secret conspiracy which is dominating
society. The racist image of the Jews can fit this threatening picture.
The right has tried to use other groupings, such as the “secular
humanists” or the “Illuminati,” but none quite replaces the image of the
Jews.)
There are forces which could coalesce into a fascist movement under the
right circumstances. The Trump campaign has revealed the existence of
such forces as an overripe piece of fruit, once cracked open, reveals
its maggots. But it is not yet a cohered fascist party. Its leader,
Trump, is happy to get support from the alt right. Their worked-out
ideology is consistent with many of his prejudices, but he himself does
not have an developed ideology. While he likes the adulation of the
crowds, he does not have the organizing skills to pull together a real
fascist party, nor does he have the interest.
Meanwhile the core of his followers, outside the alt right, while they
accept most of his provocations, do not presently want the overturn of
capitalist democracy. And certainly, the majority of Republicans who are
voting for him because they are loyal to their party or hate Clinton do
not want this. Conditions are bad in many ways, but not yet that bad.
Most important of all, the capitalist class, in almost all its sections,
does not want to jettison democracy. Even the right wing, which has
backed all sorts of far-rightists, has not supported Trump (of the
leaders of the Fortune 100 leading corporations, not one has donated to
Trump; neither have the Koch brothers). They are not ready to back a
fascist movement, let alone a fascist takeover of the state. In any
case, they do not want to put such an incompetent, ignorant, impulsive,
and thin-skinned fool in charge of the U.S. state.
If the crisis get worse, if more rebellion boils up (which the
bourgeoisie will want to be channeled into a pro-capitalist movement as
opposed to revolutionary anti-capitalism), and if a more competent
leader arises, then the capitalist class may decide differently.
I believe, and have argued previously, that overall things will get
worse—despite temporary ups and shallow recoveries. The capitalist
economy will continue to go downhill. Wars will continue to rage around
the world, threatening a wider conflagration (and nuclear war). Climate
warming is continuing at an increasing rate. And other evils of
capitalism still appear, such as racist oppression.
But there are the beginnings of a massive upsurge of rebellion by
working people and all oppressed. The Black Lives Matter movement has
been especially exciting. The struggles of Latinos, citizens, residents,
and immigrants, has been heroic. There is a growing environmental
movement against climate change, including the struggles of Native
Americans. Young women are refusing to accept misogyny. The fights for a
$15 minimum wage and for organizing fast-food workers have had a great
impact already. While I do not regard Bernie Sanders as a genuine
socialist, it is nevertheless important that very large numbers of young
people were inspired to support someone calling himself a “democratic
socialist.”
As I see it, the job of anti-fascist radicals is not just to oppose
Trump but to oppose Trumpism. That is, to oppose the elements of a
movement which could, in the not so distant future, come together into a
fascist movement. And the most important way to do that is to build up a
radical alternative. The middle is coming apart in U.S. politics—and in
the politics of many countries. The discontent with Clinton and her
campaign shows that the status quo does not offer any solutions.
Politics will polarize into the far left and the far right.
Revolutionary anarchists are the farthest to the left, meaning those
most in opposition to capitalism, the state, and all oppressions.
Working together with other left groups where we can, we need to build
up every element of opposition to this vicious, doomed, system.