Fascism isn't adhering to any ideology but “win-no-matter-what”, Mussolini got into power by couping, Hitler got elected. Modern fascist movements have no problem idealizing Europe, Democracy, or “Freedom” because that's what is popular.
The original Nazis called themselves “socialists” for a reason, and some even believe they were that to this day!
The “white power” movement was a horrid “black power” rip-off (those two cannot be compared at all), and modern alt-rightists in Europe call themselves “Identitarian” in order to mimic the progressive's politics focused around identity. Islamophobia is in, so the antisemitism is no longer the main focus. This appropriation only exists to say “look at us! We can be hip and popular too, unlike those guys back then!”
Fascism strives for this divide and fixed hierarchy, and until reached is willing to to make coalitions, even with people fascists would rather see thrown out. This is why fascism loves to piggyback off of capitalism, as it has a hierarchy, and through many systemically racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory methods, makes social mobility harder especially for those fascists hate. Sooner than later, however, even that tiny, meaningless chance of mobility will be too much for fascists, which is why even they have to move beyond capitalism once it no longer suits them.
As trans rights are the next civil rights movement to rally against, fascists begin accepting gay people among their ranks. From people of color, to women, to then gay, queer, and now trans people — coalitions will be made and subsequently burned once fascists are in any position of power to do so, one by one, the way they came.
Also, fascism isn't authoritarian by itself. Authoritarianism is simply required in order to uphold this contradictory mess of an “ideology”. Once elections are won, nations are couped, and governments overthrown, the burning of these coalitions commences. Fascism seeks to have as few people at the ruling top as possible, but that contradicts a majority support, so the only way to, most likely temporary, uphold this system is by having some people of the middle class lifted with the power to oppress and subjugate (think SS, Gestapo, ...).
An ideology so defined by separation and segregation won't just stop when it “won”. You think fascists will take over a nation or continent, remove all that they deem unfit (ethnicities, queer people, politically different thinkers or writers,...) and say “that's it! Goal achieved” — no! There is no end goal, there is no plan or idea about what comes after. It's this never ending war that is a necessity to this belief system to work.
Every other belief system at least to some degree seeks an equilibrium whilst fascism needs this decline.
Once fascists take over and achieve everything they now call for, they'll begin re-inventing new enemies and a new divide. Jewish people or Italians may no longer be defined as “white”, and the war against them commences. Even once all of that is achieved and a national hegemony is created, they'll have to expand in order to regain that otherness.
“Us vs. them” only works if a “them” exists, and it doesn't at this point. So after the Hispanics have been deported to Mexico, they'll be followed and removed from there too, because without them fascists are nothing. Whiteness has no clear definition other than being different to all that other stuff and it is a made up concept anyway. The expansion and imperialism always seen in fascist movements exist for this reason. The definition of self comes from not being them.
Fascists always see themselves as the victim, as well as think of every action they take as defense. That's why they re-define what the war is and what it even means to fight — there's been no promised “race war” started by the people of color as fascists claimed for long? No problem, just claim they're now replacing you, so simply existing is too much for a person of color to do.
@ErikUden My personal favourite is "You go high, we go Low"
The video dissects how respectablility politics play into the rights hand.
In a way its also about "besorge Bürger" and "auf die zugehen und zuhören" Tactic media and politic tried and failed with and as soon the AFD got public backlash their numbers fell.
@ErikUden An oft-overlooked aspect is that Fascism is a utopian movement (it just looks hideously dystopian to those of us it excludes). Utopian movements are ALWAYS dangerous because utopia can never fail, it can only be failed: any failure is due to weakness or treachery and must be overcome by greater efforts. Communism was prone to this; the UK has a very bad case of it right now in Brexit: and fascism contains the same inherent radicalizing tendency.
> Once fascists take over and achieve everything they now call for, they'll begin re-inventing new enemies and a new divide.
Isn't that just the definition of ideology - and a core element of almost every political movements, including most progressive/emancipatory ones?
I don't see an end to most leftish movements short from a utopia. And I'd go as far as saying that continuous struggle is simply: politics. Do I miss something?
@rmader this is my personal, biased view on things: I believe that leftism aims to achieve an equilibrium. A progressive movement is basically just a civil rights movement — when people of color were no longer treated as subhuman people fought against them being segregated, then them having then same (voting) rights, then for red lining to be put an end to, and then for possibly reparations.
There's no need to continue a fight against racism and for rights once institutional racism where to have ended.
Additionally, with more socialist leftist movements, you'd bring you'd bring down a certain ruling class, change the way money is distributed, and that's it. Sure there's going to be different issues and different causes fighting for, or rather the fight for them will continue in a different way, but generally you've won.
See it like this: the Jacobins didn't continue a bloody war against the monarchy once that monarchy was defeated. They didn't begin re-defining what the monarchy, what the enemy is, the moment they've won. Sure we still fight for more democracy to this day, to a degree you can say the battle was never over, but after a major victory it died down accordingly.
As much as leftism also relies on an “us vs. them” mentality, it's more of a justified one? There is a ruling class, and it's not some ethnicity, not “the jews” or some constructed enemy figure, it's rich people who got their money through the holocaust or slavery and inherited their wealth to the next generation. They affect our “democratic” institutions through lobbyism (corruption) and ensure that their interests are always represented, no matter what color the party currently in power has.
That is an “us vs. them”, a “proletarians against bourgeoisie”, but it doesn't search that enemy figure for polemic, populist reasons with it only existing as a means to an end to win elections, but it criticizes that existing enemy figure as it is part of the real world.
That is my opinion and the way I see it, may be very wrong, though!
Add comment