Tag Archives: ultra-leftism

Fascism and the State of the Left

I have been wanting to write this piece for a while, but wanted to wait to see what more could be dug up, what more could happen in the days or weeks since I originally thought about it. After the events that took place in Chicago last night, I figured the time had come.

In my previous post, I briefly mentioned how “fascism” or “fascist” is one of the most over-used terms people use in political discussions and debates. It has gotten to the point that the word is used almost always outside of its historically recognized context. I mentioned how anything from classical conservatism to Marxism-Leninism has been labeled as “fascism” without any explanation of how those things are connected to the very real fascist movements and regimes of history, and the ones that exist today. This has to stop because fascism is not something to be taken lightly. It is a real issue and a real threat, and it should not be confused with things that it is not, so we don’t lose sight of this threat and what it could entail.

But there are movements and people who could be called fascist, without us needing to part from historical reality. And we are watching one such movement gain strength here in the US.

I’m sure you know what I am talking about, and who is at the forefront of this ultra-reactionary movement. No, I am not being hyperbolic, and no, this isn’t a case of me and other Leftists simply not liking Trump and his supporters. There are very legitimate reasons for the Trumpites to be labeled as such. Let’s get into those reasons.

FASCISM IN THE USA

image

Worth a thousand words. From: the Chicago Tribune

First of all, I would like to direct you to this piece from the Red Phoenix which goes into a good bit of detail regarding the history of fascism and its ideological staples. I am not going to talk much history here. I am focused on the characteristics of fascism and how they match up to the current Trumpite movement.

Though, as I have said above, fascism has a historically recognized meaning, it never comes to power in the same way twice, and there were quite a lot of differences between the various fascist regimes. This is due to fascism’s ultra-nationalist character–the method used in one nation won’t necessarily work in another, as it is bound up in the most reactionary elements of each nation it takes a hold of. However, there are enough similarities between each of these movements that we can say that fascism is an ideology in and of itself, and not just pure, mob-like populism.

These similarities include:

-A strong emphasis on nationhood and unquestioning patriotism.
-Violent and repressive anti-Communism and anti-liberalism.
-A hatred of immigrants, including calls for mass deportation.
-A romanticized idea of the “Great Nation”, often exaggerated to mythical proportions.
-Highly institutionalized misogyny and repression of women.
-Unquestioning loyalty to the nation’s charismatic leader, who is seen as the personification of the “Great Nation”.
-Using religious and/or racial minorities as scapegoats.
-The rejection of class struggle, replacing it with a veil of collaborationism in the form of nationalism.
-Romanticization of conflict, imperialist and expansionist adventures, militarism, and “direct action” through the use of violence.
-An emphasis on vitalism, national energy, youth, and nationalist heroism.
-A rejection of rationalism in favor of irrationalism and romanticism.
-The promotion of a “Third Way” that is supposed to be above both capitalism and communism.

Now, one might say that the US already has many, if not all, of these characteristics, but that is false. While these characteristics are present, they are on a relatively small scale compared to the fascist regimes of history. I am allowed to run this blog, criticism of the nation’s leader is still held as a protected right, etc. etc.

However, since fascism is the most reactionary and violent form of bourgeois rule, it is possible for it to rise up from within the bourgeois state (which is exactly how Hitler came to power). And I believe that is what we are witnessing right now.

Trump’s supporters might point out that he isn’t calling for mass genocide and he doesn’t label himself as a fascist, so there’s no way he is anything like Hitler. What they fail to realize is, Hitler didn’t talk about murdering millions of people during his rise. What he did call for was a cleansing that involved the deportation of the “undesirable” people living in Germany(see: the Madagascar Plan). Secondly, of course Trump isn’t going to call himself a fascist–like I said, fascism takes a different form depending on the nation the fascists are trying to control, and it would only hinder Trump’s nationalist goals if he labeled himself after the regimes the US fought in World War II. Whatever he calls himself does not matter–his actions and promises do.

I don’t think I need to say much about Trump’s obvious romantic nationalism–his campaign slogan already says everything that needs to be said on that subject. “Make America Great Again”. Again, as in, “let’s go back to the days of segregation, traditional values, when the patriarchy was at its strongest.” He, like every fascist leader of the past, plays off of a romantic view of national history. He stands firmly on the foundation of a mythical idea of Americanism.

Then there are the other characteristics of fascism that he holds to. Scapegoating religious minorities? Check. Hatred of immigrants? Check. Demanding unquestioning loyalty to him? Check. Romanticization of violence? Check. Calling for imperialist war? Double check. A misogynistic view of women? Check. Anti-Communism coupled with anti-liberalism? Check. I would go on, but I really don’t think I need to.

And then there is apparent fondness for openly self-proclaimed fascists, like when he retweeted a post from a white-supremacist neo-Nazi twitter account, or when he tweeted a quote attributed to Mussolini, or when he refused to condemn the fucking KKK, claiming that he “doesn’t know enough about them”(I think it’s safe to say that if he doesn’t know enough about the Klan, he doesn’t know enough about US history to be allowed into the Oval Office).

Then there is his terrifying charisma and rhetoric, which has lead to his followers committing acts of violence, both during his rallies and outside of them. It doesn’t matter if the anti-Trump protesters are loud and harsh or quiet and peaceful–if you have any objection to the potential rule of Il Duce 2.0, you are a target. Mussolini had his blackshirts, Hitler had his brownshirts. Trump’s supporters might not have an official uniform, but their actions are the same–mobs of reactionary thugs terrorizing anyone who dares to question their leader.

And he doesn’t just get support from fascists and neo-Nazis here in the US. Far-right reactionaries around the world are applauding his campaign, including both Vladimir Putin and the creator of the fascist “Fourth Way” ideology, Alexander Dugin.

Many still consider Trump’s campaign to be a joke, sometimes attending his rallies expecting to get a few laughs in, only to come to the realization that this is no joke after they witness the chaos firsthand. The man rarely says anything of substance–he, much like the fascist dictators of history, relies on repetition, fiery rhetoric, and irrationality coated with romanticism–but that doesn’t stop his followers from sticking to his words to the point of assaulting people, screaming for him to “get rid of” those who disagree with him once he becomes president, or basically worshipping him.

I used to think that he didn’t have a chance in hell of winning the election, but I am beginning to think otherwise. There is a very real possibility that we could see a Trump victory this November. There are several reasons why I think this, which I am about to get to. But we Leftists should be preparing for such an event. Not only because of the terror he will likely try to inflict against us as a movement, but also because of the danger he poses to so many people who are already oppressed and beaten down.

WHAT CAN THE LEFT DO?

image

Someone buy that person a beer.

First and foremost, it should be clear that this rise of the reactionaries is just that–a reaction. It is the bourgeois far-right’s reaction to escalating unrest among the oppressed masses. It is a reaction against the various people’s movements that have been sparked over the past few years(Black Lives Matter, the fight for a higher minimum wage, the fight for the rights of immigrants and refugees, the struggle to defend unions and the rights of the working class). The people are rising up and they are speaking out, taking to the streets, demanding justice.

Last night in Chicago, the comrades there forced Trump to cancel his rally. They stood up against the reaction and shut him down. The hammer and sickle was even flashed on live television, right behind a CNN reporter. I was ecstatic when I heard this news and I want to, again, congratulate those fighters in Chicago for their victory. That is something that needs to be emulated at every Trump event. Fascism deserves no platform, and it is up to us to make sure they don’t get one.

But then there are the golden-heart liberals who, any time a window is broken, cry for the people to “be peaceful”. Yes, be peaceful in the face of violent fascists. Be peaceful in the face of murderous police. Be peaceful towards a system that wants to oppress, exploit, and kill you if you disobey. Those who hold power can swing and take shots all they wish, but we are the ones who need to learn some respect. Sure.

The reasons given for this condemnation of the people is Trump’s “right” to free speech. If you weren’t paying attention before, it is obvious that Trump is parroting the fascist dictators of the past. What does this mean when it comes to free speech? It means they don’t have it. Let me explain.

Following WWII, at the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that fascism, since it always went hand-in-hand with mass genocide and illegal wars, is not a legitimate political ideology, but, rather, a criminal movement. This means that it is the political equivalent to the mafia. Most of the sane world recognizes this–it is why Nazi symbolism is not allowed to be spread or shown in Germany, for instance. The proposals and rhetoric of fascism are just as protected under the banner of “free speech” as the mafia’s illegal business deals are protected by “free enterprise”. That is, it’s not.

To paraphrase something a comrade of mine heard from a lawyer and passed on: Freedom of speech is like the freedom to swing your arm–you can swing it all you like, but your freedom to do so ends at the tip of my nose.

The liberals and ultra-leftists who are whining about the freedom of fascists to have a platform so as to gain traction are spitting on the graves of the countless victims of fascism all around the world. They have apparently learned nothing from history, and seem to have no problem with risking the same thing all over again. Freedom of speech protected the Nazi Party, allowed it to gain a following, then to gain political power, because how dare we prevent genocidal war-mongers from spreading their hate far and wide? How dare we think about the very possible consequences of their actions? Luckily, Germany has at least some laws to prevent another fall back into that sort of state. Too bad some “Leftists” here in the States think such a movement should be protected from the people it wishes to fucking kill.

Hell, the man even brags about wanting to commit war-crimes. If someone makes a legitimate physical threat against another person, they are arrested, but you want to tell us that a politician doing the same thing–except he wants to kill thousands, including whole families–is protected because of “free speech”? No, he is not. Threatening to break international law and to commit atrocities does not fall under the umbrella of “free speech”.

Lenin said it best, in regards to “freedom of speech”:

Continue reading

On Ultra-“Leftism” and Shitty “Comedy”

Criticism and self-criticism are key aspects of any logical and scientific revolutionary theory. It is one of the ways revolutionary theory does not stay stagnate, static, isolated in one place and time. Without criticism and self-criticism, any movement or organization is bound to suffer greatly. Without it, there is no chance of anything moving forward whatsoever. But there is a difference between criticism and pure shaming.

Criticism is made when ignorance or deviation from the proper scientific path is noticed, and whoever notices it gives critical advice, so as to help the ignorant see the error of their ways and the logic in the truly scientific approach. It is done, not with raging anger or demeaning arrogance, but with the goal of helping whoever has committed the fallacy, and in order to prevent the same fallacy from being committed in the future.

Shaming, on the other hand, is argument for argument’s sake. It is ruthless and cold. It has no goal but to make the target feel internally guilty and flawed. It is telling the other that they are incurably wrong in every way. It does not aim to fix any issue, but only to garner self-gratification by attempting to mentally and emotionally destroy another person or group.

In some cases, it is true, when the criticized party continues their usually-reactionary actions, criticism takes a much harsher form. But that is for the purposes of warning others of any dangers this person or group raises to the movement for working class revolution. That isn’t to say that most of us are not guilty of shaming: I am guilty of this. Consider this a self-criticism as well as an outward criticism.

So-called ultra-leftism has historically been a tool of reactionary forces; from Bakunin’s anti-Semitic arguments against “authoritarianism”, to the Krostadt Rebellion(which was aided by the proto-fascistic White Army), to Trotsky working with the Mexican and US governments in trying to liquidate the communist forces. Today, some elements of the various ultra-leftist trends are doing their own kind of sectarian, counterrevolutionary work.

Now, I want to say this while(or if) I still have your attention: I do not consider all of those who label themselves as one of the ultra-leftist tendencies(anarchists, libertarian socialists, etc.) as being guilty of these actions I am about to criticize. Though I, of course, have some pretty big differences with these tendencies in general, I do not consider every ultra-leftist to be a full-on reactionary.

Shaming is now, evidently, a hot new trend within some small factions of the ultra-“left”. Some childish adults with too much time on their hands have taken it upon themselves to “purify” the Left by outright slandering the tendencies and individuals they personally dislike. Though these factions have created some semblance of “officialdom” by forming parties and organizations each consisting of tiny cliques of politically-identical people, they do not seem to take part in any form of political activity other than slandering and shaming every other section of the Left.

These aren’t genuine, civil criticisms, they are grade-school bullying tactics on steroids. The self-righteous perpetrators are not looking to point out flaws from a scientific position, but are only wishing to demean, to belittle, to shame. Basic psychology proves that these kinds of attacks do not fix the problem within the individual, much less in the grander scheme of societal norms.

We Marxist-Leninists, the primary targets of these immature attacks, are not opposed to working with other tendencies or organizations, so long as they do not act in ways identical to the fucking FBI. I work locally with many libertarian socialists and a few anarchists, people I consider friends, who I would trust with my life. There aren’t even a handful of Marxist-Leninists in my city. I work with the revolutionary(as opposed to reformist) folks in my city, and most of them are not even Marxist-Leninists.

But, to the ultra-leftist ultra-sectarians, working with Marxist-Leninists, or anyone outside of their personal preferred clique, is totally out of the question, which leaves them with zero actual revolutionary activity to be done. The only political work they accomplish is the creation of unfunny memes slandering anyone and everyone they disagree with. There is even a Facebook page(Facebook page just rings of real political work) called “Antita” – meaning, “anti-Tankie”, “Tankie” being a new popular word referring to anyone these five dudes on social-media hate.

There are imperialists slaughtering innocents all over the world, bourgeois dictatorships the world over, but these factionalists can find no other target for their rage besides anti-imperialist, pro-proletarian parties, individuals, and movements. One of the reasons for these slanderous, shameful attacks is the Marxist-Leninist assumed-uncritical support for anti-imperialist states in the world. There are two very big problems with the “reasoning” of the attackers: 1) it naturally comes with the assumption that the revolutionary forces of the world should take “neither side”, no matter what, and on any and every issue in almost any and every place; and 2) it is a claim that would mean the targeted parties, individuals, and movements are all physically and materially supporting all of the various anti-imperialist states(and their so-called “atrocities”). Not to mention that this all comes with another assumption: that the reactionary, bourgeois media and intelligentsia is 100% correct in their accusations against regimes they do not like.

Another large hole in these “uncritical criticisms” is the fact that many, or most, of the targeted parties have their own criticisms of the various anti-imperialist states. The American Party of Labor is a frequent target of these attacks(how flattering that you’ll think of the APL while attempting your amateur insult-comedy and creating your memes), despite taking a completely scientific approach to analyzing the existing revolutionary, anti-imperialist states. Indeed, as I pointed out at the beginning of this entry, a crucial part of Marxism-Leninism is this kind of cautionary approach to calling anything truly socialistic.

But these slanderers’ view of the anti-imperialist states is entirely bourgeois and chauvinistic. Therefore, so is their view of pretty much every socialist organization. When a person’s or group’s sole goal is the attack and shaming of the entire Left, it should be pretty damn clear who they are fighting for. Whether they’ll admit it to themselves or not, they are, in any case, doing the work of the capitalist-imperialists for them. If they aren’t feds, they might as well be.

In this day of social upheaval and unrest, of the masses taking action and rising up, of the imperialists upping their oppression domestically and abroad, it is critical that the revolutionary Left not split hairs or take part in such counter-productive and despicable infighting. Those supposed “leftists” who do, and in such immature and petty ways, spend every waking moment trying to rip the revolutionary forces to pieces, must be exposed and rightfully criticized for working towards the very same goals as the bourgeois-imperialist states – that is, the factionalizing of the Left and the annihilation of any force actively fighting imperialism. And when these childish slanderers do not cease in their anti-leftism(in a transparently-fake “leftist” disguise), they must be likewise attacked as the bourgeois-liquidators that they are. For, while the revolutionary movement should stay civil in criticisms within itself, the bourgeoisie and its allies deserve no mercy.

I look forward to this post possibly being featured on one of the “anti-tankie” pages. It would be an honor to be shown in a meme-based comedy sketch, and it will only prove the point of this criticism I have given even more. So, thanks, bro, for the affirmation of my analysis. It really wasn’t very hard – your reactionary characteristics speak for themselves.

-SFB.