What is the ultimate end of fascism?

Trump has been hailed by the "alt right" (alt = neo, right = Nazi, let's get that clear, once and for all) as a "unifying" figure.

But I wonder if this is precisely the real intention. Trump isn't anyone's idea of a strong leader, nor is he meant to be. He's a convenient figurehead around which all the ghouls of the white supremacist and corporate-feudal movement rally. But it's a marriage of convenience, subject to a quickie divorce when the time is right.

"States' rights" in the 21st century means wall building and the denial of equal rights to gays, women, immigrants, and wage earners. The state governments can easily be transformed into private fiefdoms controlled by an oligarchy of fascists that can easily be transformed into a dynastic hegemony.

Feudal lords hate kings, and they hate each other. The manner of combat is a process of economic cannibalism through which they destroy one other.

My creeping suspicion is that disunity is the ultimate end of fascism. War of all against all. We could ultimately end up as a chaotic batch of city-states in the manner of ancient Greece or Renaissance Italy.

What are your opinions concerning the ultimate end of fascism? I mean, where do you believe it leaves us at the completion of the process?

Where every fascist movement has ended up. Restored liberalism, once the threat to the capitalist system that lets elites go along with and reactionary ends thereof back a rightward pivot is ended. In the case of Trumpism's far-right flank and the National Front, these seem to mostly be movements wrought by ethnic tensions that often veer in an ant-capitalist direction (e.g. BLM) and post-industrial disaffection wrought by mass automization of assembly line labor.

Where fascists want to go depends on the specific movement, which differ based on local circumstances, only sharing a middle-class populist character and derision for liberal democracy. "Semi-feudal war of all against all" is how I'd describe the Southern reactionary Neo-Confederate current which praises any and all secessionist movements down to my apartment complex seceding from the city of Berkeley.

Usually though, the goal is some centralized state that fosters a culture of strength. This also usually involves "fair" negotiation between labor and capital to the benefit of the middle and lower-end upper rungs: industrial capital, well-off workers, and small business. "Making America great again." In essence, a quixotic revanchist attempt at restoring the values of Imperial Rome and other slave societies, within another quixotic attempt at a '40s-style industrial-capitalist framework that ceased to actually be doable a generation ago.

The comparison with Rome breaks down at the issue of racism. Ancient Romans had a conception of "being Roman by culture", but not necessarily by genetics. That argument ended by necessity early in the 2nd century after Spaniards like Trajan and Hadrian took the reins. It was a moot point in the 3rd century when Syrians and Africans became eligible for the big prize. A huge, centralized state a la Rome would certainly be the goal of any fascist leader, but the racial supremacy argument would tend to hobble the effectiveness of such a move...unless we advance all the way to the point where "ethnic cleansing" is back on the front burner.

I tend to think that fascism in the US would end in the division of the country. One big bully would need to keep his foot on the throats of a thousand little bullies in order to keep the kingdom together. Without such an Autocrator in place, all of the old racial and cultural divisions come to the front and the entire structure dissolves into Balkanization.

Comrade Gulper wrote:

I tend to think that fascism in the US would end in the division of the country. One big bully would need to keep his foot on the throats of a thousand little bullies in order to keep the kingdom together. Without such an Autocrator in place, all of the old racial and cultural divisions come to the front and the entire structure dissolves into Balkanization.

I'm of the opinion that successful American fascism would have to be superficially multiethnic, exactly because it's a very multiethnic country. Even in the likely event that it's jackbooted white supremacy in practice, it would have to drape itself in benefiting all ethnic backgrounds.

None of that holds for the "South will rise again" crowd or attempts to establish an Aryan utopia in Montana and/or the Pacific Northwest, which are more "forms of fascism that exist in America" than "American fascism" since they seek the destruction of America as an entity due to its multicultural identity. I'll note that most of those are laughable. The South has far too much military presence and economic integration with the North for secession to work there today. The Pacific Northwest is largely left-liberal with their secessionists mostly being Green Party eco-hippies, and they're better-integrated into America economically and culturally by the day. Attempts at moving white nationalists to the Flathead Valley area of Montana have seen some success, but have met a lot of resistance from locals who don't like their state (formerly a powerhouse for the IWW and with a still extant social tolerance that comes from their "get off my lawn" mentality) being given a bad name by yet more racists moving there and feeding into the "crazy mountain militia hillbillies" stereotype.

I'll also add that racial supremacy is not a prerequisite for fascism though. While American fascists like Richard Spencer definitely are whether secessionist or "Joe Kennedy/Charles Lindbergh-style nationalist," Mussolini for example was a national chauvinist rather than a racial one. Likewise Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a secular Jewish hypernationalist. Likewise Francisco Franco.

Becoming multi-ethnic is the one thing the Republicans can't seem to grasp. The token examples they muster always end up being Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Dinesh D' Souza, or, lately, Kanye West.

If they could just get it through their head that people of all races deserve a shot at becoming corporate-feudal oligarchs, their future would be assured. Otherwise, this white supremacy business is going to get them a breakaway banana republic apartheid state in the Deep South that will quickly be sanctioned into insignificance by the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, Trump means none of what he says. America is his latest trophy bitch. It's a fair bet to wager on whether he even finishes his term or simply "goes rogue" a la Sarah Palin, leaving the ho-hum governing biz to Pence. There may even come a time when the fascist ghouls who make up his cabinet begin pressuring (or threatening) him to resign so that they can get on with their own agenda without embarrassment or interruption from The Big Boss.

Comrade Gulper wrote:

Becoming multi-ethnic is the one thing the Republicans can't seem to grasp. The token examples they muster always end up being Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Dinesh D' Souza, or, lately, Kanye West.

Trump made a token go at it, though it was mostly unconvincing, especially among Latinos. Still, minority voters who do vote Republican were willing to go out and vote for Trump, hence what superficially seems like "doing better" among them than Romney when his actual vote tally was only slightly higher.

Father Coughlin's base was the newly-assimilated Irish, but he had considerable fans in the Italian community who at that time weren't considered white. And if the LaRouche movement weren't run by a ridiculous nutjob, they have a pretty clever history of racist/anti-semitic dogwhistling while aping leftist language to appear to also be fighting for minority rights.

Quote:

If they could just get it through their head that people of all races deserve a shot at becoming corporate-feudal oligarchs, their future would be assured. Otherwise, this white supremacy business is going to get them a breakaway banana republic apartheid state in the Deep South that will quickly be sanctioned into insignificance by the rest of the world.

Mostly agreed.

Two disagreements: 1) It also works if they can ape the LaRouchies with a saner figurehead, advocating for policies that reinforce white supremacy while presenting a multiethnic face. 2) I think their breakaway state, if it happens, is more likely to be in Montana than the Deep South. The Deep South is military-heavy, Georgia is far too linked to the Northeast economically via Atlanta, and Louisiana is far too linked to Houston which has a Yankee-dominated economic sector.

Quote:

Meanwhile, Trump means none of what he says.

Agreed, but if he wants to win reelection, he'll have to carry through on a number of his promises. The Jeff Sessions pick for Justice signals that he does, in fact, intend to go through with his mass deportation plan. I'm sure he will take a harsher line on Iran, considering every foreign policy pick he's made thus far has been an Iran hawk. And his environmental picks all signal he will in fact take a firmly pro-fracking stance as he stated throughout his campaign, though this seems to contradict his pro-coal stance since cheaper oil is the main reason for the coal industry's death. "The wall" is dead on arrival in my opinion, and while he's stated intent to gut Obamacare to a shell of its former self, full repeal won't happen.

Quote:

There may even come a time when the fascist ghouls who make up his cabinet begin pressuring (or threatening) him to resign so that they can get on with their own agenda without embarrassment or interruption from The Big Boss.

More likely, I think once disappointment sets in, Bannon may leave to salvage his own reputation with his fellow far-right partisans. Likely helping the Richard Spencers of the world form their creepy right-of-Trump movement. Something that can be fairly described as "literally Hitler."

Another close parallel with Hitler's Reich: Putting economic and agrarian cranks in positions of power. Could Trump seriously consider Ben fragging Carson for HUD?

Meanwhile, the Nazi rallies continue apace. How long before we get legitimate beer hall fights?

The end of fascism is a really interesting question.

A decent alt-history novel to look at is Fatherland, by Robert Harris.

He describes an increasingly bureau-technocratic Third Reich that is looking for rapprochement with the US after 'stalemating' wwII. There is a great passage where the protagonist is looking through a 'yearbook' of party activists since the NSDAP's formation and he watches the faces change from broad-shouldered, street fighting proletarian footsoldiers through to the educated, narrow and pinched features of the contemporary bureaucracy.

Fascism in practice is reactionary, conservative capitalism, and only a fringe of Fascist ideologues like Futurists,or Strasserites attempt any serious articulation of a 'post-capitalist' corporatism, or a genuinely new way of organising society.

For all of Hitler's idealism he was essentially radical nationalist, I don't think you can even credit Trump as being that, given his almost completely cynical approach to politics.

Sholokhov wrote:

For all of Hitler's idealism he was essentially radical nationalist, I don't think you can even credit Trump as being that, given his almost completely cynical approach to politics.

I think Trump has an almost unconscious idea of basically wanting us all to relive his nightmarish childhood. Otherwise, why would he give positions of power to pro-child labor, pro-Christian school hacks like Nancy DeVos?

Out of all the ghouls this administration is encouraging to come out of their caskets, this is one of the scariest because she has the potential to do irreparable harm to people in their most vulnerable years.

Comrade Gulper wrote:

Another close parallel with Hitler's Reich: Putting economic and agrarian cranks in positions of power. Could Trump seriously consider Ben fragging Carson for HUD?

He's black, he knows all about urban stuff, right?

I mean, it was traditionally the "token black guy" cabinet post, but at least that was usually a Mayor. Someone with actual experience. Not someone whose only knowledge of urban planning is the belief that the biblical Joseph built the pyramids to store grain.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the Nazi rallies continue apace. How long before we get legitimate beer hall fights?

Probably soon, if Spencer and Co.'s "hail victory!" talk continues.

Quote:

Otherwise, why would he give positions of power to pro-child labor, pro-Christian school hacks like Nancy DeVos?

Most importantly there, she's wife of Amway's owner and a major Republican donor. This doesn't reflect well on Trump either, but I think he's more likely handing it off to a major donor (whose fortune was made through a pyramid scam) than he is trying to make anyone relive his childhood.

What depresses me the most is that, of all the people he's naming to positions to power, not one is even remotely human. You have literal fascists, pro-child labor advocates, fanatical religious zealots, and racists, racists, racists galore. Incidents of racially-motivated schoolyard bullying have gone through the roof.

There's some noise about Hillary having a basis to challenge the results, but you know she won't. She can't even be counted on to stand up for her voters, since none of this really affects her. Once she gets an inkling of a possible move toward prosecution, she'll jet straight to Toronto or London with her tail between her legs and not a care in the world.

Trump delegates his daily intelligence briefings to Mike Pence. There's speculation that this will just hold for the transition, but even if he doesn't end up de facto President, Mike Pence is clearly taking an active Dick Cheney-like role in policymaking.

...on the upside, Pence is a standard conservative Republican rather than proto-fascistic. Downside, on some issues like foreign policy and LGBT rights he's actually even worse than Trump. Also Trump's mass movement still exists and if this continues into his presidency will shortly abandon him over this, probably with "his kids are all married to Jews" as a common explanation for his "treason," bolstering the ranks of the "hail victory" subset. Pence may be the Hindenburg of American fascism.

Trump's transition is essentially proving Murphy's Law. Everything every critic said about him has not only been proven, but in most cases he's exceeded expectations.

Miss Strangelove wrote:

Pence may be the Hindenburg of American fascism.

There's a cheery thought.

Actually, I kind of tend to think of Trump as more of an authoritarian, Alfred Hugenberg, type of figure. He stirs up the right to consolidate his power base, but is probably oblivious of the volatility of the powder keg he's sitting on. One false move and we could have serious outbursts of nativist terrorism to deal with, which Trump - in his guise of figurehead of Law And Order (TM) would be compelled to put down. Imagine Giuliani as AG actually having to prosecute white nativist militia men or Klansmen. How would David Duke explain that one?

Easy: Donald Trump Jr.'s wife is a Jew. Eric Trump's wife is a Jew. Ivanka Trump's husband isn't only a Jew, she's a convert to Orthodox Judaism.

The Daily Stormer narrative writes itself.

Question for the Americans - to what extent to Trump actually have a 'mass movement'?

I sort of feel like he is the figurehead for a sentiment, rather than being able to 'mobilise' people in ways aside from voting.

Sholokhov wrote:

Question for the Americans - to what extent to Trump actually have a 'mass movement'?

He doesn't have a real mandate among the American voters. He lost the popular vote by 2 million, but won the Electoral College vote.

These results may be challenged if Hillary has the spine to do so, but don't count on it.

Quote:

I sort of feel like he is the figurehead for a sentiment, rather than being able to 'mobilise' people in ways aside from voting.

That's basically true. The only people Trump mobilizes are the Koch brigade, extreme neocons, and the "White Power" underground.

The average man on the street is a clueless goob who watches Fox News and "thinks" he needs change because Rush Limbaugh tells him he does.

As communists we understand, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." from the Communist Manifesto. Fascists don't end the class struggle, they subjugate it with brute force until the façade of bourgeois democracy can re-takeover.

Fascism arises when capitalism fails. The aim is to restore order (ultimately) to bourgeois democracy. Which was previously stated by...

MissStrangelove wrote:

Where every fascist movement has ended up. Restored liberalism

I'd also add MIA definition of Bonapartism for further reading which also has a link to Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Secondly I'd also add this article on whether Trump is a fascist (it would warrant its own thread if this place wasn't dead): Is Trump a fascist? Spoiler he is not but I felt that is was relative to the conversation.

Red Rebel wrote:

Secondly I'd also add this article on whether Trump is a fascist (it would warrant its own thread if this place wasn't dead): Is Trump a fascist? Spoiler he is not but I felt that is was relative to the conversation.

For the record, I'd agree with the article on its first and best argument, though he does lurch awfully close.

Fascism is at core a middle-class movement suspending liberal democracy to deal with threats to the prevailing system. Trump does certainly lead a middle-class movement with a virulent narrative of pressures from above and below. He hasn't yet signaled a desire to suspend liberal democracy, and while his calls for vastly increased policing and NSA powers are worrying, I don't suspect he'll override the legislature's traditional powers. If he did, I suspect he'd be quickly deposed.

So, I append "proto-" when describing the parallels to 1930s fascist movements, in the interest of factual accuracy. I don't think the "hurr durr he's an individualist" criticism holds water considering every fascistic cult of personality has been built around a strong individual, a "great man of history," who symbolizes the movement's hopes and dreams but also stands above it. I also don't think "he operates within electoral politics" matters as much as whether or not he's signaled suspension thereof as a desire, considering the Nazis also operated electorally.

I would describe Richard Spencer as a fascist, no contest, no "proto-" needed.

A lot of it has also to do with the peculiarities of the American psyche. We do tend to quite proudly and defiantly brand ourselves as the land where the "hoity-toity fancy Yuro-peon issues" don't hold any water. We don't do metric, we don't do kings and queens. We don't worry about public transportation, since everyone is supposed to have a car. We don't worry about the economic or ecological drawbacks of relying on fossil fuel. Plenty of oil in reserve, so drill, baby, drill! America is where The Individual is magnified to the point of becoming insufferable. Trump is definitely the last word in vacuous selfishness.

I also wonder about the impact social media may have had. Without it, Bernie would never have been heard of, but I wonder if it also gave Trump the ultimate kick he needed to seal the deal. Millions of sarcastic, ill tempered left-behinds now have a forum to spread the latest gospel concerning their love for Jesus and their hatred of nearly everything else Jesus' father called "good" on the 7th day. I always wondered where the Moral Majority and their underground Klan counterparts went when they disappeared off the radar of conventional media. Lo and behold, they went to Facebook and found a savior in Trump.

Also, according to this article, fascism now figures into our aesthetic choices for the coming 4 years.