The "F" Word

Photo: National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized, Heinrich Hoffmann collection, PD-US https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22501218

FASCIST. Are you one? Who is bringing fascism to the United States? It’s been a term loose on the lips for a good while in political discourse here. Now, it’s taking off like a TikTok video. 

We have a general notion of what fascism is; academic historians and political scientists, even literary figures, have more formal ways of talking about it. Here and now, it’s just a sound-bite insult. But given the importance of whether or not we’re heading there, we ought to stop and consider the concept during these last few days of shaky calm before The Vote.

What do we think of when we think of fascists and fascism? Storm troopers burning books; thugs in distinctive clothing (blackshirts, brownshirts) marching on/intimidating elected officials; vigilante justice and police/secret police impunity; sustained attacks on a scapegoated minority; centralized political power and persecution of dissidents; censorship, fear, regimentation, and a charismatic (to some—ridiculous to others) chief demagogue—does that cover it?

Wikipedia says fascism (FASH-iz-əm) is “a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Merriam-Webster adds a detail. It says fascism is a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime “that exalts nation and often race above the individual.” Can’t have populism, then, even though that used to mean “the people,” i.e., the regular people in their struggle with their bosses, the banks, and the elites in general.

The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that “fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another” historically, but they have in common “extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism” as well as belief in “the rule of elites.” So, EB says they aren’t populist at all even though they might pretend to be. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

Humberto Eco (The Name of the Rose) once wrote a long essay on the topic and listed a dozen elements (14 actually) that he thought characterized fascism. Unlike the three definitions above, Eco emphasized that fascism is hard to pin down because it is essentially anti-intellectual and emotive. So, “fascism” may be something like pornography: a thing very hard to precisely distinguish from close cousins like erotic art but pretty easy to recognize when it’s, um, in your face. “Fascism” thus could just mean extreme bloody-mindedness for one person while for another the same behavior or policy would merit massive, even extra-constitutional resistance.

In my view, this is the key distinction that we should examine because there are plenty of signs that our polarized polity is stepping right to the edge of that conclusion, i.e., that our “democracy” is in danger and must be preserved by any means necessary, including anti-democratic ones. (“Democracy,” of course, being another emotive and hard-to-define object.)

I’m going to go through Eco’s 14 signs and see if Trump really is one, but [spoiler alert] I’ll also suggest that the finger-pointing Democrats are not immune to the accusation in certain important ways.

Eco 1: The Cult of Tradition, the idea that things were great once and we just have to get back there. MAGA sums that up nicely, and Trump’s Christian fundamentalist base certainly harkens back to a Golden Age when we were a “Christian nation” (First Amendment be damned). The Dems are really on the opposite side of this. Hillary famously praised the “innovative” coasts and the brave new world of hi-tech.

Eco 2: Anti-Modernism, a rejection not just of recent changes like civil rights, gender equity, and sexual emancipation but, in extreme cases, the Enlightenment itself, the Age of Reason that shed religious dogma for science, individual liberty, and the expanded franchise to non-property holders. Trump doesn’t reflect this much, but some of his supporters do, like Peter Thiel who laments women’s suffrage. 

Eco 3: The Cult of Action, often expressed in contempt for pointy-headed intellectuals. This is present in Trump’s movement, but it’s nothing new. The GOP has embraced this resentment since the days of Nixon and Agnew (“nattering nabobs of negativism”), and Democrats regularly play right into it, for example, by the shoddy “expert” handling of things like Covid and, most famously, Hillary’s “deplorables” line. Iva League graduate Vance says universities are the enemy except when they shut down protests against genocide.

Eco 4: Disagreement is Treason. Trump hates turncoats worse than anything and doesn’t forgive. Mike Pence isn’t welcome at his rallies (though he could go to Kamala’s and get a round of applause.) The censorship-industrial complex put together by the Dems (and cheered by most liberals) is authoritarian if not fascism-lite and certainly a solid precedent for an uglier version to come. And P.S., the Guantánamo dungeon is still open after both R and D presidencies could have shut it down. Lest we forget: no one was ever punished for torturing defenseless prisoners. The apparatus for crushing dissent has been in place for a while. If fascism is so dangerous, why did everyone sign off on its tools?

Eco 5: Fear of Difference. Trumpism is guilty, witness the anti-Obama birther conspiracy and rhetoric about immigration “poisoning the blood of our nation.”  Not to mention the allergy to transgenderism. Dems embrace “diversity” in superficial traits like ethnicity and sexual partners but draw the line at people who dare to challenge them or run against their anointed candidates (vade retro, Bernie S).

Eco 6: Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class. Democrats handed this to Trump by not taking care of people’s concrete material wellbeing over the last few decades. So, yes, they’re resentful and have every right to be. We could say those voters are more resentful of a loss of status than survival issues, but in most cases it’s probably both. And what’s wrong with wanting some status?

Eco 7: Obsession with Plots. Q-Anon, of course; Stop the Steal, of course. But wait a minute—Russiagate? Misinformation spread by Iran? Both sides get an F.

Eco 8: Deceptively Strong/Weak Eternal Opponent. Eco says that fascism requires an enemy that is both too strong (justifying harsh measures) and essentially weak (undermining the nation). Jews fit the bill for Hitler, inferior and weak but also secretly in control of everything. I suppose the Deep State could serve here with the accusation that they’ve taken over the government but then can’t deliver in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc. Dems treat the MAGAs similarly, an internal fifth column (strong) but also “deplorable” and incompetent (weak).

Eco 9: Life as Permanent Warfare. This seems like a stretch to lay on one side or the other though the Trumpians are more openly belligerent.

Eco 10: Contempt for the Weak. Like true fascists, Trump mocks the weak, mocks his enemies as being weak, and seems congenitally incapable of recognizing that he ever did anything wrong. OTOH, Kamala doesn’t recognize that she ever did anything, so there’s that. And could Blinken, Biden, Harris, Sullivan be any more contemptuous of the Palestinians of Gaza? They’re defenseless, so naturally we slaughter them, right?

Eco 11: Cult of Heroism. This doesn’t seem to be a big factor in U.S. politics at present though Dems love to parade military types, showcase generals on talk shows, and run CIA agents for elective office. Who are the MAGA heroes? Kyle Rittenhouse? Trump doesn’t like to share the stage with anyone.

Eco 12: Machismo. Bingo.

Eco 13: Selective Populism: Fascism claims to speak for “the People” while enriching the elites. Both sides guilty as hell.

Eco 14: Newspeak. Where to begin? The English language long ago entered its decadent period with the shift from “torture” to “enhanced interrogation.”

Speaking of fascism, was Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally a fascist display? Liberal media certainly think so. All the Dem-leaning talk shows went absolutely ballistic, comparing it to a Nazi event held there a century ago.

Sorry, people, not convincing. After all, 400 members of BOTH parties stood and cheered a real, bonafide fascist on the floor of the House of Representatives not so long ago, one who is actively carrying out a mass murder of untermenschen before the entire world with U.S. weaponry, money, and support. Clips of that infamous display will someday terrify our grandchildren. The same liberal outlets clutching their pearls actively collaborate every day by pushing out the genocidal party line from Jerusalem. Their piously “democratic” university presidents attack anyone who objects. Now we’re supposed to forget all that and lose our minds over Trump.

Is Trump a fascist? If so, he’s got company and plenty of it.

At BRICS summit, Global South not playing along

Dozens of Global South leaders dared to gather last week at a world summit meeting hosted by Voldemort Putin in the Tatar capital, Kazan. So hey, the world didn’t stop turning because we have an election next week, imagine that.

Apparently, they didn’t agree that Mr Putin is the new Hitler, as Hillary Clinton opined in 2014, i.e., long before the Ukraine war broke out. Whatever they might think of the battle raging in eastern Europe, 30 heads of state and top officials from BRICS member and observer countries came to the powwow.

They wanted to see whether they could collaborate on a new trade and development architecture, given that the record of the last 500 years of Western-led domination has left many of them in an unenviable state.

And these were not minor players. Aside from the five original BRICS states—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—there were the newly incorporated members such as oil giants Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, plus Ethiopia and Egypt, suggesting the door is open for more African countries.

And sure enough, the list of 11 new candidate members includes Algeria, Nigeria, and Uganda. Southeast Asia is also heavily represented among the newcomers: Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, that is, the four biggest and most prosperous countries of the region.

Only Latin America is largely on the sidelines. Cuba and Bolivia will be invited to join, but these are minor economic players to say the least. Venezuela was vetoed by Brazil after the glaring election theft by Maduro & Co.

News coverage has highlighted the fact that the ever-expanding BRICS far outdistances the G7 Masters of the Universe countries in real GDP, population, and geographic reach.

Less often mentioned is the fact that most of the BRICS countries aren’t keen on wars, unlike their erstwhile colonial powers, historically incapable of imagining a world that they don’t dominate. Could world trade be mutually beneficial and not inevitably exploitative? Let’s see.

The summit set itself the task of finding new ways to engage in trade without kowtowing to the interests of the Americans and the Europeans as they have had to do for centuries. That’s plenty complicated, but the meeting outlined ambitious ideas.

Western reaction has been twofold: ignore the whole thing as not worthy of our attention or mock it as Putin’s attempt to prove he’s not isolated.

News flash: he isn’t and neither is Russia.

The New York Times’ headline was typical: “BRICS Summit Offers a Glimpse Inside Putin’s Alternate Reality.” Yeah, a reality that the Times’ writers and their friends in Washington should explore, including side-to-side comparisons with their own. Narrative management—at which the U.S. is particularly expert—is no substitute for looking at facts and basing one’s actions on them.

The BBC put it this way: “Putin gathers allies toshow West’s pressure isn’t working.” Hey, Beeb, that was demonstrated 2 years ago, time to catch up! And the influential Associated Press insisted that the summit was “shadowed by Ukraine.” It certainly was for the western media, which are laser-focused on the war their countries are losing. No evidence that the rest of the world is “shadowed” by it.

Perhaps they’re less obsessed with Ukraine after having witnessed the U.S. and its allies illegally invade and destroy one disobedient country after another. Or it could be that seeing a U.S. ally slaughter defenseless civilians in Gaza for a year makes them less likely to sit up and salute at the demand that they “isolate” the Russian leadership.

The point of BRICS is that through joint cooperation they hope to carve out room to stay independent of the West’s demands and think and act for themselves. Maybe that’s why it’s proving so popular in this early stage.

Our mainstream reporters continue to whistle confidently that Russia’s economy—that they were shocked to discover was not crushed by the mighty sanctions regime imposed in 2022—still has “severe cracks beneath the surface” (BBC).

They also scoff at the idea that the diverse member states of the BRICS could ever reach agreement on important issues of trade, commerce, and finance, no doubt because they’re used to the western version where one country imposes the rules, and everyone else obeys. China and India overcoming their differences is simply “bonkers,” according to one quoted expert.

The lengthy Kazan Declaration issued at the end of the summit suggests that the BRICS countries can indeed find areas of considerable consensus, notwithstanding the ponderous turgidity of such documents. The signatories call for a reform of the outdated UN apparatus, including the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organisation, and an end to “unlawful unilateral coercive measures, including illegal sanctions.”

The Declaration includes consensus language on climate change, biodiversity, species conservation, water scarcity, terrorism, money-laundering, Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, and a bunch of other stuff.

It finally gets to the much-anticipated talk of new cross-border payments mechanisms, now that the U.S. has queered the dollar by stealing other countries’ cash. They “welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions” and want to see interlinked banking networks free of American control.

Does all this add up to a New Bretton Woods, a reformulated UN, displacement of the dollar in international trade, a “South” bloc to oppose the West in a new stand-off? Yes, no, and maybe.

Turkey’s presence at the summit suggests NATO is in serious trouble, having demonstrated to the world that its expensive weapons don’t work. The UN Secretary General also attended, to howls of Atlanticist outrage.

BRICS has its own development bank and has started to lend money although the World Bank still dwarfs it. These alternatives will take years, perhaps decades, to evolve.

Reuters, to its credit, diverged from lamestream coverage by taking note of the attending countries’ serious grievances with the status quo. “People see institutions which are not really representative or democratic," it quoted one expert saying. "Infrastructure established in the 1940s after the world war, and nothing changes.” 

Net financial flows, Reuters continued, “turned negative for developing countries, meaning they paid more to service external debts than they received in new external finance.”

That is, the poor are now funding the rich. As a matter of fact, that feels a lot like how economics works here at home lately. No one should wonder at the world’s marginalized billions feeling rebellious, unrepresented, taken advantage of, and scolded. After all, so are we.