85
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I’m a fan of Marxist poster C_Plot on Reddit. I’ve gained a lot of good insights from them. Here, they talk about what fascism is/isn’t, but not in a way that excludes other angles on it imo. Link to Reddit in the post but I’m copying & pasting the whole comment here so you don’t have to go there to see it. Overall I agree but would love to hear your takes.

Fascism is not at all an ideology. Fascism is a tactic to maintain tyrannical class-rule. So fascism is not extreme capitalism. However, fascism is a tactic to maintain tyrannical capitalist class rule with a rise in the conscious of the oppressed classes. In feudalism, the ruling class rule by divine right. The bourgeois revolutions shattered that and promoted the view that “all are created equal”.

Republicanism (even in a stunted constitutional monarchy form), along with legislative supremacy, threatens the reign of the capitalist ruling class unless either the working class submits obsequiously to capitalist tyranny OR the franchise of the working class can be diverted into basal hatreds and bigotries through the tactic of fascism. If the working class remains steeped in obsequiousness, the capitalist tyrants can maintain the myth of rule of the People and republicanism. However as consciousness rises, even slightly, and the working class becomes conscious of themselves as an oppressed class, the ruling class panics and promotes hatreds and bigotries toward a cultivated out-group set and promises to smite the members of that out-group.

Those anti-Agápē hatreds and bigotries come to dominate what passes for civic discourse. Instead of government administering our common resources and addressing our common concerns, as civic discourse, the hatreds and bigotries of the out-group members and the hyper oppression of the out-group eclipses all genuine civic discourse. The fascist tactic allows the capitalist ruling class tyrants to maintain their rule while maintaining the semblance of a republic (though recently a return to divine right for tyrants is being promoted too).

Therefore capitalism cannot sustain itself without the docility of oppressed classes or instead the panic and pervasive deployment of the fascist tactic. That is not about societal decay but the decay of the tyrannical reign of the capitalist ruling class itself. So fascism is entirely about the capitalist counterrevolution reaction to the socialist call for advancing the bourgeois revolutions beyond capitalist tyranny.

We have been conditioned, like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, to accept fascism as the very water in which we swim. Fascism was the result of the Great Depression, not because of the downturn in the economy itself but because of meager advances in working class consciousness. It’s just that the fascist tyrants demanded we never use the proper moniker to delineate what they had imposed upon us (rampant ridicule of those using the term “fascist” as if it is absurd to use the term when instead it is entirely appropriate).

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago

I like the conceptualisation of fascism by Cesaire and Foucault, that it's a boomerang effect from exporting democracy abroad: https://medium.com/religion-bites/discourse-on-colonialism-by-aim%C3%A9-c%C3%A9saire-793b291a0987

First we must study how colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to brutalize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism; and we must show that each time a head is cut off or an eye put out in Vietnam and in France they accept the fact, each time a little girl is [assaulted] and in France they accept the fact, each time a Madagascan is tortured and in France they accept the fact, civilization acquires another dead weight, a universal regression takes place, a gangrene sets in, a center of infection begins to spread; and that at the end of all these treaties that have been violated, all these lies that have been propagated, all these punitive expeditions that have been tolerated, all these prisoners who have been tied up and interrogated, all these patriots who have been tortured, at the end of all the racial pride that has been encouraged, all the boastfulness that has been displayed, a poison has been instilled into the veins of Europe and, slowly but surely, the continent proceeds toward savagery.

And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific reverse shock: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers around the racks invent, refine, discuss.

People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: “How strange! But never mind — it’s Nazism, it will pass!” And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

Yes, it would be worthwhile to study clinically, in detail, the steps taken by Hitler and Hitlerism and to reveal to the very distinguished, very humanistic, very Christian bourgeois of the twentieth century that without his being aware of it, he has a Hitler inside him, that Hitler inhabits him, that Hitler is his demon, that if he rails against him, he is being inconsistent and that, at bottom, what he cannot forgive Hitler for is not crime in itself, the crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and the blacks of Africa.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago

People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: “How strange! But never mind — it’s Nazism, it will pass!” And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

This needed to be said again

[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago

Liberals sowing: Haha fuck yeah!!! Slava Ukraini!!!

Liberals reaping: The police are flying drones overhead and Europe is collapsing. What the fuck.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

The biggest flaw in their argument is that it implies fascism cannot exist outside the imperial core, which I don't think is true at all. For example, you can't call Pinochet a fascist because Chile isn't an imperialist power. At best, you can say that Pinochet is a neocolonial stooge working on behalf of his neocolonial colonizer but isn't himself a fascist, which is obviously untrue.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Pinochet might not have been in the imperial core, but his regime was an outgrowth of it because it only succeeded with Nixon's approval. With those Cold War puppet states that you could call fascist, their political economy was shaped by their US sponsorship and it reflected the extremely right-wing American government. They were the Mini-Me Hitlers standing next to the big Hitler.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

I swore we had an emote for Foucalt’s Boomerang, but emote search is pretty janky so idk

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago

gunpoint ecoterrorist gunpoint-alt

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago

Overall, good argument. The one minor quibble I’d have is that the underlying root of fascism bubbling up to the surface is when the contradictions in capitalism become apparent and the stability of capitalism is threatened, by a wide variety of potential causes. This often causes a rise in class consciousness, but not always. So fascism can emerge without a rise in class consciousness as a “preemptive” move to stop it before it starts.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago

Capitalism as it is usually defined is not an ideology either, it's a system of economic relations. The ideology most associated with it is liberalism.

I think the idea of fascism not being substantially ideological is undermined by the obvious point that it's closely conjoined with capitalism. Also, even what they are describing, the lionizing of ingroup preference, is ideological, and you can easily point to other features that are more characteristic of fascism than their explanation (which I think is overly tainted by Hitlerian Nazism rather than a broad view of fascist ideologies), most particularly the fantasy that class collaborationism can be perpetuated forever if we just subordinate all classes to the state, which is somehow not a bureaucratic or military class of its own, on the basis of some sort of egoistic nationalism.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Also, even what they are describing, the lionizing of ingroup preference, is ideological

I can't say I follow or agree on this point. I think this just the method of practical carrot-and-stick behavior modification. The promises of in-group rewards means even a Jewish person will become a a Nazi, or Candace Owens will become MAGA. Then fear of losing in-group status is what keeps people in line: Carlie Kirk back to toeing the party line over his audience after one phone call.

It's a brutally effective way to prey on people where they're vulnerable: primal fears and desires.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can phrase things mechanistically if you like and then nothing is ideological except for a purely aesthetic, Nietzschean sort of ideology, but I said the word "lionizing" for a reason. I don't mean just the strategy of favoring your ingroup, I mean the set of social values in which you should do such a thing even if it was hypothetically to your detriment (a hypothetical that the Nazis and notoriously Imperial Japan had people frequently realize) because it is good and it is just to do so.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I think ideals do exist, I think "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" can only be explained as an ideology because it places an intrinsic value on people, not a practical value. It exists regardless of who the ruling party is.

I mean the set of social values in which you should do such a thing even if it was hypothetically to your detriment (a hypothetical that the Nazis and notoriously Imperial Japan had people frequently realize) because it is good and it is just to do so.

I never got the sense it was about a sense of universal goodness that exists independently of the ruling party, but because earning approval of the ruling in-group could help you earn carrots and escape sticks.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Remember that the inherent virtue of serving and sacrificing for your country that has long been a central element of America's civic religion.

See also JD Vance:

There’s this old-school—and I think a very Christian concept, by the way—that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.

Of course, this is closer to Confucianism than anything you'll find in the New Testament, and actual Confucianism is another great example of ingroup preference as a set of values as well as a supposedly pragmatic approach to social organization.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Lol, JD Vance lying out his mouth. Do you think JD Vance believes in self sacrifice for himself? Do you think JD Vance loves Hispanic Americans? Or immigrants? Or Palestinians?

No, what JD Vance loves is encouraging other people to self sacrifice, to perpetuate genocides at home and abroad, to make himself and his billionaire donors richer and more powerful.

Like how Christo-fascists have nothing to do with Christian values, they appropriate the aesthetics and rhetoric only to the extent that it gets them what they want.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Obviously he doesn't have any interest in self-sacrifice, and Trump has opened a Bible maybe three times in his life, but it would be absurd to think there isn't a major element of their evangelical support who don't hold the values promulgated by these lying careerists, whether because the careerists are advocating for them or because the careerists knew these were already popular values. Vance was just an example, I could have just as easily cited Benjamin Franklin talking about how natural it is to want to see one's own race proliferate.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Yes, but holding those values doesn't make them fascists, it does make them vulnerable to fascists who appropriate the aesthetics of their values.

Fascism is not arising out of their values, it is exploiting their values.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I'm sorry but this is a silly argument that amounts to playing with words. If you're trying to do literally anything but defend the conclusion of the post, what sort of descriptive value are you adding here? Holding one specific element of belief that is characteristic of fascists does not itself make them fascists, therefore the belief has no bearing on them being fascists?

All that argument is is the confusion of a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. Based on what we've seen historically, the value of some kind of ingroup preference is a necessary element of fascist ideology, it's the bundle that is the fasces. It also seems plain that fascism is the logical end point of these beliefs, not an "exploitation" of them. If you think that your race should come before other races, why wouldn't you seek to exterminate all those untermenschen? If you think your nation's benefit should come before those of any other nation's (or, you know, that of the people in other nations), the only reason you have to hold off on conquering them is pragmatic (which indeed was what held off the Nazis on starting WWII until they thought they were ready to). Most of all, if you believe that ethno-national heritage is the most fundamental dividing line between yourself and others (with the people on your side being the ones you should care about), doesn't it make the most sense to side with your ethnicity's/nation's bourgeoisie against the workers (and bourgeoisie) of other nations and ethnicities?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I'm here to discuss in good faith, you're starting to pull out some debate bro lines and I'm not here for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I interpret the claim you made about fascism as an ideology, based on your JD Vance quote:

The virtue of self sacrifice in serving your community, your county, and the world is a fascist value

This is an absolutely insane claim. I want to self sacrifice for the world. I am a privileged ass white American, and I want global equality and global communism, which will cost me my own status and material wealth. So according to your definition, am I a fascist for wanting to self sacrifice for the world to bring about communism? Make it make sense, if this is a value of fascism then I'm the fascist and JD Vance isn't (since we both agreed he obviously does not share this value).

Now, in good faith maybe you just presented this very badly, so let's ignore the JD quote, and when you say, "serve your country", you specifically mean the fascist fetishization of police and military. This kind of service I personally wouldn't consider to be a value, and it absolutely isn't self sacrifice (even if fascists like to pretend it is), because it's the sadistic pleasure of oppressing someone weaker. To be fair that is very central to America's identity.

Most of all, if you believe that ethno-national heritage is the most fundamental dividing line between yourself and others (with the people on your side being the ones you should care about), doesn't it make the most sense to side with your ethnicity's/nation's bourgeoisie against the workers (and bourgeoisie) of other nations and ethnicities?

If you believe that ethno-national heritage is the most fundamental dividing line, and you're one of one of the bourgeoisie, then it would make the most sense to side with your nation's workers against the bourgeoisie of other nations. You're describing precisely the LIE that fascist leaders make. "America First". What's the reality of fascism? The bourgeoisie always side with the bourgeoisie. The American fascists are white Christian American nationalists, yet include a South American immigrant, a black woman, a Jewish man. The race war was always made up as a cover for the class war.

Poor white working class schmucks might delude themselves into believing you, because they want so badly for it to be true, it's sheer opportunism.

Show me one of the bourgeoisie who wants to self sacrifice to serve the workers of their country with a shared ethno-national heritage, and you'll finally have shown me a principled ideological fascist.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago

you're starting to pull out some debate bro lines and I'm not here for it.

I'm explaining things very directly. I won't do a "no u" for your responses because it's possible you just aren't following it at all, but it's deeply frustrating to have the accusations slung at me with no fucking substantiation while you are misrepresenting my claim this badly (which again, might be sincere).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I interpret the claim you made about fascism as an ideology, based on your JD Vance quote:

The virtue of self sacrifice in serving your community, your county, and the world is a fascist value

No, and this is a completely ridiculous reading, and it goes from being a bad reading to a totally indefensible one with that last conjunct ("serving . . . the world"), since my claim involves fascist ideology functionally condemning the world, which is what "ingroup preference" as applied to nationalism is an excuse framework for. That's what Vance is saying, among other things, that "America First" is Christian because it is Christian to have this quasi-Confucian ingroup preference.

Furthermore, as I was very explicit about in the previous comment, this is not the whole of what fascist ideology is, though I'd say it's easily one of the most important parts. But obviously nationalism is not itself fascism. Nationalism in the modern sense substantially precedes fascism by centuries (though it's not as old as people think). Fascism is, at least in part, a system of popular beliefs* promulgated by their leadership (usually insincerely), and not only nationalism. Other facets include the unlimited perpetuation of capitalism and capitalist class relations and, framed negatively, the rejection of class consciousness and socialism.

*Popular in the sense of being oriented toward the masses, not in the sense of being especially prevalent. I am using this term to repeat, because I have somehow not repeated this enough for it to be understood, that the true opinions of the leadership and their supporters are usually not the same and this is especially true of fascism.

If you believe that ethno-national heritage is the most fundamental dividing line, and you're one of one of the bourgeoisie, then it would make the most sense to side with your nation's workers against the bourgeoisie of other nations. You're describing precisely the LIE that fascist leaders make. "America First". What's the reality of fascism? The bourgeoisie always side with the bourgeoisie. The American fascists are white Christian American nationalists, yet include a South American immigrant, a black woman, a Jewish man. The race war was always made up as a cover for the class war.

Poor white working class schmucks might delude themselves into believing you, because they want so badly for it to be true, it's sheer opportunism.

Show me one of the bourgeoisie who wants to self sacrifice to serve the workers of their country with a shared ethno-national heritage, and you'll finally have shown me a principled ideological fascist.

. . . I could also just show you the mass beliefs in a population where fascism has taken hold. You know, the people who are lied to by the leadership as you just described (though, as I'm sure you'd agree, it's not simply a matter of them being duped). You're calling me a debate bro and all these other things and then you repeat my conclusions back to me like you're contradicting me. Of course, some of the leadership inevitably are going to also be "true believers," though I think that your criteria for falsification is not justified, because it ignores the class-collaborationism aspect of their nationalism that is the core thing that I'm talking about. If I showed you someone who was not a class collaborationist, then I would not be showing you much of a fascist.

No, it's the footmen out their dying for the Volk, worker and capitalist alike, who are usually the best example of people who believe in fascist ideology. That said, if you want an example of someone in power who also seemed to really believe at least most of this framework, I'd point you to Himmler, who functionally undermined the Nazi war effort for the sake of carrying out the Holocaust. That, surely, is someone who truly believes that the Jews are a mortal enemy of his Volk and not just a useful boogeyman, because he was treating their killing as though it was truly part of the war effort itself and not just a sick theater for the German masses and a vehicle for economic extraction. Himmler was not alone, and I think the SS generally is full of examples of true believers, he's just a more familiar case.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

I am using this term to repeat, because I have somehow not repeated this enough for it to be understood, that the true opinions of the leadership and their supporters are usually not the same and this is especially true of fascism.

I fully agree with you on this, but you're proving my point. If the leaders hold one set of ideals that are ultimately self-serving, and the population has a completely different set of ideals that are ultimately self-serving, then how is fascism truly and genuinely an ideology? There does not exist one set of consistent beliefs across the board.

Communism is an ideology, there is a consistent set of shared beliefs in class consciousness across the leadership and population.

. . I could also just show you the mass beliefs in a population where fascism has taken hold.

That doesn't mean anything! A fascist population might have mass beliefs that bacon and eggs are breakfast foods, does that mean having bacon and eggs for breakfast makes you a fascist? Correlation does not prove causation.

Of course, some of the leadership inevitably are going to also be "true believers," though I think that your criteria for falsification is not justified, because it ignores the class-collaborationism aspect of their nationalism that is the core thing that I'm talking about.

Nationalism and class-collaborationism are incompatible values, you can have one, not both. At any time you will have to choose one over the other, at at the expense of the other. Again, again, again, this is my point, fascism does not hold a set of consistent principles values, fascism morphs to use whatever value is most self-serving to the individual at that moment.

No, it's the footmen out their dying for the Volk, worker and capitalist alike, who are usually the best example of people who believe in fascist ideology.

I mean, in 1935 Hilter started forced mandatory conscription that included intimidation, incentives, and forced recruitment. If it's an important shared value I don't see why you need to force people into it.

That said, if you want an example of someone in power who also seemed to really believe at least most of this framework, I'd point you to Himmler, who functionally undermined the Nazi war effort for the sake of carrying out the Holocaust. That, surely, is someone who truly believes that the Jews are a mortal enemy of his Volk and not just a useful boogeyman, because he was treating their killing as though it was truly part of the war effort itself and not just a sick theater for the German masses and a vehicle for economic extraction. Himmler was not alone, and I think the SS generally is full of examples of true believers, he's just a more familiar case.

I think Himmler was just a hateful sadistic bastard who got off on it, to the point that he was willing to throw his nation under the bus to satisfy himself.

You're basically trying to make the point with this one that racism is a principled ideology and I wildly disagree. Xenophobia is probably the closest thing to a shared value across fascist leadership and population, but even then racists will suspend their racism when they can benefit from doing so.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Of course, this is closer to Confucianism than anything you'll find in the New Testament,

Vance is basically summarizing the Confucian argument against Mohism's universal love, which more or less maps one-to-one with agape. In general, it's fascinating how Mohists and early Christians were so similar.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 day ago

I agree that this is probably the most important point of view for understanding fascism, but imo the post strays a little too far from "emphasizing a single relation for presentational reasons" towards the territory of "one-sided and therefore wrong." It could be made more technically correct by using the word "primarily" a few times.

Also, the use of the word "tactic" to me implies (probably not meant by the original poster) a sort of intentionality and pragmatism that fascism doesn't necessarily have for the bourgeoisie. You could maybe see it as a tactic of capital itself abstracted away from capitalists, but then we are getting a bit dizzyingly abstract.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

though recently a return to divine right for tyrants is being promoted too

protestantism where their pope is the president

[-] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago

I think this is another interesting answer to the thread you linked to.

I’m not sure what people mean when they say it. IMO fascism is one of the potential outcomes of long or deep crisis in capitalism. We are seeing fascism rise around the world again because neoliberalism never really figured out how to resolve social, economic and geopolitical issues that began with the last recession and were probably exhasterbated by the pandemic.

If it means “fascism is aggressive capitalism” or “capitalism always becomes fascism” or that “fascism is simply a trick of the capitalist ruling class” then I agree, it’s a bad and incorrect argument. I don’t think it’s necessarily incorrect as there is a link between fascism and capitalism during economic or hegemonic crisis… I just think the phrase isn’t clarifying and like you imply it seems only as a rhetorical tool to make the link between capitalism and fascism. I’ve been using a slightly more specific version that “fascism is an illiberal attempt to contain capitalist class struggle within the nation-state.” I think that makes the link to fascism and crisis in capitalism without implying some deterministic historical formula of fascism means the fall of capitalism is at hand.

This 1920s report by Clara Zetkin is one of the early attempts by socialists to understand fascism as a distinct thing - also predates any liberal or mainstream analysis which didn’t really start happening until after WWII. It’s from 1923 so lacks a lot of our hindsight and she thought the movement was so incoherent that it would fall apart from internal differences… but reports about early Mussolini are kind of eerie at the movement in terms of echos and parallels to some contemporary counties. She does call it a sign of “decay” or something like that so maybe this is the origin of that meme version of “fascism is capitalism in decay”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1923/06/fascism-report-comintern.htm

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

I think there are likely more than just the 2 "tactics" they describe (a docile populace or a fascist ruling class). This could be generalized to talking about how capitalism has its inherent contradictions, and these as two ways of delaying some of those contradictions. We've seen many crises throughout capitalism's history, and thus far they've all been further delayed rather than leading to the collapse of capitalism as an economic mode. Fascism is just one of these many delaying tactics.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

My opinion is that fascism is a set of ideologies that, when they have 'won' their struggle, has been with the support of a faction of the bourgeoisie.

Fascism was the result of the Great Depression

Not a historian, but it's the first time that I've read this, and I suspect it is ahistoric state-unitian exceptionalism.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I think people need to be familiar with a latter slavery apologist named Fitzhugh. He's pretty much a 19th century fascist or proto-fascist. The main difference between Fitzhugh and older slavery apologists like Calhoun is that Fitzhugh was actually aware of socialism but obviously rejected them as the reactionary (proto)-fascist clown that he was. And like all fascists since, he does that obnoxious fascist thing where he offered mild critiques of capitalism and tried to recuperate some socialist concepts for fascist ends.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Does it make sense to have a fascism that progresses, and is enacted, without fascists?

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
85 points (100.0% liked)

theory

836 readers
16 users here now

A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.

The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS