Homework Assignment 2: "But He's Not Hitler..."

 

Author's note: continuing our transfer of content from Facebook, hopefully before they ban me for being anti-fascist - check out my second "Homework Assignment" piece where we talking about why Americans struggle to identify fascism, why Trump doesn't have to be Adolf Hitler to be a fascist and I introduce readers to the brilliant work of anti-fascist scholar Umberto Eco. Please note: this post originally appeared on August 18th, 2020.

One of the most frustrating aspects of attempting to expose American fascism to well, Americans, is the fact that each and every single one of them has grown up in a colonialist, white supremacist, hyper-capitalist nation that has actively embraced fascist ideology since before fascism was a word. This absorption of fascist ideas and ideology has taken a number of guises over the course of America's history including the genocide of indigenous people under the policy of Manifest Destiny, chattel slavery and its closer than you think cousin Jim Crow, Christian fundamentalist influence in our laws and customs, eugenics under the label of progressive policy, colonialism under the Monroe Doctrine, the patriarchy disguised as public morality or family values, anti-communism in the Cold War and all the way up to modern examples like racialized mass incarceration for profit, oil-based dollar imperialism under the Carter Doctrine and the panopticon police state created by both George W Bush and Barack Obama under the pretense of fighting terrorism. 

As such, most Americans have been taught to adopt an extremely narrow and false-literal definition of the word fascism; which is to say that ultimately no amount of obvious fascism short of being actually Hitler will typically be enough to convince many misguided people in our society that fascism is real and is happening in America – because if they knew what fascism actually was, you'd have a real hard time selling carpet-bombing brown people as a human rights intervention, for example. This is why of course when I say to some people that Donald Trump is a fascist, his administration and judiciary are fascist and a mindbogglingly large number of his supporters are also fascists, people look at me like I have three heads; after all Trump isn't wearing a swastika, he hasn't explicitly called for the mass murder of Jewish people and he has of yet to invade Poland.

Of course this position is ridiculous on its face because if you had applied it to yes, literally Hitler any time before about 1941, then the Nazi Party in Germany wouldn't have been real fascists either. Nazism and the fascist state in Germany under Hitler was a process that took more than a decade; it started with a bunch of right wing nutjobs, ex-soldiers and wealthy cranks peddling conspiracies about the establishment (and Jewish people) in German pubs in the 1920's and like the proverbial frog in boiling water, slowly but surely produced the deranged fever dream society that conducted the mass extermination of Jews, Slavs, the disabled and essentially anyone else the Aryan supremacist social order didn't particularly like. Only after a years-long process of erosion of civil liberties and democratic rights, violence and repression against political opposition and forced indoctrination of the German youth, did the final, horrible form of the Nazi state ultimately revealed itself in what we know today as the Holocaust – but there were certainly plenty of hints along the way, much as there are plenty of hints around you today in America.

More importantly however, the simple truth is that Hitler wasn't even the only fascist dictator on the Axis side in World War Two; Italy's Benito Mussolini certainly was never as powerful or dangerous as Hitler (although he was still plenty murderous in his own right) but only a fool would argue that Mussolini wasn't a fascist – after all, he invented the form of the fascist state that Hitler copied and “improved on” when fashioning the Nazi state. Franco wasn't Hitler, but he was certainly a fascist and there are numerous other examples of fascist leaders in more modern times from nations far too small to ever produce anything even remotely resembling the Nazi state; Pinochet in Chile, Syngman Rhee in South Korea, or Viktor Orbán in modern Hungary to name just a few examples.  

Clearly it is thus possible for Trump (or Bolsonaro, or Erdogan, or Duterte, etc) to be a fascist without being literally, um, Hitler. Indeed, since fascism historically takes the fastest route to power and is invariably (and quite purposefully) crafted to match the existing contradictions, bias, and prejudices of the society that produced it, there is actually quite of lot of variance between fascist movements – both in the historical record of the war period and in modern expressions such as can be found in Modi's Indian Hindu Nationalist movement, or say Pig Empire client states like Colombia in Latin America – or of course and as I've been arguing for slightly over four years now, Donald Trump's America.

Ok then so if fascism can adopt as many forms as there are countries sick enough to produce a fascist movement and elevate it to power, then what is fascism and how can you recognize it? Back when Trump was first elected and it briefly became fashionable for the liberal intelligentsia in America to interpret Trump's statements literally and declare “he's a fascist” or “he's an authoritarian,” there were a great number of books and even some movies bandied about the discourse to help educate Americans about what fascism really is. Of course, as the liberal mainstream's actions (including funding his wall, fast-tracking his fascist judges and demobilizing antifascist protest against his fascist government officials) would later prove, they didn't really think Trump was a fascist and ironically enough, in this too they turned out to be wrong. 

Perhaps that's why the vast majority of books recommended to readers by liberal thought leaders for the purposes of understanding fascism tended to fall into one of two categories; weighty tomes that pretty much talk about Nazi Germany well after Hitler had already established the Third Reich, or books that reinforced establishment propaganda seeking to conflate leftists with fascists under the all encompassing brand of “populism” - meaning of course, angry stupid mobs of labor class people who aren't smart enough to let the ruling class control society in peace. Even the intellectually honest books some of the better celebrity thinkers recommended were less than ideal; frankly Hannah Arendt's “On Origins of Totalitarianism” is a wonderful book and a monumental work of scholarship, but since it deals primarily with intricately studying the societies, processes and circumstances that produced specifically Hitler's Holocaust and Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union, it's hardly an ideal way to help modern Americans recognize Trump's nascent and completely home grown fascism – after all, if Arendt's book has little to say about contemporary (to Hitler) fascists like Mussolini and Franco because neither Italy nor Spain ever rose to the level of a totalitarian state, how direct will the connection be for someone who doesn't understand fascism to begin with and is trying to comprehend Trump's modern day behavior?

Unfortunately I and a few (but shockingly limited number of) other observers who are not famous liberal thought leaders or random emo musicians, actually did know that Trump is indeed speaking quite literally most of the time and based on both his words and actions, he frankly could be nothing other than a fascist. Not a fascist dictator mind you; the dictator part was always going to be a question of whether or not the American system of government could hold against Trump's reactionary impulses for power, especially in light of the already quite awesome authority and immunity of the imperial presidency that existed before Trump was sworn into office. Spoiler, things are not exactly going well on that front – despite being impeached already, Trump is currently admitting on television that he's dismantling the Post Office to effectively rig the fall election; but I digress.

All of this is why I've spent much of the past four years wondering why more people (particularly so-called liberal influencers in the American discourse who actually have come to realize Trump is a very real fascist) don't tell folks to read Umberto Eco's truly groundbreaking 1995 essay from the New York Review of Books entitled “Ur-Fascism” or more plainly, Eternal Fascism. Do you want to know more about the differences between the Nazi state and Mussolini's Italy? Are you looking for a common cluster of ideas, beliefs and behaviors that can help you identify fascist leaders and fascist movements in any time period, including our own? Want to create a fourteen-point checklist that objectively proves Trump and the Trump movement are both fascist? Eco and his essay have got you covered in about twenty minutes, even if you read slowly and take notes – try reading “It Could Never Happen Here” in twenty minutes, I dare you.

And so now that you've read the journal, that's the homework I'd like to assign those of you bold enough to accept it – click on the link below to read Umberto Eco's “Eternal Fascism” and while you're doing so, ask yourself how many of the author's fourteen signs of fascism you can find in Trump's words, his actions or the words and actions of his administration. Please, I am practically begging those among you who remain skeptical to take up this assignment, because almost everything we're going to talk about in this ongoing discussion plan here on Facebook utterly depends on understanding that Trump is indeed an unhinged fascist – even if he's not Hitler, yet.

Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco

PS – for my “tankiest” of friends reading this; I'd just like to warn you in advance that Eco definitely comes from the Arendt school of totalitarian theory and as such, he certainly doesn't have many kind words for Stalin. You can decide for yourself whether or not that's a problem when reading his work but I personally couldn't really care less how an anti-fascist theorist felt about a dead guy in 1995. The fact is the essay is about fascism and recognizing its constantly mutating forms, which in my estimation is a far more important issue to examine here than some pithy lines showing out for empire by sniping at Stalin's Russia – as always your mileage may vary, and one way or another, the future is left.

- nina

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. Please help me fight corporate censorship by sharing my articles with your friends online!

You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook. Podcast at “No Fugazi” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

Article Analysis: Portland, Aurn Gupta and How to Write About Fascism

Editor's note: as I mentioned in yesterday's post, a recent throttling of my Facebook account has forced me to re-post some informal media analysis op-eds I published on that site; just to ensure that someone actually gets to read them. For those of you looking for something fresh off the grill, head on over to my main website and check out my latest op-ed "Why I Support Impeachment but Fear Incompetent Democrat Hubris."

Today's piece originally appeared online during the evening of September 23, 2019. All analysis by Nina Illingworth unless otherwise indicated.

Getting Andy Ngo and His Fascist Friends Off Our Streets

Continuing with the theme of sharing and analyzing articles I actually *like* for once, today I'd like to examine and offer some well deserved praise for this longer piece about fighting fascism by Arun Gupta over at Jacobin magazine.

First and foremost I'd like to note that with a few minor exceptions I'll talk about a little later, this essay is a picture perfect model of how to proactively write about opposing modern Americanized fascism without ending up on an FBI watch-list. 

In his analysis, Gupta wastes precisely zero ounces of energy on an objectively false "both sides" narrative and you won't find any homages to "dapper white nationalists" in this essay. The author refuses to either normalize or glamorize far right thugs disguised as free speech activists and while that's pretty easy when you're blogging from your living room, it's actually quite the accomplishment when you're directly quoting the violent fascists themselves. 

Despite including plenty of direct and unaltered quotations from various violent fascist agitators in Portland, Gupta never once allows the neo-nazis to claim hold of a "false balance" by presenting the reactionary right's arguments without context as is so terrifyingly common in mainstream corporate media. 

This is accomplished by counterbalancing each claim and accusation made by the fascists, with numerous mainstream media accounts of the violence they've undertaken during thinly-disguised exercises of reactionary right-wing terrorism and intimidation. In particular, Gupta's use of this "accusation" then "revelation" technique is absurdly effective when employed against fascist provocateur and fake journalist Andy Ngo's selectively edited videos of "antifa terrorist violence" - by posting the larger contextual counter-evidence that reveals the violence was actually initiated by far right reactionary "protestors", Gupta essentially exposes and de-fangs Ngo's entire narrative as highly-lucrative fascist agitprop; which it is! 

Furthermore, this finely-sourced piece represents a literal wealth of knowledge about not only the neo-fascist "free speech" rallies in Portland, but the contours of the battle against rising, street-level fascism in America as a whole. In one single essay Gupta exposes the modern "MAGA free speech" movement as a ruthless roving neo-nazi street gang looking to cow political opposition with violence, puts flame to the lie that Andy Ngo is a journalist, excoriates corporate media for lending credibility to fascist provocateurs, exposes the direct connection between right wing street gangs and the Trump administration, and shatters the argument that anti-fascist activists are "the *real* terrorists" - all thoroughly supported by a variety of links referencing the full spectrum of primarily mainstream media websites.

It is however in the final third of the article under the heading "Stemming the Tide" in which Gupta both rises to his highest moment and yet tragically still stumbles in that unfortunate way most liberal or liberal-adjacent media figures are so incentivized to do.

First the author rises to the challenge by taking a sledgehammer to the infantile argument that "if no opposition were to show up when the far right marches, then there would be no violence, hence no story for the media, which would in turn deprive the far right of the visuals they need to recruit. They would thus flounder and dissipate." 

As Gupta rightfully notes however these "far-right rallies are neither discrete nor static events. Like Trumpism, they are part of a dynamic of extremism, benefiting both from polarization and the disruption of norms." Naturally the purpose of these rallies is to draw attention to, fortify and recruit for a white nationalist, anti-migrant, anti-left wing neo-fascist movement that is already killing people all over the country - simply allowing that to happen unmolested represents a crime of negligence against society as a whole, no matter what the law books say.

In what is undoubtedly the author's finest moment in the essay, Gupta once and for all shatters the idea that simply ignoring the violent nazis and hoping they'll go away is an effective strategy by pointing out that the fascist street-gangs have already gone on the offensive against even milquetoast liberal organizing:

"Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, and their allies shifted strategy in 2018, says O’Banion. “They began showing up in small, well-armed groups at places like the IWW [Wobblies] Hall. They threatened the Occupy ICE encampment last summer. They went to Planned Parenthood in Olympia and harassed people. They harassed people at an immigrant solidarity event shortly before August 17.” Patriot Prayer has also tried to disrupt a general meeting of the Portland DSA, the Women’s March in 2018, and LGBT Pride, and they threatened a climate change event at a local college, which was canceled by the administration. And they attacked the Cider Riot bar on May Day.

In effect, the far right is using the big rallies to recruit, stoke more violence, and disrupt peaceful left, labor, and liberal organizing."

The above quoted paragraph is in and itself quite amazing because while I know every single person reading this analysis has heard about the "horrifying attacks on Andy Ngo" there's a pretty good chance you've heard nothing at all from the national media about any of the above *right* wing attacks on regular people organizing for political purposes the far right deems unacceptable. Why do you think that is? 

All of which brings us to unfortunate ebb where I think Gupta's work falls short as he ends the article by talking about harnessing the anti-fascist energy of a soccer game "in the streets." This continues an unfortunately sour note of ivory tower liberalism that runs throughout the entire piece. While noting that direct and sometimes violent action has been the only method even the fascists acknowledge has hampered their efforts to organize, Gupta riddles this piece with observations like:

"There was no justification for the attack, if no other reason than that Ngo was cast as the victim in a story that became national news and was exploited by Trump in trying to label Antifa terrorists."

"Some antifascists were eager to rumble, as well. But others jumped in to defuse the violence every time. No doubt dumb acts are committed in the name of antifascism. But that’s true of any movement, and dumb is not deadly."

 "The mainstream media are failing as well, by starving reporters of the time and resources needed to expose the unsavory characters and ideas lurking on the far right."

Most of this is ultimately the same type of liberal "both sides" nonsense that Gupta himself decries in the early portion of his own article. 

For starters the widely-publicized justification for the assault on Andy Ngo is that he publicly broadcast the names and addresses of anti-fascist protestors arrested at a previous rally, apparently with the help of a sympathetic police officer. This action put lives in danger and whether or not you agree that this justification is sufficient to give Andy Ngo a decidedly non-lethal shiner for his trouble, it is not non-existent. If Gupta was unaware of these facts, he's failed his readers and he's helped Andy Ngo hide the fascist violence behind his actions - actions that then lead to the assault; please keep in mind that nobody punched Andy in the face during the numerous *previous* rallies he attended and filmed, after all.

Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous for Gupta to blather on about soccer games attended primarily by affluent white liberals and scold, however mildly, "some antifacists" for being "eager to rumble" in an article where he points out that the key to stopping fascist organization is anti-fascist counter protesting. Why exactly does Gupta think the right is trying to target smaller groups and avoid massive hordes of antifascists? It's because they'll get their butt whupped by those hordes, in a very physical sense, obviously.

Of course as Gutpa reveals in the third quote above, all of this is further colored by his largely liberal (and disastrously incorrect) opinion that the answer is "more journalism" - uttered with an apparently straight face, as if the mainstream corporate media wasn't actively prepared to side with fascists over left wing protestors for both economic and class warfare reasons.

At this point I might be inclined to say something snarky about entrusting a labor class left wing revolution to self-aggrandizing trust fund babies who own a magazine but I'll save it for another day. Despite its few (and deeply annoying) flaws, this is an excellent article and if the mainstream media put half as much effort into covering these stories properly as Gupta and Jacobin have done here, the fascist menace that looms over the 2020 election might already be receding. 

Alas as many reading this already know - most liberals in the media, deep in their heart of hearts would prefer fascism to sharing with poor people and the marginalized."

- Nina Illingworth

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus.

You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog.

Updates available on Twitter, Mastodon and Facebook.