'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding around fascism lately¶

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding around fascism lately. Especially with regard to whether or not we all contain some barely-restrained "primal" fascism, just waiting to burst free. I'm sure Marxists already understand the problems with the "essential nature" argument. (1/23) But there is still a great deal of work to be done in teasing out the mechanics of fascism. A lot of theoretical work has been done over the past century to present a Marxist analysis of fascism (some more useful than others). (2/23) Unfortunately, there's no simple way to distill fascism into digestible soundbites like "capitalism in decay" or "colonialism being applied to the metropole" or some vague "response to crisis." (3/23) Understanding fascism and its relationship to the concepts of liberalism, capitalism, colonialism, etc. is critical for being able to mount our defense against it, especially as multiple camps of fascism consolidate in their attempts to outflank each other. (4/23) I am currently in the process of writing a book-length treatise (working title: Blood, Bile, and Bethlehem) to examine the mechanics of bourgeois hegemony and the liberal regime, including the role of fascism.

What follows is an excerpt from the working draft: (5/23) For those already familiar with theories of socialism, it may be useful to draw parallels between the dynamics of liberalism and fascism with those of socialism. (6/23) Although both liberalism and fascism rely heavily on a metaphysical framework and eschew any scientific analysis that disputes the essentialist core of the ideology, liberalism is more akin to utopian socialism. (7/23) Meanwhile, the philosophy of fascism is a close parallel to the intentionality of scientific socialism.

Marxism stands opposed to the rootless idealism of utopian and anarchist strains of “left thought,” and teaches its students to apply rigorous, materialist analysis... (8/23) ... in service of political liberation, focusing on the economic basis at the core of oppression.

In a sinister inversion of this philosophy, fascism purports to hold the same attitude toward liberalism — without allowing its “analysis” to be besmirched by empiricism. (9/23) Where the central analytical lens of socialist ideologies is class — which simultaneously exists as both outcome and driving force of oppression — the lynchpin of liberal thought is the nation. (10/23) It endlessly seeks to naturalize the nation as the primary, immutable core of social life, thereby obfuscating class dynamics both internal to and between nations.

Where communism is the movement to build working class consciousness and wield it as a political force... (11/23) fascism can be said to be “great-national consciousness.” Specifically, it is the consciousness among the oppressor nation of its own lofty position in the economically-rooted social hierarchy. (12/23) Many theorists have posited fascism as being rooted in "false consciousness," wherein a particular subsection of oppressed classes come to enthusiastically embrace the very social relations that oppress them. However, this analysis is shallow and misleading. (13/23) Great-nation consciousness is not false by any stretch of the imagination: it is a recognition among a population materially advantaged by the national arrangement. They become aware of the objectively true nature of that social relation and actively work to embolden it. (14/23) The “falseness” is not that recognition, but the presumed immutability and “naturalness” of the relation. That fascism subsumes the class relation into the national relation is not a case of mistaken analysis, but the explicit goal of the ideology. (15/23) Where liberalism has already done the centuries-long work of defining, stratifying, and naturalizing the national hierarchy, all in service of regimenting and mystifying its hegemonic grip on society, fascism seeks to bring the national relation to its highest level. (16/23) Fascism doesn't obfuscate its mission, and makes explicit the “implicit” political-economic hierarchy on which bourgeois hegemony is founded.

Liberalism reifies the nation; fascism deifies it. (17/23) The purpose of this elevation of the national relation under fascism is, of course, the same as it ever was under liberalism. It is not, as the vulgar materialists formulate, a way of “hiding” class relations, but of materially reinforcing them. (18/23) The national arrangement does not exist to “distract” the working class from the reality of our oppression, but to materially enrich those assigned to the oppressor nation and materially disempower those assigned oppression. (19/23) This creates a real, material base out of which a portion of those exploited under capitalism can justifiably see themselves advantaged by it. The “distraction,” then, is in the framing of the plunder of national oppression and colonial extraction... (20/23) ... (which, naturally, is still apportioned by class) as being a worthwhile bargain for the great-national working class.

For the petty bourgeoisie, the bargain is even more salient: their already-greater portion of the proceeds of expropriation expands even faster. (21/23) By heightening the national hierarchy and expanding that expropriation, the petty bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation also sees the elimination of a portion of their competitors, and deepens the precarity of the working class, assuaging their fear of falling into it. (22/23) [There is a lot of context lost by presenting this excerpt, including the definition of the nation, and discussions of fascist expropriation along lines other than the nation: notably gender, queerness, and disability. But this thread needs to wrap up at some point.] (23/23)