December/January 2004-2005

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Is This Fascism?

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the president of TransAfrica Forum, a co-chair of United for Peace and Justice, and a founder of the Black Radical Congress. He can be reached at bfletcher@transafricaforum.org. He gave this talk (here abridged) at the Connecticut Anti-war Conference at Central Connecticut State University, November 20, 2004.

Before proceeding into a discussion of where do we go from here, I want to take a few moments to discuss where is this all headed, for lack of a better term. I have been doing some studying of fascism for a while, though it increased after the September attacks. Through the insights of people like Jay Sekai, David Stock, and others, I came to understand al Qaeda not simply as a representation of so-called political Islam, but more importantly an example of clerical fascism. I came to understand the relationship between right-wing populism, which we have seen rise in many countries of the global north, including our own, and possible fascist movements.

Protesting outside the "Free Speech Zone" at the site of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, July 29, 2004. Photo ©2004 by Ellen Shub.

I don't think that what we are currently facing is fascism, but I think that it is a form of right-wing authoritarianism which is just as dangerous. Fascism is more than simply right-wing authoritarianism. It is more than repression. The Left, however, has used the term 'fascism' to describe any and every form of right-wing rule to which we object.

In my humble opinion, and borrowing some from the great theorist Nicos Poulantzas, fascism is a social movement that in many respects is quite radical in that it represents a clearing of the decks within capitalism and the fundamental alteration of the capitalist state in order to advance the interests of a section of the capitalist class. Its base is primarily, though not exclusively, within the middle strata and it arises in the midst of a political crisis in which a section of the capitalist class loses confidence in its political representatives. It does not emerge as a response to the strength of progressive forces; actually it is more the opposite, and in that sense is different from many other forms of counter-revolutionary, repressive regimes.

We seem to be facing something that, while having elements of fascism, does not quite fit into that description. There is no actual name for this system, at least to my knowledge, though I think of it as a neo-gilded-capitalism or an authoritarian/theocratic capitalism. What we do not see, at least at this moment, is a mass movement that is attempting to end the party system and end bourgeois democratic capitalism. What we do see, is a highly repressive State that is overseeing massive wealth redistribution from those at the bottom to those at the top, reducing civil liberties, tolerating limited terms of resistance and which is supported by a well funded and highly organized, reactionary, theocratic movement. This movement is grounded in a form of right-wing populism and as such could probably evolve into fascism, but at this juncture there is no indication that the capitalist class is in the midst of a political crisis which they believe they cannot resolve through existing means and mechanisms.

This should not make us feel warm and fuzzy. There are a variety of forms of the capitalist state ranging from social democracy in Scandinavia to Pinochet's military regime in Chile during the '70s and '80s. We also have a long history in the USA of extremely reactionary social movements, e.g., the KKK in the South and its counterparts in the Southwest (and actually here in Connecticut, which had a thriving KKK for years).

I believe that this developing repressive state corresponds to the needs of US capital in its efforts to remake the world, and specifically, global capitalism. In other words, the capitalists are not thinking simply in terms of today, but also about what is necessary in order to carry out their global agenda. Internationally there is intense resistance to neo-liberal globalization. In the USA this is true as well, though the resistance is far more dispersed. What is needed in order for the neo-liberal project to succeed is immense confusion among the masses, and the elimination of instruments of resistance, such as left-wing political groupings, labor unions, and the independent media. The consolidation of the media and the growing dominance of the loony Right in that field results in the dumbing-down of the US populace and the enhancement of right-wing ideological themes. While fascists, open and crypto, are certainly part of this effort, and fascism may grow within this manure, I do not think that this is what has appeared.

Taking on the security issue

What is particularly dangerous is that this authoritarian/theocratic state is seizing upon the broad insecurities of the population, but particularly the white section of the population. We must keep this in mind since the November elections were not only a victory for political reaction in general, but also for racial politics. The insecurity that much of white America feels is, in my opinion, not simply or solely about terrorism. Terrorism has become the focal point for the societal anxieties felt by white Americans as their world collapses.

I emphasize here the racial aspect largely because people of color have traditionally lived in terror within the USA. The micro- and macro-aggressions that we received...The fear of driving while Black, Brown or Other...The fear that certain neighborhoods were forbidden.

Thus, in thinking of the challenges that await us, and the tasks ahead, we must understand that we build an anti-war movement at a moment of uncertainty. We build it at the same time that right-wing populism has become an important current -- again -- in US life. With this in mind, here are my suggestions: The anti-war movement must be both an independent movement, but must also insert itself into every progressive social movement: The strength of the anti-Iraq-war movement was its rapid rise and massive scale in 2002 and 2003. This same strength was its weakness. While certain movements, such as organized labor, witnessed the growth of an anti-war current, the anti-war movement did not fuse with other movements. In that sense it was very different from the anti-war movement that arose around Indochina in the 1960s and 1970s.

Patient but strategic

I do not raise this as a criticism. I suggest that we have to be patient, but also strategic. We must recognize that anti-war sentiment needs to work itself into every nook and cranny of society and not simply be something which seems to stand outside of and apart from other movements. The anti-war movement must have at its core an anti-empire framework. This does not mean, however, the sort of sectarian, arrogant antics that we have seen where groups raise the level of unity of the movement unilaterally in order to satisfy some competitive desire. Some who agree with us on Iraq will not agree on Palestine or Venezuela. This does not mean that we ignore them. It means that we recognize the limitations of the existing alliance as we do what we can to change it.

We must keep foreign policy alive as an electoral/political issue: The anti-war movement needs to take up this question of 'security' which consumed many voters, and link security to foreign policy. As I have said many times, the anti-war movement needs to advance a comprehensive view of the need for a democratic foreign policy. We cannot wait till the election year mania arises in order to raise these issues.

"Get Your War On" ©2004 by David Rees. Used with permission. David Rees regularly updates his series of comics at www.mnftiu.cc. His new collection, Get Your War On II (Riverhead Books) is in stores now. All author royalties go to land mine removal in Afghanistan.

We must build local anti-war coalitions that have a long-term plan: One of the difficulties that we face is that so much seems to happen at the national level. We have these national anti-war coalitions that call national demonstrations. Sometimes these are great; other times they are a drag. In either case, people are often exhausted by them.

We must encourage more local activity. Local coalitions or ad hoc groupings can play an important role in building the movement. Target certain districts for educational canvassing; host educational events in central locations and work those neighborhoods; train speakers who can attend meetings; visit shop stewards' meetings in local unions; host cultural programs that have anti-war themes; do anti-military counseling, discussing with young people non-military career options; fundraise!

I believe that all of this is eminently doable, but it must flow from an analysis as well as a plan of work. I believe that United for Peace & Justice, as well as many other anti-war forces, are attempting to embrace such a framework.

Let me end by shifting gears, somewhat dramatically. We must understand that genuine peace will never come to the Middle East, and there will never be anything approaching national security, as long as the plight of the Palestinian people and national movement is not settled justly.

Part of what the anti-war movement must do over time is to build strong, organized sentiment in the US which supports justice for the Palestinian people. Particularly since the invasion of Iraq has been justified by the charlatans in the White House as being, among other things, for the security of Israel, the anti-war movement can and must discuss this issue of security for Israel, but we must flip the script. We must look at security and justice for the Palestinian people and the means through which a just and equitable peace can be secured for Palestinians, Israelis, and, indeed, for other peoples of the so-called Middle East.

No justice for Palestinians and we will instead find ourselves in the state of perpetual war, indeed the apocalyptic war that sections of the US political Right actually dream of as being the goal of their activities.

Previous Article    Next Article