Donald Trump and Fascism in America

We as a society have long held to the belief that "It can't happen here." What is the "it?" It is fascism and those words were uttered back in the 1930s when everyone and their mother was afraid of a fascist takeover of America. Well I hate to dispel the notion that America is the land of the free where democracy will always reign, but we are in the midst of the rise of one of the first truly fascistic presidential candidates since the 1930s. Do not kid yourselves, the Donald is a fascist and I intend to prove it. 

First what constitutes fascism? Fascism is a political ideology that seeks unity of the people against any perceived threat to that which forms the fundamental essence of a given society. This essence can be anything under the sun. For Mussolini it was "The Italian State", for Hitler it was "Das Volk", for Donald Trump it is what we could jokingly refer to as "'Merica." I joke but this is, among the reactionary Christian conservative base that form the bedrock of Trump's support, a legitimate and full conception of what the United States should be. 

'Merica is best summarized as a white, Christian, Chauvinistic, Patriotic, Paternalistic, militaristic view of America that these people seem to think existed at some point in the past. I know not what point in American history fits this description but if you were to ask anyone who genuinely believes in 'Merica they will name some undefined past (likely the 1950s) where everything was perfect and is a time to which we should return. This is exemplified in Trump's slogan of "Make America great again" as if we weren't already the world's only superpower able to basically dictate world policy on most major issues but that is besides the point. 

So, you may ask, how is this fascistic? The belief in 'Merica alone cannot constitute fascism. What makes Trump a fascist is his blatant statements to the effect of "if you are not with me then you are against me." But Trump also goes further by requiring his followers to subvert their own interests to those of 'Merica. Everything must be done to "make America great again" even if it means forcing Muslims to register for a "Muslim Database," calling for the rounding up and deportation of masses of Hispanic immigrants, or condoning the violent assault of a protester who had the courage to say "Black Lives Matter." Trump betrays his fascism not just on his calls for a return to 'Merica but of the need to cleanse the US in the pursuit of that goal.

Fundamentally fascism requires these three elements: a supreme uniting principle, mandating national unity in pursuit of that principle, and a willingness to cleanse or purge the nation of those who stand opposed to the principle or the unity required to achieve the principle. Trump and his followers seem to embody those principles. However Trump has one major problem, the Constitution. I do not believe that even if elected (which is a dubious proposition in itself) Trump would legally be able to do anything that he is calling for. Enter the fourth major characteristic of fascism: criminality. Most fascists rule through force of will or martial might. They do not usually attempt to legitimize their action through laws until long after the deeds are done, if they use laws at all. It is my firm belief that should Trump be challenged by the courts, or even Congress, he would unilaterally dismiss them and do whatever he wanted. This is the essence of criminality and I do not doubt for a minute that Trump would be willing to do whatever he feels is necessary to "make America great again." 

This should scare everyone. If you don't believe Trump is capable of this, look at his treatment of the press. Even if he claims "liberal bias" we still have freedom of the press in this country, but you wouldn't think so looking at Trump's campaign. He routinely refuses to talk to media, corrals them during events to keep them from seeing what he doesn't want them to see, and (scariest of all) has an "enemies list" of media outlets he refuses to even allow to cover him. If you don't think this illustrates how Trump intends to lead then you are either burying your head in the sand or somehow think this is an acceptable means of governing in a democratic society. 

I for one fear for the future of this country when a man like Trump stands a good chance of becoming the nominee for one of our major political parties. Should Trump be elected we, as socialist, communists, anarchist, and even sympathetic liberals, must be willing to join together in a Popular Front to defeat Trump by any means necessary, short of violence, to prevent the implementation of fascism in America that I fear is inevitable under a "President" Trump.

Why Bernie Sanders Matters

I wrote not too long ago about the upcoming confrontation in the Democratic Primary. Now that Bernie Sanders has thrown his hat in the ring we can go from hypothetical arguments to real arguments. First, before I get into the meat of my argument, I must state that, as a political realist, I do not foresee Sanders actually winning the primary. I do not discount the possibility that Hillary may completely implode her candidacy with scandals, remember 2008 and how her last "coronation" went, but that does not mean that Sanders can win the general election. All the Wall Street bankers and all the Kochs of the United States will spend every penny they have in order to prevent Sanders from becoming President. I would even go so far as to say that if Sanders is the Democratic nominee, then we may see the first mass examples of election fraud in a very long time with conservatives using every means necessary to prevent a "socialist" from becoming President. If you thought 2000 was a fiasco, wait until you see a 2016 with Sanders as the Democratic candidate. But this is all somewhat pointless because I do not believe he will get that far.

So then, why does Sanders matter? As I have previously mentioned Sanders is important because he will force Hillary to the left. But that is not the only reason. The Left has been devoid of a voice that America respects ever since Eugene V. Debs left the political scene. Sure there have been leftists who have galvanized large bases of support but none have been able to truly be "the voice" of the left in America. Do I think Sanders can be that voice? Yes and no. I say no because he is not particularly charismatic and is not likely to draw the admiration of large groups of people. However, I am swayed towards saying yes for one simple reason; Sanders is unapologetic about his beliefs. For the first time in generations we have a popular left-leaning politician who isn't going out of their way to deny being a socialist or having socialist tendencies. Many people may not agree with socialism but they will at least respect Sanders for being honest. Now I do not think that Sanders is truly a socialist, but he gives voice to socialist-esque policies that have not been seriously considered by Americans for generations. The problem with people like Warren and Hillary is that even if they truly are leftists in their heart of hearts, they go out of their way to deny it instead calling themselves "Progressives" as if they are the modern embodiment of Teddy Roosevelt. Sanders does not try and hide his leftism and instead embraces it wholeheartedly.

Another reason Bernie is important is because he will try to show Americans, especially younger Americans who have no memory of life during the Cold War, that socialism does not have to be equated with the Soviet Union. Naturally this message will probably be lost on all the Baby Boomers and most of Gen-X but there is a hope, no matter how faint, that Millennials may be introduced to a new, modern "socialism" that will open them up to socialism more broadly. Even if Sanders does not ideologically fit what pretty much anyone on the serious left would identify as socialist he could be effective at reintroducing America to socialism as an idea. The sad fact of the matter is that the Cold War eliminated the viability of the left in American electoral politics and the left has never been able to recover.

The left needs a shot in the arm and Bernie Sanders may be the first of many doses this country will need in order to have a viable leftist movement reemerge from the aftermath of the Cold War. Occupy may have galvanized the left into mass action, but it failed to unify into an electoral force. Maybe a candidate like Sanders can motivate Occupiers to come out of the shadow of activism and join the world of electoral politics. Some try to claim that activism gets more done or is superior to electoral politics but if you don't have enough sympathetic politicians in the halls of power then all the activism in the world will fall on deaf ears and result in nothing but a lot of lovely rhetoric.

Celebrating the Birth of Karl Marx

Karl Marx

May 5th, 1818 – March 14th, 1883

Great Revolutionary, Theoretician, Founder of Scientific Socialism

Celebrating the Birth of Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov

April 22nd, 1870 - January 21st, 1924

Revolutionary, Theoretician, and Leader

The Coming Election (Part 1)

Well with Ted Cruz announcing his Presidential campaign we have officially begun the 2016 election season. As anyone with half a brain understands, Cruz has little to no chance to win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election. However, he stands to push the Republican Presidential hopefuls further to the right. While there is little doubt we will see the likes of Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker put their names forward within the next month I think the race for the Democratic nomination presents some much more interesting possibilities.

Many people will be confused by my previous statement. "Isn't Hillary guaranteed to win the nomination?" they ask. Yes, as of right now Hillary looks like the heir apparent to the Democratic nomination. However, I should remind everyone that the same was thought in 2008 and we all know how that turned out. Now I am not naive enough to believe that a candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could actually win the nomination or the general election. There is too much Wall Street money behind Clinton to allow a democratic socialist like Sanders or a Progressive like Warren to win. If Sanders or Warren won the primary those Wall Street financiers would just send all their money to the Republicans. But I think that having a champion of the left run, and run strongly, would force Hillary to at least publicly come out against the horrible inequality we see in America today. Right now she gives good lip service to inequality but has not been forced to actually address it in any meaningful way.

I say that the Democratic nomination could be more interesting not because of the potential political drama, that will stay squarely with the circus that will be the Republican nomination, but rather because having someone like Sanders or Warren run would allow the general public in America with the opportunity to be reintroduced to serious leftist thinking for the first time in over half a century. Not since the worst part of the Vietnam War has America been genuinely confronted by the left in politics and not since the days of Eugene V. Debs have they seen a strong leftist candidate. Sure we see them on TV at big political marches, some wearing their Guy Fawkes masks, but we have never seen a truly left-leaning politician gain any kind of serious national attention (unless you count Dennis Kucinich but people liked to laugh at him and his somewhat cooky personality quarks rather than listen to his political message).

Ever since the demise of the Soviet Union the people of the United States have tried to pretend that there is only the center and the right in politics. The failure of the left to present a respectable candidate has led to the continued association of the left with the Soviet Union. The American public needs to realize that the left still exists and has serious policies to propose. They need to learn that the left does not want to bring back the Soviet Union or any of its faux "socialism." Having a serious leftist contender would force Hillary to confront the fact that when polled individually on "socialist" policies, Americans usually come out strongly in favor of those policies. Hillary is so embedded with Wall Street, just like all New York politicians, that being confronted by a strong challenger from the left may actually force her to reconsider her old alliances. Hillary would be forced to consider that most Americans don't like Wall Street and the power politics they represent. Hillary may even be force to abandon those same Wall Street financiers should her leftist contender giver her a good run for her money. And maybe being confronted by a strong leftist contender may even force her to pick one as her running mate.

Naturally all of this is pure conjecture. Warren has come out squarely against running for President and Sanders has yet to truly make up his mind. Sadly, outside of those two I don't foresee any serious leftist candidate arising but who knows what the future may hold. Personally I am hoping for a Sanders/Warren ticket but know that the chance of that actually happening is a big old goose egg.

Marxist FAQ: Vanguardism

What is meant by "vanguardism?" The idea of vanguardism conjures among some a scene of a small group of people sitting around a table plotting to do evil deeds under the guise of communism. This could not be farther from the truth. When we speak of the "vanguard" we are talking about a group of class conscious individuals who have dedicated themselves to bringing about the revolution. This group could be small but that would likely not work out. A successful vanguard would need to be quite large and have the ability to rally the proletariat behind it.

So why the emphasis on a dedicated group? Can't the proletariat spontaneously rise on its own? The average worker should not be counted on to rise up in revolution. They are more concerned with daily survival than political activity. It falls to dedicated proletarian revolutionaries to make preparations for the revolution. This dedicated group would be comprised of those members of the proletariat who have decided to make an active stand against the inequalities of the capitalist system.

Then what are the responsibilities of the vanguard? First and foremost is their duty to educate the proletariat and make them aware of the oppression they face on a daily basis under capitalism. Many in the proletariat are so focused on the basics of survival or are so ingrained with capitalist propaganda that they either do not know they are being oppressed or don't have the time or energy to care. The vanguard has a responsibility to raise their awareness to the inequity around them. The second duty of the vanguard is to lead the proletariat towards revolution. This is an extension of the first duty. By raising the proletariat's awareness they move the proletariat towards collective action. Once the proletariat reaches its breaking point the vanguard will perform its next, and potentially last, duty: to lead the proletarian revolution. The revolution will be a trying time and the slightest misstep could derail the entire revolution. An experienced cadre of revolutionaries will be necessary for the success of the revolution. The vanguard will organize and direct the actions of the proletariat towards capitalism's weakest points and ensure the swift demolition of the capitalist system.

Following the success of the revolution the vanguard will no longer be necessary. However, the proletariat may ask the vanguard to form the beginning leadership of the new proletarian democracy due to their experience and knowledge. If that is the case then the vanguard will have one final duty: to faithfully, rapidly, and democratically lead society down the road to socialism and eventually communism. As society moves towards communism the whole of society will become politically aware and will become members of the "vanguard." At that point the vanguard will vanish and instead we will have socialist and then communist society.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the vanguard. It will ensure the effective education and leadership of the proletariat. No socialist revolution has ever succeeded without a vanguard. The largest socialist and communist movements around the globe are vanguardist. If you are a Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist then you are, by your very ideological nature, a vanguardist. Those Marxists who are not vanguardists are waiting in vain for the proletariat to rise spontaneously in revolution. The problem with this "spontaneous revolution" is that it is a utopian fantasy. The proletariat, without proper leadership and direction, will either be placated by Capitalism with luxuries and petty concessions like we see in the West or brutally oppressed as we see in the developing world. Without the active work of vanguardists to keep the movement going, the socialist movement would be either appeased into lethargy or oppressed into submission. Without vanguardism the revolution is doomed to failure.

Lenin on the Necessity of a Worker's State and Vanguard Leadership

"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to

crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the

petty bourgeoisie, and semi­proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy

By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming

power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the

teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without

the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. By contrast, the opportunism now prevailing trains the

members of the workers' party to be the representatives of the better­paid workers, who lose touch with the

masses, "get along" fairly well under capitalism, and sell their birthright for a mass of pottage, i.e., renounce

their role as revolutionary leaders of the people against the bourgeoisie.

Marx's theory of "the state, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class", is inseparably bound up with

the whole of his doctrine of the revolutionary role of the proletariat in history. The culmination of this rule

is the proletarian dictatorship, the political rule of the proletariat."

The State and Revolution

by V.I. Lenin