Why have a Materialist Definition of Fascism?

Without a set of material conditions, we get pretty, full-color kill lists based on loose, subjective criteria

Imagine opening the mailbox and finding a pamphlet entitled Know Your Local Fascists, its pages filled with names, photos, and personal details of people who live in a relatively close radius. One might think, “There are fascists around here!? What are my neighbors up to!?”

People are frequently labeled as “fascists” in today’s political discussions. But without a set of material criteria and relationships, such allegations can lead to potentially dangerous consequences.

In the big picture, relying on aesthetic or cultural markers obscures the economic and systemic roots of fascism within imperial-stage capitalism, diverting attention from these crucial dimensions and ultimately ensuring no meaningful action. But of more immediate concern, an idealistic understanding allows individuals to characterize people or groups without assessing the material conditions and historical context that give rise to fascism.

So, before we compile lists of people to hate, let’s ask: what is fascism?

Dutt’s Materialist Definition of Fascism

For the sake of concision, I will summarize the definition Dutt gives in Fascism and Social Revolution. However, I also direct the reader to Chapter IV, Section 4: “The Definition of Fascism” (found on page 57 of this version). This is the full subject of the book, and I would also recommend it as a whole to better understand capitalism, imperialism, and fascism.

Firstly, fascism is a sub-stage of imperial capitalism marked by crisis and decay (due to its fundamental value/production crisis).

It is a form taken by bourgeois (read: capitalist class), imperialist, and reactionary forces under specific historical conditions marked by instability and widespread discontent. Fascism abandons the parliamentary system for a dictatorship, masked by a feigned representation of professions, while employing social demagogy (anti-Semitism being the most notable historical instance, but this is not limited to bigotry or even simple reaction), to exploit discontent among various social strata.

During acute crises, fascism may employ anti-capitalist rhetoric, but upon gaining power, it reveals itself as a terrorist dictatorship of big capital. It seeks to break the power of labor organizations using open violence, aiming to establish political and organizational unity among the governing classes of capitalist society and placing specially trained armed forces at their disposal, including the co-option of certain working-class elements into a fascist militia.

The most important aspect of fascism to understand is that it is not, as Hannah Arendt puts it, a product of “the masses.” Arendt’s condescending view of ordinary people posits “the masses” as an amorphous blob from which reaction swells. Arendt ultimately targets underclasses as “the problem,” which completely fails to recognize the power ownership has in a capitalist society.

Fascism is a product of the ruling capitalist class asserting its interests within a moribund, global monopoly where a fork in the road has appeared. The options are moving to abundant, socialized development (socialism) or an overall reduction in consumption and production (barbarism).

The characteristic feature of Fascism is that, as a consequence of the shock suffered by the capitalist economic system and of special objective and subjective circumstances, the bourgeoisie (in order to hinder the development of the revolution) utilizes the discontent of the petty and middle, urban and rural bourgeoisie (and even of certain strata of the declassed proletariat), for the purpose of creating a reactionary mass movement.

Fascism resorts to methods of open violence in order to break the power of the labour organisations and those of the peasant poor, and to proceed to capture power.

After capturing power, Fascism strives to establish political and organisational unity among all the governing classes of capitalist society (the bankers, the big industrialists and the agrarians), and to establish their undivided, open and consistent dictatorship.

- R. Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution (1934)

What we have in these criteria is definitive deliberation that allows us to characterize a mode (way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done) as “fascist.” We have a class character, a set of relations, ideological justifications, and actions taken. This is materialism; it puts forward something that isn’t simply “shit people think (idealism) that makes them fascist!”

With that in mind, let us quickly look at novelist Umberto Eco’s famous 14-point fascism listicle:

1. The cult of tradition. (idealism)

2. The rejection of modernism. (idealism)

3. The cult of action for action’s sake. (idealism)

4. Disagreement is treason. (idealism)

5. Fear of difference. (idealism; note it’s not “difference” but fear of it)

6. Appeal to social frustration. (idealism)

7. The obsession with a plot. (idealism)

8. The enemy is both strong and weak. (idealism)

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. (idealism)

10. Contempt for the weak. (idealism)

11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. (idealism)

12. Machismo and weaponry. (idealism)

13. Selective populism. (idealism; misses or avoids class character)

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. (idealism)

Umberto Eco is not a political economist or theorist; prior to this listicle, Eco’s most prominent works were two fictional novels he wrote in the 1980s. So many have used this incredibly fungible list of ideals (like heroism) and aesthetics (like machismo and weaponry) to identify “fascism.” But do liberals not consider war criminal democrats heroes? If the military were all trans men, would it not be transphobic to go after their masculinity? Is it not “progress” in their eyes when those who hold the weapons are “diverse?”

There are actually many who take this listicle and genuinely make those kinds of assertions (rather than simply using them to show the list’s fungibility, as I have here), claiming that it demonstrates how “the left” is fascist.

This is not a different problem; when fascism is asserted based on a direction, we are ignoring that class lines cut through both the left and right. Thus, if people in the ruling class (that class which benefits from and upholds all the dynamics people assign based on “left” or “right”) can be both left and right, it isn’t a significant distinction. It especially isn’t a distinction based on where power comes from. This is why Marxists (and anyone else!) should use classifications based on material relationship to power rather than ideals.

We could easily present a case that we do live in a global “terrorist dictatorship of big capital.” It should also be noted that it does not adhere to a left/right paradigm, and instead, these “wings” function as teams that ineffectively argue about policy inside the imperial core.

With this understanding, one would expect a pamphlet entitled Know Your Local Fascists to contain members of the ruling capitalist class, right?

Doxxing Brown People

Well, no. On the criteria dialectical materialists have put forth to define fascism, the pamphlet very clearly fails. But it does so even on its own criteria, as well.

Know Your Local Fascists carries a subtitle: “listing of prominent bigots/transphobes working to advanced White Christian nationalism” (yes, it says “working to advanced,” not “advance”).

These prominent “white nationalists” have last names like Rodriguez, Flores, Moon, and Paez. Out of the five that are visible in this short clip the pamphlet’s creator posted, it appears that four are visibly not white.

Now, this isn’t to say that people of minority ethnicities cannot be fascist supporters. It is not even to say that these four men aren’t. However, to say that they are would require criteria to evaluate, and I don’t mean “bad haircut” or “stupid mustache.” We need material conditions and relationships, while this book requires people to be “bigots/transphobes.”

The fungibility of this label sans material criteria makes it so “fascist” becomes another package deal fallacy. If you are a bigot, you’re a fascist.

Oh, you’re from a minority ethnicity? What do you think about trans people? You don’t get it? Are you from a culture that hasn’t/doesn’t interrogate gender ideology? Do you entirely support trans peoples’ rights but have questions about minors and surgery? Well, you’re a transphobe, so you’re a bigot, making you a fascist. Also in the package deal: white nationalism! And if you tick any of these boxes, you tick all of them.

But what if someone doesn’t? I personally know a lot of trans people who have been (incorrectly) called transphobic. So, by this book’s standards, these trans folks are fascists. So is Brianna Wu, a dorky liberal this person would most likely think is great (until they saw the leaked DMs). I also know a communist man who was called fascist by another self-identified communist for saying that he wanted to convince conservatives that communism was good.

This is to say, by vibe and package deal fallacy, a bunch of Latinos and an Asian man have been included on a list for “badwrongthink.” Are these guys reactionaries? Possibly! I don’t know. I don’t want to make this into a defense of these individuals, but I don’t think the criteria being used to attack them is sound when I know how little it takes to be put into a basket with them (and Hitler).

At best, this is the creator engaging in libel. At worst, the pamphlet’s creator could be responsible for someone getting killed for nothing beyond her word. There is no proof offered, and if there were, it would likely be rooted in the kind of fungible, idealist crap I noted as a problem.

The Proud Boys are wrong. This is not a Marxist. Also, the irony of that header…

Perhaps it shouldn’t be shocking the person calling a bunch of people of color fascists is a well-off woman from California with an art exhibit:

Idealism

I have spent a great deal of time in the last few years building a case against idealism, and this is an extension of that. Idealism leads to distractions and arbitrary punishment. Idealism leads people who have correctly identified problems to simply pick the opposing “side” (which is equally culpable) in response, rather than engage in anything meaningful.

In my book Woke Ouroboros, I characterize idealism as the key to essentialism. When there’s a question of why a group exists, and there is no material distinction, an ideal or superficial, non-fundamental trait must stand in for one. The ideal or trait becomes reified as the “material” essence of the group, despite not being material at all.

The same person who created Know Your Local Fascists can also be seen promoting this book, Trust Kids: Stories on Youth Autonomy and Confronting Adult Supremacy.

Trust Kids! weaves together essays, interviews, poems, and artwork from scholars, activists, and artists about our relationships with children in all areas of our lives. At the heart of the book are conversations about all the ways that children can be included, loved, and cared for in more generative, just, and egalitarian ways. Its essays explore the liberatory potential of consent and autonomy in relationships among children, youth, and the adults in their lives. They also trace how oppressive attitudes toward children, far from being “natural” forms of kinship with the youngest members of our families and communities, have identifiable social and historical roots. The contributors, writing from different backgrounds, genders, ages, and sexualities, combine past lineages with more recent child-rearing ideas to offer a fresh, inspiring perspective. Many works on parenting and families wind up re-inscribing hierarchies by declaring how kids should be liberated. Trust Kids! insists on youth autonomy, listening to youth, and questioning adult supremacy on every page.

To quickly address the elephant in the room: I don’t love the implication that “children are capable of consent” when used to open a sentence that ends with “relationships between children, youth, and the adults in their lives.” I think how this ultimately colors a lot of this kind of work is worth setting aside for another day (or perhaps a documentary), though.

What I want to address is that this book is filled with essays like “Abolish High School,” “The Power Of Unschooling: Why My Daughters Don’t Go To School,” and “Anarchy Begins At Home.” I also want to touch on “adult supremacy.”

These types of things, I think, pretty well represent the idealist mindset we find in this type of “anti-capitalist” or “anti-fascist.” While her profile has the word “Marxist” on it, she’s pushing a book that amounts to the same kind of nonsense “no gods, no masters, no bedtimes” anarkiddo crap.

I think it’s worth bringing up that this person seemingly endorses the term “adult supremacy.” While this is an obvious reference to “white supremacy,” it’s crucial we understand that “child” isn't (and shouldn’t be used as) an equivalent to “black” or “Jew.”

The logic of the package deal fallacy (which ultimately works as this person’s criteria to designate “what is fascism”) should be troubling when we add the context of her acceptance of “adult supremacy.” Yes, the public school system functions as an arm of the bourgeois state and thus has many issues. Still, the abolition of schools is ultimately the destruction of an extremely important public good. If one is against the abolition of school, is one an “adult supremacist?” Does that make one a fascist?

My guess, based on the idealist logic that predicates this whole kerfuffle, is that, yes, it does. But if it doesn’t, it’s ultimately arbitrary. Again, it’s not based on any material relationships to power, it’s based on what a single, ultimately accountable only to themselves (how anarchist), person thinks.

That’s the whole reason this matters at all: “What is fascist” really means “what this person disagrees with.” This is childish and immature at its core, and it reflects a lack of seriousness that shouldn’t be employed when essentially distributing literature intended to dehumanize and castigate this person’s political rivals.

Conclusion

The pamphlet Know Your Local Fascists exemplifies my issues with labeling people without concrete, material criteria. It obscures the true economic and systemic roots of fascism within imperial-stage capitalism, just as Dutt outlined (and as I emphasized earlier).

Fascism arises within specific historical and economic contexts. It is a sub-stage of imperial capitalism marked by crisis and decay. It cannot and should not be reduced to aesthetic markers or personal beliefs. The individuals named in the pamphlet are branded fascists based on assumed ideologies without consideration of material conditions and relationships – and it looks patently absurd, calling various people of color “white supremacists.”

A simple list of beliefs or characteristics (like Umberto Eco’s) fails to capture the complexity and specificity of fascism. Furthermore, the use (and thus, conflation) of terms like “adult supremacy” further muddies the waters.

This irresponsible, dangerous nonsense needs to be countered.