by Olivier Field

MAGA ... M****ake A****merica G****o A****way…!

What if…? It is the nature of empires to expand everywhere and as deeply as possible until the model becomes unbearable. The United States of America will not deviate from this rule, but how will the ebb, the return to its borders, both geographical and moral, cultural and political, occur? In extraordinary unrest or in an apocalypse of violence?

To this day, the will to hegemonic power has made the planet a playground for the USA. They have placed their weapons, their military, their bases, their auxiliaries there. Thanks to the control of their local collaborators, their cronies as much as their Dollar and their legal constraints worthy of the most iniquitous judicial systems in History. Their domination of the media, the arts and entertainment makes this enterprise of planetary domination painless. A beautiful mechanism but a seized mechanism nonetheless.

In mental thickets, a vast majority of people aspire to free themselves from an increasingly belligerent, deadly master with the most inhuman methods including open-air carnage, drug-induced guardianship, sex and destruction of the bodies and souls of children and young people led astray by crazy theories such as transgenderism and slave-based PMA. The man in the street is reluctant to swallow the imposed soup but power only goes to the servants of the power in place: politicians, journalists, artists, media men. So the man in the street is silent.

So we continue to glorify a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians, we endorse, finance and support a Zionist state that in broad daylight triggers increasingly extensive wars, increasingly obvious crimes and promises the Jews of the planet, essentialized by them, a return of anti-Semitism to a level never reached, and by far, in the past… We accept the organization of growing social injustice, against the direction of History. We prepare a society of submissive, monitored oppressed people whose collective intelligence that incidentally built the world, is stifled, as if technology would easily replace it.

Everything is a cycle, everything is an ebb and flow. And the ruling class that considers itself above all human and even physical law is beginning to experience it. They see themselves as eternally powerful. Benefiting from immortality, taking advantage of the progress and the resources of the planet without limits, forcing as long as necessary, a population of nothing at all, to lives without choice, without access to nature, without rights other than to obey and serve, deprived of all free will, all form of thought. The very statement of this ongoing project, perfectly excessive, should condemn it and yet it thrives.

Yes, but... a resistance is emerging and growing wildly bolder. Eyes are slowly opening. Balances are being called into question. Indeed, as long as the war affected strangers, far away, dissimilar, everything was fine. But it is at our doorstep. As long as the supply chains of our comfortable life were running, everything was fine. Electricity is in our sockets, everything necessary and superfluous is in our stores, our weekends are weekends... But the cracks are legion. The insane enrichment of some, reinforced by debts, crazy commitments weighing on all those almost entirely excluded from the feast, is too obvious. The conflicts multiplied to divert energies from the real enemy, end up surprising even the most closed-minded.

All this cannot exist without a sponsor, a fortress from which this rule without a future is maintained. And it is the leaders, publicly known or not, of this American empire, who will go as far as Armageddon to keep the world on this dead-end path against the people, against most of the vassal countries and opponents. Russia has turned on the light on the real weakness of this American omnipotence, others have then joined the resistance and the moment when the planet will be freed from this tyranny is approaching. Not without pain and certainly not gently. History is tragic and will show it once again. But in the end America will end up as such, it will leave the mental, geographical, political occupied territories… And our role is to support at least in thought the end of this power that kills man, even and especially if we are crushed by the evidence of its strength.

Make America Go Away may be just a caricature of our need to drive out the bad, both in ourselves and in humanity,… but it will be a good start.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without being fascist…”

         Gus Leonisky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZChfbWCzdQ

MIKE POMPEO AS SECRETARY OF DEFENCE FOR DONALD TRUMP?... ODDS ON WHEN WW3 WILL START?....

Aaron Maté : Russia On the March.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without fear…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkt4aYmYfKM 

 

 

Understanding Fascism Requires Understanding Economic Forces

 

 

BY TAYLOR DORRELL

 

In the Marx Brothers’ 1933 comedy Duck Soup, a strongman is named president of the fictional country of Freedonia. Chaos ensues, culminating in a war with the neighboring country of Sylvania. The film satirizes politics and war in the classic Marx Brothers fashion. The historical context of the story was, of course, the rise of fascism in Europe — Benito Mussolini had been in power for a decade and Adolf Hitler had taken office earlier that year. The film depicts its Mussolini-like leader as clownish, reflecting a distrust of fascism that was far from the prevailing view in the United States. At the time, fascism remained ambiguous for many Americans; figures like Ezra Pound compared Mussolini to Thomas Jefferson while others called Franklin Delano Roosevelt a fascist.

“There used to be a time when anyone could keep in touch with the world’s history,” Robert Benchley quipped in “A Brief Course in World Politics.” Before World War I, he argued, history was simple: “Either the king could have some people beheaded, or some people could have the king beheaded.” However, the twentieth century ushered in a wave of political complexity. “When you get twenty-four parties, all beginning with ‘W,’ on each one of which the future peace of Europe depends, then I am sorry but I shall have to let Europe figure it out for itself and let me know when it is going to have another war,” he wrote.

What appears comical in Benchley’s historical assessment and Duck Soup — that is, a refusal to grapple with what fascism truly is — persists today in some academic circles. In Fascism Comes to America: A Century of Obsession in Politics and Culture, Bruce Kuklick contends that “there is no elemental fascism or much empirical content.” Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins arrives at the same conclusion in his introduction to Did it Happen Here? Perspectives on Fascism and America, insisting that “the way forward is to put the fascism debate to rest.” Both analyze the decades-long debates surrounding fascism, its definition, and its relevance to the present, and both definitively conclude that the world will simply have to . . . figure it out for itself.

In contrast, the communists approached fascism through a materialist lens, grounding their analysis in class and economic dynamics. After a period of playing fast and loose with trigger-happy denunciations of “social fascism,” by 1935 the Communist International defined fascism not as a psychological or exclusively cultural phenomenon but as a repressive form of dictatorship serving the interests of a segment of reactionary and imperialist economic elites. This framing linked fascism directly to the forces of economic exploitation and class power that are essential for understanding and fighting against fascism today.

Early Debates

In the beginning, claiming ignorance about the nature of fascism was easy. The word “fascism” derives from the Italian “fascio” and the Latin “fasces” — a bundle of switches symbolizing strength through unity, representing the bundle of ideologies that make up fascism. A fascist dictator was generally understood to wield state power to create an economy that benefited monopolies while crushing labor and repressing the racial “other,” but the underlying dynamics — the forces that support such a dictator — remain far more contentious and misunderstood. Mussolini himself did not define fascism until 1932, calling it a “revolution of reaction.” This definitional ambiguity from one of its leading practitioners further highlights the question: Is fascism so complex that it can’t be pinned down? Is there truly no “elemental fascism”?

One can imagine the great minds of the twentieth century, witnessing the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and Francisco Franco, grappling with the sense that these movements were somehow connected — linked by some shared essence. And so we get, as we see in the books summarizing these debates, Leon Trotsky’s definition emphasizing the reactionary middle class, Umberto Eco’s fourteen general properties of fascism, and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality. These thinkers seem to say to the confused cynics that there is a unifying thread; there has to be.

Throughout the collected works in Did it Happen Here?, the reader finds both those twentieth-century debates and contemporary ones. Beginning with essays from Trotsky, Hannah Arendt, and Eco, we eventually arrive at articles debating the character of Donald Trump’s GOP. Jan-Werner Müller argues in “Is it Fascism?” that nothing today can “plausibly be called fascism” except “the most recent versions of Putinism.” Ruth Ben-Ghiat counters in “What is Fascism?” that obscuring fascism’s transformation in places like today’s Hungary and Italy — both controlled by supposed “neofascist” parties — dilutes its meaning and aids in its potential resurgence.

Fascism was ‘the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.’

Despite its tangled history and varied interpretations, the persistent efforts to define fascism reveal a fundamental conviction: understanding fascism, however complex it may be, remains both urgent and necessary.

The Communists Were Right

Liberals, conservatives, postmodernists, Trotskyists, Maoists — all find aspects of their views on fascism echoed in today’s mediasphere. Talking heads in mainstream media call anyone on the Right a fascist; both ultraleftists and Trump supporters call liberals fascist; academics claim nothing is fascist. Painfully missing, however, is the definition once central to much of the globe — particularly within the communist-aligned “Second World.” Despite its erasure from recent literature, this understanding of fascism remains pivotal, even if unspoken, in contemporary debates. Like the baker who tries to cheat on doughnuts by enlarging the holes, working around the communist definition for decades simply takes more dough.

In one of the crucial scenes in David O. Russell’s 2022 film Amsterdam, General Dillenbeck (played by Robert De Niro) is expected to deliver a speech at a veterans’ gala calling for a march on DC to overthrow President FDR. Instead, he reads his own speech denouncing tyranny and fascism, foiling the plot and exposing those behind the coup attempt: some of America’s biggest industrial capitalists. Based on the true story of the Business Plot, the film presents fascism as an elite-driven campaign to take power. Amsterdam’s narrative offers a perspective largely erased from contemporary discourse — one that shaped the 1930s left and could help our understanding today.

A month after the Nazis seized power, the Reichstag (parliament) building was set ablaze. The Nazis used the arson as a pretext for rounding up communists, who were blamed for the fire. Among the accused was an indivudal who would become instrumental in defining the political project of fascism: the Bulgarian communist Georgi Dimitrov. After mounting an impassioned and successful defense at trial, Dimitrov fled to the USSR, where he became general secretary of the Communist International.

In 1935, Dimitrov delivered a report to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, articulating a definition of fascism that resulted from years of debate among communists — including figures like Clara Zetkin and Antonio Gramsci. Fascism, Dimitrov declared, was “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”

How to Misunderstand Fascism

In the forward to Palmiro Togliatti’s Lectures on Fascism, Vijay Prashad highlights the importance of a clear definition of fascism. He writes that “the bourgeoisie is split,” referencing the early stages of fascism, “with the most reactionary section pushing towards a fascistic solution to the capitalist crisis.” Communists in Italy and Germany were quick to identify the role of big financiers and beneficiaries in this shift. In 1926, Gramsci observed that fascism was not a “pre-democratic regime” which would one day mature into a liberal democracy but instead was “the expression of the most advanced stage of development of capitalist society.”

Journalists at the time also tracked this progression. Works like Facts and Fascism detailed how industrialists such as Fritz Thyssen and Alfred Krupp funded and benefited from fascism’s rise. Such figures gradually aligned with fringe fascist movements, supporting them as a bulwark against communism, which, in the wake of socialist revolutions, struck fear into the hearts of capitalists. As Daniel Guérin observed in his 1939 book Fascism and Big Business, fascist parties were formed out of coalitions of armed anti-labor militias that brutalized strikes and socialist meetings. While plenty of industrialists and finance capitalists supported “bourgeois democracy,” fascism required funding only from a reactionary segment of that class to deliver its message to a mass base.

In time, the Comintern’s 1935 definition — i.e., “the terrorist dictatorship of reactionary finance capital” — sparked both opposition and distancing by theorists who sought to avoid association with Joseph Stalin. Contrary to those like Timothy Snyder who claim that it was the communists who blurred the definition of fascism with the overuse of “social fascism,” today’s obscuring is directly birthed out of anti-communist theories about fascism that have resulted in enduring chaos and confusion.

Fascism employs its own foundational stories, but postmodernism offers no counter-framework — it simply omits narrative entirely.

There’s an old joke about malfunctioning stamps in fascist Italy. After Mussolini issued a stamp with his face on it, it was quickly recalled because Italians were spitting on the wrong side. The joke symbolized hatred for fascism at the time, but today the joke is reversed: with historians and cultural theorists reluctant or unable to define fascism, they contribute to very obscurity that fascists exploit.

Historians in the “postmodern” age, especially the late twentieth century, have compounded this problem. In the 1997 book In Defence of History: Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda, Ellen Meiksins Wood criticized this turn in the 1990s as “a rejection of totalizing knowledge.” In the same book, John Bellamy Foster described postmodern history as “signs and signifiers without significance.” In the preface to Late Fascism, Alberto Toscano bluntly omits “the deliberations of the Communist International” in favor of the 1970s debates from postmodernists like Michel Foucault. By rejecting metanarratives, they advance — whether intentionally or not — the fragmented ideologies that make up fascism. Fascism employs its own foundational stories, but thinkers like Kuklick and Steinmetz-Jenkins offer no counter-framework — they simply omit narrative entirely. How can we understand structural causes of change if we abandon the very narratives and “elemental” characteristics that make them intelligible?

The House That Material Analysis Built

Perhaps the solution is to reject the postmodern fragmentation altogether. To understand the anti-postmodern position, we need to circle back to the Marx Brothers.

In Animal Crackers, the Marx Brothers search for a missing painting. When they can’t find the thief, they conclude it must be in the house next door. “That’s great,” Groucho says, but “suppose there is no house next door?” “Well,” Chico says, “then of course we gotta build one.”

The lost painting — or, in our case, the lost systemic origins and unified logic of history — has to be discovered, according to Wood and Foster, not through unending skepticism that devolves into cynicism but through material analysis, a Marxist process once called “historical materialism.” With so much obscuring of an ideology like fascism, the structural analysis has to be rebuilt to discover it.

Looking back to Duck Soup, we see that the Marx Brothers might have actually understood the class basis of fascism more keenly than they are given credit for. The film’s Mussolini-like leader is installed after a rich widow donates millions to the country in exchange for his appointment.

Instead of waiting for the next war, as Benchley suggested, we should look to those who sought to translate truth into meaning and revive the purged analyses of the old left. As Wood argues in Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism,“we should not confuse respect for the plurality of human experience and social struggles with a complete dissolution of historical causality.”

Today’s most pressing task is to fight the defeatist tendencies that reproduce the received wisdom of dominant ideologies and strive to understand — and ultimately defeat — fascism. The communists provided invaluable tools for doing so. To understand fascism, we must use those tools and follow the Marx Brothers’ example to build the house next door.

 

https://jacobin.com/2024/12/fascism-marxism-history-capitalists-trump

 

 

ALL THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN FASCISTS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE END OF WW2...

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.