----------------------------------------------------------
This is a completely obtuse presentation, made even more dense by an excessive use of comas, compound descriptors separated by "/," parentheses, and run-on sentences.
The author tries to come off as thoughtful and scholarly, but his ideological leanings become plain very quickly. He employs Leftist rhetoric and democratic talking points prolifically, tilting his presentation to obtain his desired conclusion: Trump and his supporters are fascist.
Nearly 3600 words of agitprop spewed forth for the sole purpose of impugning political opponents.
In addition, the author will continually refer to "the ruling class." Leftists always talk in these terms, because to them society is made up of castes based on wealth (which is power) having competing interests. The ruling class is composed of exploiters, and the worker is the exploited. Thus the Left wants the worker (the proletariat) to rise up and overthrow the ruling class (the bourgeois).
The problem with the idea of a "ruling class" is that someone or some group will always be in this position. Further, the amount of power they might have is an extension of the magnitude of government power. A big, controlling, coercive government (like America) can be manipulated and corrupted by "the ruling class."
However, if our government were to be returned to its constitutional limits, then "the ruling class" would have no power to achieve their aims. Thus the entire framework of the author's argument collapses.
------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018) (Mr. Jonas will never discuss or even mention racism again.)
Introductory Note: This column combines my two most recent columns on fascism, its definitions and its history, with some additional text. (You will find links for several earlier columns of mine on this subject in the body of the text.) With the agreement of our Editor/Publisher, Rob Kall, this is done for those readers who might want to read my whole (short) treatment of the subject in one place.
As some of you know, in 1996 I published a book on the subject, for our nation, describing how the Republican Religious Right could take it over using the electoral process (sound familiar[?]), and then impose a fascist dictatorship. It is entitled "The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022." The 3rd Version of the book was published in 2013. It is available on Amazon (as advertised on OpEdNews.com). This column, however, is not about that process, here, but rather about what fascism is, as it was developed by its promoters, in the 20th century, in Europe and Asia.
Introduction
"Fascism" is a term, a word, (Term, word... This sort of repetition will soon become irritating.)
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018) (Mr. Jonas will never discuss or even mention racism again.)
Introductory Note: This column combines my two most recent columns on fascism, its definitions and its history, with some additional text. (You will find links for several earlier columns of mine on this subject in the body of the text.) With the agreement of our Editor/Publisher, Rob Kall, this is done for those readers who might want to read my whole (short) treatment of the subject in one place.
As some of you know, in 1996 I published a book on the subject, for our nation, describing how the Republican Religious Right could take it over using the electoral process (sound familiar[?]), and then impose a fascist dictatorship. It is entitled "The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022." The 3rd Version of the book was published in 2013. It is available on Amazon (as advertised on OpEdNews.com). This column, however, is not about that process, here, but rather about what fascism is, as it was developed by its promoters, in the 20th century, in Europe and Asia.
Introduction
"Fascism" is a term, a word, (Term, word... This sort of repetition will soon become irritating.)
being used frequently in contemporary historical, political science, and political (there is a difference there) discourse. (Again the writing style...)
For most of the users of the term, it is historically based, (No, most users of the term are Leftists who use it as invective.)
on the origins of its several variations in the last century. It major features are:
* The denomination a particular form of national political economy: a unitary State with no separation of governmental powers, usually (but not always, see Japan) headed by an all-powerful dictator; no democratic participation in any matters of the State; serving the interests of a capitalist ruling class, as determined by the corporate representatives of that class.
* Usually but not always. it features the designation of one religious discipline as dominant over all the others (e.g., Italy and Spain, Catholicism; Japan, Shintoism), with certain others, such as Judaism, first deprived of citizenship and its benefits, eventually sent to the gas chambers.
* It has a nationalized transportation system. ("Mussolini made the trains run on time"); it promotes certain kinds of public works, e.g., the Autobahns in Germany.
* Only the German version had as a primary focus the mass-murder of certain ethnic groups, e.g., the Roma and the Jews.
* Finally, foreign-military expansionism: in the 20th century, a feature of some, Germany, Italy, and Japan, but not of others, Spain, and Hungary. The latter engaged in some "border adjustments," but nothing major except as a Nazi ally in World War II. While Spain's Franco, with much foresight, did not formally join the Axis Powers (even though their intervention had been the difference between winning and losing the Spanish Civil War), Spain did send troops to the Nazi Russian Front: the "Blue Division" (ideally suited for fighting in the Russian winter).
And so, "fascism" is a descriptor of what came to be recognized as a particular approach/structure (Again the writing style...)
* The denomination a particular form of national political economy: a unitary State with no separation of governmental powers, usually (but not always, see Japan) headed by an all-powerful dictator; no democratic participation in any matters of the State; serving the interests of a capitalist ruling class, as determined by the corporate representatives of that class.
* Usually but not always. it features the designation of one religious discipline as dominant over all the others (e.g., Italy and Spain, Catholicism; Japan, Shintoism), with certain others, such as Judaism, first deprived of citizenship and its benefits, eventually sent to the gas chambers.
* It has a nationalized transportation system. ("Mussolini made the trains run on time"); it promotes certain kinds of public works, e.g., the Autobahns in Germany.
* Only the German version had as a primary focus the mass-murder of certain ethnic groups, e.g., the Roma and the Jews.
* Finally, foreign-military expansionism: in the 20th century, a feature of some, Germany, Italy, and Japan, but not of others, Spain, and Hungary. The latter engaged in some "border adjustments," but nothing major except as a Nazi ally in World War II. While Spain's Franco, with much foresight, did not formally join the Axis Powers (even though their intervention had been the difference between winning and losing the Spanish Civil War), Spain did send troops to the Nazi Russian Front: the "Blue Division" (ideally suited for fighting in the Russian winter).
And so, "fascism" is a descriptor of what came to be recognized as a particular approach/structure (Again the writing style...)
for organizing the politics and the economy (sometimes referred to as the "political economy") (Sigh. It just isn't necessary to supply these alternative readings.)
of a given country. I do not use it as a-slogan/a-name-caller for attacking a political opponent or rival, just to demean them in one way or another. (If so, we applaud Mr. Jonas. He may be the only one on the Left who wouldn't use the term "fascist" to impugn political opponents.)
If in my writing I label someone as a "fascist" it is because I believe/have-observed/have-evidence-for-holding that he/she supports (The writing style... Please, stop.)
in whole or in significant part the introduction/imposition of a political/economic system (also referred to as the "political economy") (Yeah, we know. You told us this three sentences ago.)
on a nation that fits the definition which I have provided above and will be describing in some more detail below.
Classic Fascism
The Italian authoritarian leader from 1922 to 1943, Benito Mussolini, is generally given the credit for inventing the modern symbol/term "fascism." As the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The first European fascist, Benito Mussolini, adopted this symbol both to recall the greatness of the Roman Empire and to reinforce his authority as the eventual dictator of Italy. Fascist regimes like his required their citizens to be as unified as the tightly bound fasces [from the Latin word for "bundle"]."
A classic short-er definition of "fascism" (other than the one above), that I have used in the past and still do, is based on the characteristics of the well-known 20th-century states which had instituted it, e.g., Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Japan:
"There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government, in service of a capitalist ruling class that controls, (No, the author has this backwards. In fascism, capitalism is reorganized to serve the government.)
for the most part, the principal functions of any economy: production of goods and services, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent elections. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of authoritarianism-as-supreme, racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, homophobia, and xenophobia. (Sounds like modern-day leftists...)
There is a single political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control." (The author has perfectly, and ironically, described himself and his fellow leftists.)
Capitalism and Fascism: A Match Made in Hell
As I have also said elsewhere: Under capitalism, briefly, the 'ruling class" is the grouping of economically dominant individual and corporate owners of the means of production, distribution, finance, and exchange, that are the primary engines of any economy. (No, that would be "oligarchy," or perhaps, corporatism. Capitalism has nothing to do with the exercise of power by corporations.)
Capitalism and Fascism: A Match Made in Hell
As I have also said elsewhere: Under capitalism, briefly, the 'ruling class" is the grouping of economically dominant individual and corporate owners of the means of production, distribution, finance, and exchange, that are the primary engines of any economy. (No, that would be "oligarchy," or perhaps, corporatism. Capitalism has nothing to do with the exercise of power by corporations.)
Under capitalism their primary function is the production of 'profit' --- that is excess-revenue/surplus-value above the costs of production --- (This is perfectly Marxist agitprop. Such a system is automatically not capitalist.)
both for personal use and for further investment in productive resources.
In the industrialized countries in which fascism appeared in the 20th century, the dominant sector of the ruling class consisted of the owners of industry. (This held true to a lesser extent in Hungary and Spain, which were less industrialized than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Furthermore, in Spain the Catholic Church was a central element in forming the ideology of the capitalist ruling class.) (There is no such thing as "capitalist ruling class." Capitalism is not a political manifestation, it simply is economic activity: The willing, legal exchange of value.)
Of course, in the 21st century United States the ruling class is much more complex than it was in any of the 20th century fascist nations. Just some of its elements are: manufacturing (to be sure), finance (as a means of profit-making per se, not just supplying capital to the manufacturing sector, as it was in the 20th century), mass media (of an increasing number of varieties), advertising, publishing, computer-based electronic communications, transportation (of goods and people), mass-retail sales (as in Amazon/Walmart), data-management, fossil fuels/petro-chemicals, the development and control of Artificial Intelligence, and so on and so forth.)" (A complex and ultimately meaningless sentence.)
In the industrialized countries in which fascism appeared in the 20th century, the dominant sector of the ruling class consisted of the owners of industry. (This held true to a lesser extent in Hungary and Spain, which were less industrialized than Germany, Italy, and Japan. Furthermore, in Spain the Catholic Church was a central element in forming the ideology of the capitalist ruling class.) (There is no such thing as "capitalist ruling class." Capitalism is not a political manifestation, it simply is economic activity: The willing, legal exchange of value.)
Of course, in the 21st century United States the ruling class is much more complex than it was in any of the 20th century fascist nations. Just some of its elements are: manufacturing (to be sure), finance (as a means of profit-making per se, not just supplying capital to the manufacturing sector, as it was in the 20th century), mass media (of an increasing number of varieties), advertising, publishing, computer-based electronic communications, transportation (of goods and people), mass-retail sales (as in Amazon/Walmart), data-management, fossil fuels/petro-chemicals, the development and control of Artificial Intelligence, and so on and so forth.)" (A complex and ultimately meaningless sentence.)
As I have also said previously: (Mr. Jonas seems to love to quote himself.)
The way that a ruling class exerts its control of a nation is by gaining and maintaining control over State Power, that is the elements of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, and the forces of repression/control, as necessary. (I.e., Socialist revolution, incrementally achieved.)
And so, when looking at the 20th-century, fascism in the three major industrialized countries in which it was installed by their respective ruling classes, Germany, Italy, and Japan, the understanding of the ruling classes and their support/installation of that system leading to the control of State Power becomes pretty straightforward. In Spain, a powerful Catholic Church played a major role in its installation, through the well-known Spanish Civil War in which the Franco-fascist forces, with the very open collaboration of Nazi Germany (air) and Fascist Italy (ground) forces, and the complete abandonment of the Republic by the so-called "Western Democracies," overthrew the elected Republican government."
As it happened, Hungary, again, was the first nation in history in which its politico-economy can be characterized as fascist. It became thus under one Admiral Miklos Horthy, who, following the failure of the communist revolution of 1919, and then an extremely complicated period of domestic turmoil and attempted foreign interventions, as the head of the major force in the nation, the national army, took full control of the national government of 1920. He ran it in an essentially fascist fashion, later becoming a formal part of the "Germany-Italy-Japan Axis Alliance" in 1941. That is until he was deposed in late 1944 --- by Hitler --- for not killing enough Jews(!). During his rule, of course he had the full support of both the industrialists and the landed-aristocracy (which was quite powerful in Hungary).
Fascism and The United States in the 21st Century
In the 21st century United States the situation which could lead to a fascist revolution is much more complex than it was in any of the European Countries + Japan in which it developed in the 20th century. In exerting its ownership and control of the economic system since the founding of the Republic, so-called "liberal democracy," with "separation of powers" and regular elections, has worked very well for the U.S. ruling class. Control of the political system has shifted back-and-forth between two major political parties over time (each changing their political/ideological identities over time), with some variations in poltico-economic policy (some of them major, as in the Civil War and its aftermath, the New Deal, and the Era of Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960s).
But since the Civil War (and some are already calling it "The First Civil War"), none of the potential changes in politico-economic policy have been as major as the threat of Trump/Republo-fascism that we presently face (click here), as is well-known. (Mr. Jonas makes this accusation of fascism but will tell us absolutely nothing in terms of evidence this is true.)
And so, when looking at the 20th-century, fascism in the three major industrialized countries in which it was installed by their respective ruling classes, Germany, Italy, and Japan, the understanding of the ruling classes and their support/installation of that system leading to the control of State Power becomes pretty straightforward. In Spain, a powerful Catholic Church played a major role in its installation, through the well-known Spanish Civil War in which the Franco-fascist forces, with the very open collaboration of Nazi Germany (air) and Fascist Italy (ground) forces, and the complete abandonment of the Republic by the so-called "Western Democracies," overthrew the elected Republican government."
As it happened, Hungary, again, was the first nation in history in which its politico-economy can be characterized as fascist. It became thus under one Admiral Miklos Horthy, who, following the failure of the communist revolution of 1919, and then an extremely complicated period of domestic turmoil and attempted foreign interventions, as the head of the major force in the nation, the national army, took full control of the national government of 1920. He ran it in an essentially fascist fashion, later becoming a formal part of the "Germany-Italy-Japan Axis Alliance" in 1941. That is until he was deposed in late 1944 --- by Hitler --- for not killing enough Jews(!). During his rule, of course he had the full support of both the industrialists and the landed-aristocracy (which was quite powerful in Hungary).
Fascism and The United States in the 21st Century
In the 21st century United States the situation which could lead to a fascist revolution is much more complex than it was in any of the European Countries + Japan in which it developed in the 20th century. In exerting its ownership and control of the economic system since the founding of the Republic, so-called "liberal democracy," with "separation of powers" and regular elections, has worked very well for the U.S. ruling class. Control of the political system has shifted back-and-forth between two major political parties over time (each changing their political/ideological identities over time), with some variations in poltico-economic policy (some of them major, as in the Civil War and its aftermath, the New Deal, and the Era of Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960s).
But since the Civil War (and some are already calling it "The First Civil War"), none of the potential changes in politico-economic policy have been as major as the threat of Trump/Republo-fascism that we presently face (click here), as is well-known. (Mr. Jonas makes this accusation of fascism but will tell us absolutely nothing in terms of evidence this is true.)
Indeed, major constituencies of the U.S. ruling class, e.g., the petro-chemical industry, and significant elements of, for example, communications, broadcasting, banking/finance, manufacturing, and transportation, are "becoming worried" about what might happen to their bed rock, not principles, but interests, under the Democrats, especially in the realm of trying to deal with Climate Change. (Indeed, after 80 years of infiltration, the Leftist Democrats are set to finish dismantling the system and install Socialism.)
As I have noted in previous columns, one or more of the elements of the definition of fascism set forth above, which is based on 20th century historical models, can be found in the political/economic ideology of the contemporary U.S. Republican Party, both as it is epitomized by Trump and the Trump-wing of that party (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
As I have noted in previous columns, one or more of the elements of the definition of fascism set forth above, which is based on 20th century historical models, can be found in the political/economic ideology of the contemporary U.S. Republican Party, both as it is epitomized by Trump and the Trump-wing of that party (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
and in what seems to be the current written/ideological engine of the party, the Heritage Foundation. (We sincerely doubt the Heritage Foundation has any kind of influence or power in our Leftist government. Mr. Jonas will certainly not take the time to explain or prove his assertions.)
As the AP says about the latter: "Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump's vision." (The link is to an opinion piece, which uses breathlessly urgent terminology to characterize the reforms conservatives want to implement as dismantling the government.
Ironically, this dismantling is a mantra of the Left. America is "systemically racist," which can only mean that it is not redeemable and must be dismantled. This of course is the veiled language more directly described as the Proletariat rising up to overthrow the Bourgeois.)
(If I am incorrect in my characterization of the Heritage Foundation, its ideology, and its current politico-economic program, I would be happy, indeed very happy, to be corrected.) (We doubt it. Leftists never allow themselves to be corrected, for they happily and persistently parrot their bumper sticker slogans [agitprop] until they become gospel.)
As it happens we do not know the full extent of the component corporations and interests in the list of present or potential future supporters of a fascist revolution in the United States because of the cover that the famous "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision of 2010 gave to political contributors. (Mr. Jonas continues to burnish his leftist bona-fides by toeing the Leftist party line on Citizens United. The persistent misinformation campaign about what this ruling achieved is now very nearly itself gospel.)
(If I am incorrect in my characterization of the Heritage Foundation, its ideology, and its current politico-economic program, I would be happy, indeed very happy, to be corrected.) (We doubt it. Leftists never allow themselves to be corrected, for they happily and persistently parrot their bumper sticker slogans [agitprop] until they become gospel.)
As it happens we do not know the full extent of the component corporations and interests in the list of present or potential future supporters of a fascist revolution in the United States because of the cover that the famous "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision of 2010 gave to political contributors. (Mr. Jonas continues to burnish his leftist bona-fides by toeing the Leftist party line on Citizens United. The persistent misinformation campaign about what this ruling achieved is now very nearly itself gospel.)
Of course, we certainly can look at the financial supporters of Trump and seeming pro-fascist organizations for a pretty good indication of which are the proto-fascist elements in the ruling class, as well as by following their lobbying efforts in the U.S. Congress. (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
The Role of a Nation's Ruling Class in a Fascist Takeover: An Example: What Happened in the Early Days of the Assumption of the German Chancellorship by Adolf Hitler (Feb. 1933)
As an example of the role of a capitalist ruling class in the 20th century enabling/abetting/engineering (Sigh. Please stop...)
The Role of a Nation's Ruling Class in a Fascist Takeover: An Example: What Happened in the Early Days of the Assumption of the German Chancellorship by Adolf Hitler (Feb. 1933)
As an example of the role of a capitalist ruling class in the 20th century enabling/abetting/engineering (Sigh. Please stop...)
the fascist overthrow of either a monarchical state (Hungary [20th century], Italy), (Having completed his casual attack of Trump, Mr. Jonas reverts back to historic story telling for some reason.)
or a liberal-capitalist-democratic one (Germany, Spain), I am reproducing here an excerpt from an earlier column of mine on "Der Anschluss" (the takeover of Austria by Nazi Germany in March, 1938) which deals with an example of how a capitalist ruling class endorsed/enabled a fascist takeover of a formerly democratic country by a minority party. (Japan presented a different type of fascist conversion, which I may deal with at a future time.)
"So why," you might ask, and probably have, "why would I use a story from a book about "Der Anschluss" (the takeover of Austria by Nazi Germany in March, 1039), and quite a lengthy one at that, to introduce a column on the U.S. ruling class and the potential advent of full-blown Republo-fascism in this country?" ) (Yes. We have been wondering about this for thousands of words now.)
"So why," you might ask, and probably have, "why would I use a story from a book about "Der Anschluss" (the takeover of Austria by Nazi Germany in March, 1039), and quite a lengthy one at that, to introduce a column on the U.S. ruling class and the potential advent of full-blown Republo-fascism in this country?" ) (Yes. We have been wondering about this for thousands of words now.)
(For a review of some of my more recent writings on this latter subject, see my column here on Op-Ed News: "The U.S. Ruling Class and the Republo-fascist Party."
Good question. Here's the answer. (A long, irrelevant quote from Mr. Jonas which begs the question.)
"In 2018 the English translation of a book by a French author, Eric Vuillard, entitled 'The Order of the Day,' was published. In its original French, published in 2017, it was a prize-winner. The main text is a brief and entirely gripping description of the events that immediately preceded Der Anschluss itself. But for our purposes here, it is the book's 'Introduction' which is the most important part. For, as the Publishers Weekly entry for the book says, it begins with a brief description of '. . . a fateful February 1933 meeting of 24 German business leaders with Hitler that led to their funding the Nazis' campaign(s) [emphasis added]. . .'. This meeting occurred after the controversial appointment by the German Weimar Republic's President von Hindenburg of Hitler as German Chancellor on January 30, 1933, but before the fateful Reichstag Fire of February 27, 1933, which, as it was used by the Nazis, then led directly to the establishment of the Hitler Dictatorship under 'The Enabling Act ' of March 23, 1933.
"One can only speculate at this point, but it is highly unlikely that Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been able to move ahead as they did without that meeting and the endorsement that occurred at it. It happened that the attendees' list included virtually all the major German 'Captains of Industry,' names still well known to anyone who knows anything about German industry even today, e.g., Krupp, Schacht, Thyssen [who recruited as an early U.S. supporter of the German Nazi Party {1923}, one George Herbert Walker], von Siemens, Opel, Quandt, Reuter, as well as major corporate elements of German industry and finance, such as BASF, Bayer, Agfa, I.G. Farben, Allianz, and Telefunken. The assembly was first addressed by Hermann Goering, and then by the man himself, Adolf Hitler. There were 24 of them, the crème-de-la-crime [if I may use a slight modification of the French term] of the German ruling class.
"Hitler came to ask them for their approval, in general terms to be sure, of what he was planning to do. Not in detail, of course, because he had given countless speeches since becoming head of the then-burgeoning Nazi Party in the early 1920s. And, as is well-known, in 1926 he had published a very detailed book on his program and plans, called 'My Struggle' (which may be more familiar as Mein Kampf). At that meeting in 1933, the assembled throng gave their support and approval to Hitler, apparently unanimously. The Reichstag Fire, purposely set [by Goering and an S.A. team] and with no evidence blamed on the Communists (who were totally surprised by the event) came quickly, followed by a rigged election ripe with voter intimidation [sound familiar?] on March 5. In the Reichstag [the German Parliament], it was then on to the Enabling Act on March 23, which established the Hitler dictatorship [the passage of which happened to have been finally enabled in the Reichstag by the Catholic Center Party, in return for certain guarantees of Catholic independence]."
And we know what happened then, over the next 12 years. Could it happen here? In one form or another, most likely a "uniquely American" one, it sure could. (After a long and irrelevant explanation of how Hitler came to power, the best Mr. Jonas can do is say it can happen here? Really? That's it?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, could fascism have a "left-wing?" (Yes, most certainly. Fascism is authoritarian, oppressive, and dictatorial. That describes the Left precisely.)
To a well-educated left-wing friend of mine who raised the subject, I wrote that what is to my knowledge and understanding of the history and definition of fascism as it existed in the 20th century, such an appellation is an oddity, indeed a complete mis-use of the definition. (That is, Mr. Jonas resists talking about the fascist elements of the Left because it violates his definition.)
He wrote back: "historically fascism also attacked some corporate sectors and even imperialism/capitalism." (The implication there is that "maybe fascism ain't so bad," but I declined to go there. I did however, consider the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party, for indeed there was one.)
(Here comes another long and irrelevant historical story...) As it happens, that statement is quite correct, for Germany. Although not for Nazi Germany. (I am not familiar with any similar occurrences in other nations defined as "fascist," although they may well have occurred.) As it happens, the abbreviation "Nazi" stands for the formal name of the party of Hitler, which translates as the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (a very clever naming, to be sure). Before Jan. 30, 1933, the date, as you may recall, on which Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg, it the party actually did have a "left-"wing. It was headed by two Strassers, the brothers Otto and Gregor.
On the night of Jan. 30, 1933, using the Nazis' private army, Die Sturmabteilung (the S.A., the "Storm Division," the "Storm Troopers"), without any legislative authorization (at that time Germany was, on paper, still a constitutional republic under the "Weimar Constitution") arbitrary round-ups of members of both the Communist (KPD) and the Socialist (SPD) parties began. They were put into a new kind of facility, designed by the Nazis. They were called "concentration camps," because the prisoners --- as many Communists (KPD), Socialists (SPD), trade union leaders, and left-wing journalists, who they could arrest quickly --- were packed into the camps as physically tightly as possible. The first one, built quickly, was just outside of a leafy German village called Dachau, near Hitler's home base at Munich.
(Some time ago, I flew into Munich [in Southern Germany] on my way to a health-and-wellness-promotion meeting in Western Austria. I took a car from the airport to my destination in Austria. On the road, quiet, peaceful, and indeed leafy, we passed a road sign designating the village of Dachau. So doing literally took my breath away. (And in writing of this episode, it still does, some years later.)
As it happened that date, Jan. 30, 1933 also marked the end of any "left" in the Nazi Party. But before then, under the leadership of the Strasser Brothers, there was a real Nazi Left (although it may have been just for show). It was called "Strasserism." (German Nazis weren't Left so fascism isn't Left. Hmmm.)
" 'Strasserism' (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) is a strand of Nazism that calls for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism hostile to Jews not from a racial, cultural, or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, two brothers initially associated with this position."
So, what happened to them, and "Left-wing Nazism?" Well, Otto had left the Party and Germany in 1930. (He somehow managed to survive the War [partly in Canada{!}] and he returned to Germany in 1954). Gregor remained a Nazi through the early days of the Hitler Dictatorship, while still promoting his "left-wing" views. On what came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives" (June 30, 1934), in which many of Hitler's enemies both within and outside of the Party, but still right-wingers, were murdered, Gregor was too. Also killed was Ernst Roehm, the Commander of Hitler's private army, the Sturmabteilung, which had fought street battles for him from the early 1920's, as well as Count Kurt von Schleicher, a "moderate" right-winger close to President Hindenburg who had promised him to "keep an eye on Hitler," should Hindenburg appoint him as Chancellor.
These murders, and numerous others, were carried out in part as the price to be paid by a variety of Nazi supporters in return for the continued support of Hitler by the Military and the German ruling class. Most important was the dissolution of the Sturmabteilung, the S.A. Remember, it was a private army, directly loyal to Hitler. Its elimination was demanded by the German armed forces as the price of their full support for Hitler and his dictatorship. And so, along with more important objectives for Hitler, that night the "leftie" Gregor Strasser, a Hitler supporter from the early days in the 1920's, was murdered. (Finally, he's done with the history lesson. We hope.)
"Left Nazism?" Really a joke. (Based solely on the way Germans expressed Nazism 75 years ago, present-day leftism cannot be fascist. What?)
(Here comes another long and irrelevant historical story...) As it happens, that statement is quite correct, for Germany. Although not for Nazi Germany. (I am not familiar with any similar occurrences in other nations defined as "fascist," although they may well have occurred.) As it happens, the abbreviation "Nazi" stands for the formal name of the party of Hitler, which translates as the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (a very clever naming, to be sure). Before Jan. 30, 1933, the date, as you may recall, on which Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg, it the party actually did have a "left-"wing. It was headed by two Strassers, the brothers Otto and Gregor.
On the night of Jan. 30, 1933, using the Nazis' private army, Die Sturmabteilung (the S.A., the "Storm Division," the "Storm Troopers"), without any legislative authorization (at that time Germany was, on paper, still a constitutional republic under the "Weimar Constitution") arbitrary round-ups of members of both the Communist (KPD) and the Socialist (SPD) parties began. They were put into a new kind of facility, designed by the Nazis. They were called "concentration camps," because the prisoners --- as many Communists (KPD), Socialists (SPD), trade union leaders, and left-wing journalists, who they could arrest quickly --- were packed into the camps as physically tightly as possible. The first one, built quickly, was just outside of a leafy German village called Dachau, near Hitler's home base at Munich.
(Some time ago, I flew into Munich [in Southern Germany] on my way to a health-and-wellness-promotion meeting in Western Austria. I took a car from the airport to my destination in Austria. On the road, quiet, peaceful, and indeed leafy, we passed a road sign designating the village of Dachau. So doing literally took my breath away. (And in writing of this episode, it still does, some years later.)
As it happened that date, Jan. 30, 1933 also marked the end of any "left" in the Nazi Party. But before then, under the leadership of the Strasser Brothers, there was a real Nazi Left (although it may have been just for show). It was called "Strasserism." (German Nazis weren't Left so fascism isn't Left. Hmmm.)
" 'Strasserism' (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) is a strand of Nazism that calls for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism hostile to Jews not from a racial, cultural, or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, two brothers initially associated with this position."
So, what happened to them, and "Left-wing Nazism?" Well, Otto had left the Party and Germany in 1930. (He somehow managed to survive the War [partly in Canada{!}] and he returned to Germany in 1954). Gregor remained a Nazi through the early days of the Hitler Dictatorship, while still promoting his "left-wing" views. On what came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives" (June 30, 1934), in which many of Hitler's enemies both within and outside of the Party, but still right-wingers, were murdered, Gregor was too. Also killed was Ernst Roehm, the Commander of Hitler's private army, the Sturmabteilung, which had fought street battles for him from the early 1920's, as well as Count Kurt von Schleicher, a "moderate" right-winger close to President Hindenburg who had promised him to "keep an eye on Hitler," should Hindenburg appoint him as Chancellor.
These murders, and numerous others, were carried out in part as the price to be paid by a variety of Nazi supporters in return for the continued support of Hitler by the Military and the German ruling class. Most important was the dissolution of the Sturmabteilung, the S.A. Remember, it was a private army, directly loyal to Hitler. Its elimination was demanded by the German armed forces as the price of their full support for Hitler and his dictatorship. And so, along with more important objectives for Hitler, that night the "leftie" Gregor Strasser, a Hitler supporter from the early days in the 1920's, was murdered. (Finally, he's done with the history lesson. We hope.)
"Left Nazism?" Really a joke. (Based solely on the way Germans expressed Nazism 75 years ago, present-day leftism cannot be fascist. What?)
Just as any sort of "Left Trumpism" would be. (As is, given the historical fascism in the 20th century, labelling President Biden as a "fascist." But that is another matter.) For, to repeat, here-and-now we face the potential advent of full-blown Republo-fascism, led by Trump and his supporters, (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
first in the ruling class, and then on the streets. For a review of some of my more recent writings on this subject, see my column here on Op-Ed News: "The U.S. Ruling Class and the Republo-fascist Party.'"
We must hope that it never happens here. But much more than hope will be needed to prevent the destruction of U.S. Constitutional Democracy by Republo-fascism. (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
The former is surely far from perfect. (And to be sure, as I noted above, it supports the control of state power by the capitalist ruling class, though the use of a form of constitutional democracy.) But it is surely far better than any form of the latter that can be contemplated. And any takeover of the U.S. by Trump or a successor (think Ron DeSantis) by Republo-fascism (He repeats his fascist charge, but adds no additional information.)
will surely eliminate for the foreseeable future the chances of making any of the needed reforms in U.S. constitutional democracy that present themselves today. Of course, under any sort of U.S. fascism, any self-deluded "left" supporters of Trump and his Republo-fascism will be done away with very quickly, along with the "there's-no-such-thing-as-a-lesser-evil" folks, along with the true leftists (as well as many out-spoken liberals --- as happened in Germany --- see the famous quote from Pastor Niemoller) who will eventually be rounded up with them.
(Mr. Jonas had a big opportunity to supply evidence, any evidence at all, that Trump is fascist. After thousands of words, what did he end up doing? Well, he accused Trump of fascism because Hitler did so-and-so, this and that from history, blah blah ad nauseum.
That's it. He made the charge, repeated it, and presumed its truth without a single piece of information to document it.
What a waste of time.)
No comments:
Post a Comment