I think it's time for a real, fleshed out discussion on fascism. Both political sides have been throwing that word around in regard to the other for many years now, and subsequently winning support because of it. But I don't think, based on the essence and definition of fascism, that both can be true at the same time. I could be wrong, and the liberals could in fact be fascists in some capacity (or in a real capacity even) but perhaps not in the same way the Trump administration, the neoliberal conservatives, the radical Christian Republicans, are, could and perhaps will be.
I think a part of this is that we have taken for granted that people know what fascism actually is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no expert, but I believe I have a grasp on the authoritarian aspect of it just from watching what has been happening in Russia unfold over my lifetime, and watching my family’s response to it. I believe the relationship between the news and media, political agendas and messages, and the peoples’ understanding of politics, government, and subsequently themselves and each other, are at the center of fascism, and that is where we watch it play out and develop before we see it come to light in something like a Holocaust. And the key feature of this ecosystem is a brainwashing, for lack of a better word (this word is triggering for people so perhaps I ought to find another one) that leads its supporters to not see it for what it is. But what is it?
I think, and these are my thoughts before any cited literature, just from experience, that a key element of this fascism-facilitating media is a reverence and moral positioning of the army and police, aka, military authority. This is a key element in fascism, I believe. I think the reason fascism and authoritarianism are so effective, malicious, insidious, and hard to spot and eliminate is a dual-policing/observation/disciplining that arises from both an authoritarian military/police force, and people themselves, policing themselves, in a Foucault-ian type disciplinary power mechanism as described in Discipline and Punish. (I wonder if he has references to fascism in that book, go look it up later). These things, in part, arise from the media; specifically, how it portrays military authority, and how it manipulates people into this surveillance.
Before we even get to the kind of surveillance that leads people to report or rat out opposition or dissidents to someone else, what is created is this monitoring of peoples’ political beliefs and attitudes, and a villainization of them. An othering, so to speak, but much more insidious than just “othering”. The specific process of villainizing is key to why and how fascism works, at all, but especially interpersonally. The irony here, as with all of fascism, is that when the anti-fascist side calls out and names said fascism, they are in turn called the fascists, and accused of villainizing those people attempting to bring fascism into power. This is the accusation being a confession; the vital and insidious mechanism of redirecting peoples’ understandings of these concepts, so that they could never accuse or accept their own parties, leaders, media, and beliefs being the fascists, without experiencing serious cognitive dissonance. Back to villainizing; so this happens with dissidents, the other, people who disagree with the soon to be fascist party. This happens with the leaders in the opposition. And this happens conceptually with the positions and beliefs of the other party, in our case, things like climate change, for example, which are used as a method of pushing fascist agendas, or even simply just radicalizing and convincing the fascism supporters.
I’m getting away from myself as there is simply so much to say and point out.
A key element in fascism is this veneration of military authority, as it is one of the two integral parts of how fascism sustains itself in the ecosystem of peoples’ daily lives. The other part is policing each other, which warrants an entire other discussion that has a lot of moving parts, as two paragraphs ago highlights.
So I believe this has been happening in our media very prominently over however many years. A review of popular media would be interesting for this part, but an obvious one I can think of is the Marvel universe. Not only because of the conceptual content being this military valorization, but because of the nature of the films themselves. Scorsese's criticism comes to mind, (and a recent philosophical discussion I had about comforting, uncritical media, and how there is a link between those prone to falling into fascist ideology, and those who gravitate towards this kind of media. The placation, comforting, validation, and uncritical-ness disguised as deep critical concepts, all being keys in how media works to manipulate). (Also, this is unsubstantiated at all, but military-entertainment complex? US department of defense funding movies? Is Marvel in that? Lots of important things to look into, flesh out, point out, and discuss).
Media has two parts, projects such as movies and the news. The news isn’t not to be trusted in the sense that it is literally made up, like some would have us believe, but because it is to be taken with a grain of salt. Again, this recurring theme among fascists of taking a truth, and spinning it into an untruth, but because it is based in truth, we accept the premise and assume the conclusion is correct. The phenomena of PR (public relations) companies collaborating with politics and the news (is a crazy new world to me) is key here. What gets shown in the news, why, by who, and for what purpose? This is vital.
The news serves as an important conduit for political messaging, as it is meant to affect peoples’ opinions and thus their votes. Some would argue that this is a normal and vital aspect of democracy, being presented with views and then choosing and voting. Sure, we ought to stay informed in a democracy. But where is that line between presenting facts, news, and giving a persuasive speech, and straight up manipulation? That is a question for psychologists, perhaps, and political/sociological theorists (all of which stem from philosophers but we’re not ready for that conversation). This is perhaps something that can be seen in Russia, today, or Germany, back then, as a case study, in addition to the military venerating media (Russia for sure, the way they conceive of WWII).
Media plays an integral role in the rise and sustainability of fascism because of how it forms our thoughts and beliefs about the world. Media tells us who to villainize, what to believe, what is true, who to follow, and most importantly, why we are on the right side of history. This is a pivotal moment where the definition of fascism, why it is bad, and where it is truly playing out, is vital to articulate, because the simple truth of the power of media, itself, can point to anyone being a fascist. It can be justified that liberals are fascists because they engage with media in the same way the rising fascists do. There is a key difference that lies in the content of the media, particularly the news, that distinguishes fascist ideology from other kinds of ideology (because yes of course much of liberalism is ideology, see Žižek, and some of it’s negative ostracizing and othering acts like cancel culture and intense political correctness is in part why America swung to the right this recent election).
So, what is fascism? (Why and how) Are liberals not fascists? And how is Trump facilitating fascism?
A lot here I wish to expand on in future essays.