Rev Left Radio - Fascism w/ American Characteristics (The Pokepreet Podcast Ft. Breht O'Shea)

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

"In this episode we are joined by Breht O'Shea to talk about fascism and it's peculiarities in the 21st Century." I went on The Pokepreet Podcast for a second time recently and had a really in-depth and nuanced conversation about fascism, presently and historically; together we discuss how American fascism arising out of the ruins of neoliberalism is qualitatively different than previous fascisms, the role of insecure masculinity in all fascist movements, the implications of a lack of an organized and militant working class to combat it, the feckless liberal (non)response, the Democrats embrace of the "Abundance" agenda, the Palestinian liberation struggle, and MUCH much more. You can find Henri's work at: ⁠https://substack.com/@henrimartel ⁠ Support Pokepreet on Patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepokepreetpod   ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio: https://revleftradio.com/

Hello, guys. Welcome back to the Pokerpreet podcast. I'm joined here by my co-host, Henry Martel, and of course, the lovely Brett O'Shea, to talk about fascism and social revolution by R. Palm Dutt. It's a really great book that I think describes fascism perfectly. It was written in the 1930s, especially around the rise of fascism. Let's get the introductions out of the way, of course, Brett O'Shea, host of the Rev. Left podcast, former host of guerrilla history, host of Shulis in Dakota. we've had him on the show before. Brent, you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, thank you so much for all of that. I love being back on the show with you. Last time, we collabed the response from, at least my listeners, was very, very positive. So very cool to be back on here. Yeah, I host Rev. Left Radio, co-host Red Menace.

Shootless in South Dakota is kind of a fun side project, not really political, but something I do is my friend who's in active recovery. So, yeah, that's who I own. Thanks for having me on. And then, Henry, you're a bit of a new co-host. Do you want to introduce yourself just super quick? Yeah, hello. Very happy to be here.

I write on Substack under Henry Martel, and I'm working on YouTube channel at some point in the future. But yeah, I'm Marxist and love philosophy, history, and so on. And happy to be here. Yeah. So jumping right into the book, the book begins out with an economic critique of capitalism first. Like, it doesn't begin with fascism first. And why do you think our palm dot does that? Yeah, I could jump in and give some thoughts.

I mean, obviously, I think all of these things, and as dialectical materialists, we understand that these things are deeply interrelated, right? These are not separate domains of study. Economics and political science, which is often separated in today's academia, is not functionally or in reality separate at all. And that's why, you know, Marks talks about the critique of political economy. So if we're starting from an analysis of a social phenomena like fascism, good Marxism starts with the materialist analysis, and that almost always means starting in one way or another

with the economic base. Yeah, yeah. I think like ARPOMDOT does a really good job of just distinguishing how a lot of liberal capitalism slowly devolves into fascism, right? There's a lot of contradictions that he mentions, right? the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces. And that's the one I think he really emphasizes throughout the book. And that is the big one that leads to fascism because even in the 1930s when he's writing

this, he mentions we are currently producing more than enough to feed four times the population of Earth. I mean, that's the 1930s. I mean, imagine what we have now, right? So everything's artificial scarcity because it's owned by a small handful of billionaires. And instead of this technology, instead of these amazing gains, helping out the vast majority of humanity, what does it lead to? It leads to economic depressions. It leads to people being laid off of work into the Reserve Army of labor.

You know, it's amazing how Marx was able to predict a lot of this. But also, I'm kind of sad that Marx didn't live long enough to see the rise of fascism. You know, like how all these contradictions inevitably formant themselves into a fascist movement. Yeah, it's interesting you mentioned liberalism too because I heard Zhijik the other day he said something like, oh, you know, you don't understand Trump's not a fascist. He's, you know, I like to call him a liberal fascist. And I couldn't help but think to myself, you know, hasn't it always been that, you know, in terms of this view that any, any, the right ideas will triumph if you have some kind of free discourse, you know. and that there really is no need for materialist analysis. You could say that when he starts with a materialist analysis, that's a little bit, you know, it's almost cheating because you're saying, well, of course, you know,

it has to be material because I'm a Marxist and therefore I have to look here, you know, for some explanation and maybe not consider idealism or, you know, the ideology itself too much. but I think that you can see pretty clearly that fascism reproduces, you know, in certain conditions, material conditions, in certain stages of capitalism. And so it's definitely the most compelling and reliable way to understand its formation, you know.

I think that there's probably a lot more going on in terms of the human psychology, you know, what exactly is appealing about fascist rhetoric, you know, you could definitely talked for a while about that. But in terms of how it comes out of capitalism, you have to start from a materialist perspective. Yeah. To add to that, I love the idea of getting into the psychology of fascism because it's rich terrain for sure. But I think a core critique of Marxists have for liberalism and that liberals deny as just par for the course of their ideological orientation is that exactly as you said, liberal capitalism inevitably leads to fascism if we understand fascism as capitalism in crisis, and capitalism is an inherently crisis-prone system,

and liberalism defends capitalism, right? That liberalism is the political side of the economic system we call capitalism, then these things inevitably happen. And every time capitalism creates crisis, there is simultaneously an attempt to maintain the status quo in the face of obvious needs for change. And then often there is some sort of counterforce in society, a working class movement of one form or another, that is ready to challenge capitalism precisely in a moment of crisis to try to bolster its own position, right? In economic crises, it's not the billionaires and the elite who suffer the most, it's the working and poor. And so they have an automatic interest in confronting the system as a whole, which, again, necessitates a fascist response by the ruling elite.

So it's really important for people to understand that liberal capitalism can only ever lead to fascism. And it does over and over and over again in history. And the only way we're going to get out of that cycle is by transcending liberal capitalism altogether through socialism and eventually into communism. So you transcend the material conditions and the structural impetus that create fascism in the first place. But as long as we think that there's a liberal response to fascism and that we can keep capitalism around and not have fascism as well as imperialism and inequality, et cetera, we're going to live in a state of like a sort of doom loop. And we find ourselves, I think, in a similar doom loop here in the first quarter of the 21st century as well. Yeah, I mean, it's really, you know, within the liberal analysis, often the fight against fascism is portrayed as the fight against liberal. parliamentary democracy against

dictatorship. But, you know, us Marxists, we recognize that liberal parliamentary democracy itself is a dictatorship of the bourgeois. You know, and this dictatorship of the rich, it can take many forms, it can take a monarchist form, it can take a dictatorial form, like fascism, like a

direct dictatorial form, or it can take a liberal parliamentary form where there's this illusion of democracy, but eventually, right, there's so many contradictions within capitalism. Like, first of all, like, of course, struggle. The inevitability of class struggle. There's people at the top. There's people at the bottom. The people at the top, the capitalist exploit the labor of the people at the bottom.

There's the, again, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production. We live in an era of immense abundance, and yet because commodities are produced for exchange value and not use value, the majority of them, like the majority of homes sit empty while we have like 600,000 homeless people. Like, we have more than enough homes for everybody in America. And so there's just vast, vast, and in the crises of overproduction and economic crashes, there's just vast, vast dictatorial elements within liberal parliamentary democracy itself that lends it towards eventually devolving into fascism in order to keep up the bourgeois hold and grip onto power. The only reason we're allowed to have democracy is because they

can afford to give it to us, right? An illusion of democracy. But once they no longer can afford to give us that illusion, they're more than happy to take it away. And I think to some extent we're seeing that all across the world, not even just in America. Yeah, I think, Brett, you made a really great point, or at least alluded to the point that it comes out of crisis, but it's not just any crisis. You know, it's also, there are specific conditions. You know, we can certainly think of lots of crises of capitalism that did not result in fascism. but when there is a real threat from the working class especially if there is a big labor movement

it becomes necessary to crush it with force with authoritarian means liberal democracy doesn't suffice anymore and so it definitely feels like it's worth examining the specific historical circumstances and also the fact that over time You know, now we have this kind of new sort of fascism, which is a little bit more stable, a little bit less aggressive, a little bit less to, you know, authoritarian or military oriented. And you can see how, well, members of the ruling class, members of the capitalist class have understood the destructive power of national socialism, of Italian fascism.

And they understand that, wow, this might be in our interest to crush the workers today, we might want to be a little bit. you know, more clever with how we go about this. So over time, you know, it develops because it's not a scientific ideology, you know, it's kind of a phenomenon. And it's tied to the specific economic conditions. You know, for example, like Pinochet in Chile, you know, people have a difficult time pinning down exactly what that was, was it real fascism, was it paraphasism, whatever. And when you look at the circumstances you see well you know it was a military dictatorship that you know there were you know specific economic structures specific large landowners for example that really benefited from this and so it had its own character the u.s was really involved um so it's always really uh i think worth it to engage with

the historical circumstances well yeah absolutely and i think that's a that's a great example to bring up is the Pinochet example because it was in the face of a rising, actually democratically robust and elected socialist movement, you know, backed by the CIA with the sole purpose of re-entrenching capitalist, you know, the mode of production and social relations, defending it against this rising working class movement, and also be used by the U.S. imperialist class as a place that they can exploit and not challenge a social or not challenge. capitalist social relations. And so it's kind of interesting. And I think it gives the game away that historical example to show the connections between liberalism and fascism. And then you have

somebody today like Javier Malay in Argentina who has outwardly said his criticism of the Pinochet regime is that they didn't throw enough communist out of helicopters. He talks about himself as an anarcho-capitalist, right, which would be hyper right-wing libertarianism. But what do you get when you take hyper white wing libertarianism, you just get fascism again, because the conditions out of which, you know, the conditions created by libertarianism, which is just unfettered capitalist liberalism, you push that far enough, then you're going to get resistance, and then you'll require fascism to, to, you know, reinforce the class structure of society. So I think that's really interesting. And another thing you said, Henry, that was worth reflecting on is the fascism

up today seems a little less aggressive, right? Like there is a, at least so far, things can obviously change and crises can deepen and things can get more violent and I think they almost certainly will. But as of right now, you know, what accounts for that seemingly less aggressive sort of fascism that's bubbling up? And I think it's in large part in here in the US and probably across the West because there's a real lack of an organized working class or communist movement. In the previous historical iteration, you not only had the capitalist crises and all the issues economically that many of us face today, but you had organized growing communist parties and militant working class movements that in so many ways, when we can go into the reasons for this, aren't present right now. And so you need a little aggression with the economic crises, but because you're not facing organized resistance to capitalism itself, you don't have to go full, you know, fucking Adolf Hitler type shit, at least as of now.

So I think that that's an interesting point. The very last point I want to make, I'm sorry, I'm talking a little too much here, but the evolution of class society, we think about like slave societies, ancient Roman empire, and then medieval feudalism, and then industrial capitalism, and you go from slave to surf to worker, and that evolution is real. But one of the other aspects of that evolution, I think, is that the dictatorship of the rich has become more sophisticated and refined in the way it robs and exploits, right? From slavery where it's just literally like, you're my property, whip on the back,

enforcement of class hierarchy to feudalism where it's about, it's abstracted one degree, right? We don't own the serfs, but we own the land upon which the serfs work. And then in capitalisms, it's abstracted yet again. We don't even need to own land and have people forced to work it for no pay. we own private property and you can pick your job and you can apply to a different ones and then we talk about freedom and it's you're more free than a surf and a slave right so that the evolution of the dictatorship of the rich is not that it's gotten less dictatorial it's that it's gotten more refined and sophisticated in its dictatorship and I think that's

worth noted yeah I think um like more a more precise term might be it's less militaristic because, you know, following World War I, there were huge veterans associations and people who really couldn't adjust to civilian life after being part of World War I. And, you know, that really fed in to the movement in Italy and in Germany, you know, this vision of a, you know, hyper-organized or, you know, military state. And that's not really present. But that's, like you said, not a reflection of some kind of unwillingness or impotence, but rather a, just different circumstance. One thing I find odd is like they're using these anti-communist tools right now, currently, for a communist threat that doesn't exist. It almost sort of exists in their heads.

And I think to some extent, you know, I mean, I wish it existed. I think we all wish it existed, it obviously. But it doesn't exist. It kind of just exists in the heads. And they have to sort of invent it currently. You know, there's this like cultural Marxism and Marxism has taken over the universities. And you know, you really dig deep into it. And at best, maybe it's like it's critical race theory, which, yeah, it has like, it's based in like some Marxist text. And it's best, it's like a liberal who read Marx and is a professor. But, you know, there's such a cultural war against a Marxist threat that doesn't exist. And I think to some extent, it really is part of just capitalism's game, right? Neoliberalism and austerity is breaking down to a point

where it's just sort of being forced to invent enemies that doesn't exist. And so now we've got Trump in office and his whole administration is fighting against Marxist threats that don't even exist because this is the stage at which we're at in the course of neoliberalism. Yeah, and I think that gets into the psychology of fascism, which is absolutely fascinating. It's like this repetitive doom loop that we were talking about earlier, like now that we're in another period of economic crisis that capitalism continues to create over and over again and obviously creating worse and worse versions of it as the entire system decays and sort of loses its historical bearings. Like it's no longer historically serving us. The social relations of capitalism are increasingly acting as fetters on the productive force. is we have enough for everybody that the social relations of capitalism refuse to allow people

to have access to things, especially here in the U.S., like fucking health care and housing across the West, right? It's not just the U.S. There's some stark examples here, but it's a problem across the capitalist world. And then in that moment of crisis, there is a lack of the thing that's been present in the past, which is organized militant working class movements, But yet the sort of historical nightmare of that is still present in like almost the subconscious of the ruling class's mind because Trump does not understand Marxism. Do we really think like Trump understands even the history of militant organized working class movements or communist vanguard parties or even the basic tenets of Marxism? No, it's an inbuilt psychological boogeyman that in previous iterations of fashion. those that it actually was a threat now it's not as much of a threat sadly and hopefully we can change that but yet the the phantom of the threat still lives on in the subconscious because again trump is not and a lot of these reactionaries aren't consciously thinking like okay capitalism leads to crisis we have to implement fascism to stop the rise of marxism it's just this this this fever dream ambient background of their psychologies that vomit up

this communist threat that doesn't exist. And I think that's a fascinating insight in its own right, but also a sort of distorted and weird, disformed version of historical patterns. I'll just hop in. I do think Trump is a secret Maoist. I do think he's like this accelerationist, you know. But no, I mean, yeah, no, it really is odd. And, you know, you'll see, like, libertarians.

And you were mentioning, like, Malay and libertarian. You'll often see them, like, envisioning this, like, mythical capitalism that doesn't exist. Oh, you know, it's everything's free trade and, you know, we all like live in harmony in Kumbaya and, you know, we all are like small business owners. But I think what they don't realize is that capitalism inevitably leads to what we're seeing right now, trade wars, sanctions, imperialist interfighting, right? I mean, what is Trump trying to do right now? Capitalism is in the imperialist stage. Lennon recognized that in the 20th century in the 1900s. It's gotten to a point once again, where it's forced to fight for a dwindling market with his competitors.

So what does it do in order to get, tap more into that dwindling market from, you know, the global South countries that exploits? It puts on tariffs. It puts on trade wars. You know, yada, yada. You know, it does economic warfare. And libertarians, while they envision, you know, this like small business owner, mythical capitalism, always inevitably leads to this.

This is the inevitable conclusions. Monopoly, finance, capitalism, and imperialism. It's just the inevitable result of the free competition of the market. Yeah. Yeah, like you said, there's also no... I mean, you could almost imagine them blaming Nazism, you know, like, you know, coming up with some phantom Nazi movement or so, you know. I mean, of course, there is a bigger Nazi movement in the United States than communism.

But, yeah, I mean, almost anything you can kind of grasp at, you know as like this menacing enemy i guess they're just going with the tried and true you know classic uh immigrants trope but uh you know and trying to do other things as well but you know it probably really won't be very successful um and also there's like i think the the thing that's interesting about today is that there's a real conflict between tech capital and finance capital and finance capital is I think actually very apprehensive and very concerned about the prospect of fascism because finance capital is very concerned about stability, you know, maintaining debt payments,

you know, all of these kinds of rhythmic things, whereas tech capital, you know, and I read, if you read the Technological Republic, written by these Palantier guys, you know, Nick Land, you know, and all of these sort of JD Vance types, you know, these people are really they're idiotic in many ways but they're also they do have some kind of revolutionary vision and they do have what you could maybe compare to fascism because you know they want this kind of technocracy and you know kind of just a dictatorship of like software engineers you know it's kind of how it exists to their heads and so you have real legitimate conflict between these two sections of capital it's not really like you just go to

the big auto manufacturers and you go to the big steel makers and whatever else and then you've met all the capitalists in the country and you strike a deal with them as a fascist um there's a lot of chaos and that chaos will make people more uncertain you know more scared um and then i think also sooner or later we need to confront the fact that fascism can actually be pretty organic in some ways you know the ideology can be organic um not just as a result of decay of capitalism you know it exists in uh prison gangs for example or street gangs or you know neo nazis will go around and beat people up you know in the city you know they're kind of these like lost really violent people um you know losers basically and the ideology really starts there it starts with this kind of

romantic fantasy you know like i'm going to save the school you know uh from the school shooter or something you know i'm in i'm this kind of like hero um and even like hitler you know was really obsessed with richard fagner's operas you know these stories about great heroes you know mythology um kind of esoteric lore uh you know that's why they're also obsessed with agartha with hyperborea with all you know they don't they don't care if it's true it's just about uh This is kind of a cool thing to be into. And there's this kind of romantic obsession with my lines. And that really is ultimately, I think, starts as a, you know, from the lump in proletariat,

from people who are just lost, who are upset or angry. It's co-opted by fascist leaders. And then they strike a deal with capitalism, you know, and you see that, you know, after the right before the night of the long knives in germany where they purged the strassarites you know the more explicitly anti-capitalist Nazis out of the party after they you know kind of struck a deal and in italy there was a similar situation um so the fascist leaders really want power and they they come out of the lump and proletariat out of whoever will listen to them whoever they can grift to basically and then they strike a deal and there's

violent military kind of dictatorship. But now the capitalism is so, you know, capital is so diverse. It had so many conflicting, varied interests that, you know, a guy like Trump really can't go, you know, he might try, he might want to, but he can't really go to the tech billionaires and to the finance capital billionaires and say, hey, I'm going to institute, you know, this horrific dictatorship and we're going to start exterminating these people and give you a bunch slave labor because their interests are actually different. So, you know, it's a bit scary because we don't really know exactly where it's going to go. Yeah. I think definitely the army of fascism is definitely the lump and pro. So like people who have been thrown off of work and the petty bourgeois,

you know, like small business owners. But I think who's directing the army and who's really the main benefactor of it is the big bourgeois. And just like you said, it's transitioned into a tech bubble finance capital. It's not the industrial list of the old age anymore, and it's really strange how they operate. I think to some extent that really is embodied by Elon Musk and how crazy and

inexplicably he is. Oh, Brett, go ahead. Yeah, no, I wanted to bounce off that as well because you're getting it like a new wrinkle in an old contradiction. So like an old contradiction is the contradiction between industrial capitalism and finance capitalism, right? And fascism

is like an attempt to resolve, a failed attempt, of course, but an attempt to resolve that contradiction. But with the tech capital in particular, it's like a new wrinkle. It's not, because you're right, finance capitalism, it does, it likes stability, it likes long-term stability for its investment opportunities to unfold over time. But it is different than industrial capitalism in that. It's like profit is extracted through speculation, through debt, through rent sinking. I mean, what is the American economy except for this hyper financialized fucking bubble that is about to burst. But there's this fascist nostalgia for industrial capitalism, right, which is rooted in not

speculation and debt and rent or debt and rent sinking, but in the direct exploitation of labor in like big factories. So we see this idea of like bringing back factories, bringing back manufacturing, but we're in a hyper-globalized financial capitalist late stage situation where that becomes increasingly difficult, but then you enter the tech oligarchy that sees the rise of AI as a potential for the utter replacement of workers as such, as well as a sort of arms race for unimaginable profits, right?

So they're very interested in anything short term to entrench their monopolistic control over what they see as like this next stage of brutal, parasitic, AI-driven capitalism. If they can lock themselves in through a warm relationship with the Trump administration during these crucial years that whether they're right or wrong, they think is going to be the entrenchment and the rapid, almost exponential development of AI, and they can control that going into the future. They won't need workers.

they can amash trillions of dollars in profit and that short-term aggressive like we have to do this now this is basically our last chance AI is coming this decade that is at odds with other aspects of finance capital so it's like finance capital

versus industrial capital the old contradiction which is still very much alive and then you have this weird offshoot of tech oligartic monopoly seeking capital which is kind of at odd in some ways with both because it seeks obviously

doesn't really care about the short or long-term stability of finance capitalism as much and with regards to industrial capital is seeking to obliterate workers altogether. And so I think that is a core contradiction. That is new, right? That is genuinely new. And if even the slightly optimistic ideas

of what AI can achieve come true, it's going to be a radically new moment. of capitalism and also put extreme pressure on capitalism itself, right? Because that worker boss exploitative relationship is the core of capitalist social relations. If you're trying to take half of that puzzle away and automate it, I mean, we already think, like, well, what was everybody going to do? What's 70% of the population going to do? Well, we'll just wrinkle that contradiction with the UBI, but that's not terrible really either.

So, yeah, there's this new moment that I think is. is really, really interesting and giving rise to a very specific form of capitalist crisis. Yeah, we need Andrew Yang. This is a pro-a-year-old. Exactly. Moving on from that, you know, as much as fascism is scary, I think what's even scarier than that is the fake resistance to fascism, especially in the form of liberals and social Democrats. And you're going to see this in history, right? So like in 1990 and 1920, the Italian workers, they were were occupying the factories. They were ready to take over Italy. They were ready for revolution. And the PSI, the social democrats within the PSI, they abandoned that revolution.

You know, they said instead, oh, let's just make a deal with the Italian government and we'll win some temporary reforms. And those temporary reforms were immediately gotten rid of it. And so really, you know, the social democrats helped consolidate the win of the fascist by taking steam out of the workers movement. Same thing in Germany, you know, with the Spartacus uprising, the very famous Spartacus Uprising, you know, Rosa Luxembourg, Karl Liebkech, the communists are ready, the German workers are ready to take over the state, and the Social Democrats, they back the Freight Corps, and they killed the communist leaders. And, you know, that's really the birth of some of the paramilitary of fascists in the Frye Corps. Um, how do we see any parallels between that

and, you know, the modern day America, right? Like Bernie Sanders, AOC, their, um, what's, what's it a tour called? The Unfuck America tour? Or? Fight the oligarchy tour We'll fight the oligarchy Yeah Do we see any parallels between that Or is it a bit different Sure, yeah

I can talk a little bit about that There is the difference Always in the background Of the lack of organized Working Class movements But then you also see a difference today Between liberals and social Democrats writ large

Where liberals have just given up They're just completely lost They have no answers They confirm their biases with every new social development. So, you know, figures like, who knows, there's a million of these people, but like a Bill Maher type figure, right?

Super rich establishment. They're not looking for any sort of change. They're not even pretending to think in the direction of economic restructuring. They're still hung up on, like, wokeness, and the Democrats moved too far to the left, and that's why they lost. Like, these people are out to see ideologically.

But there's the other aspect, which is very small with regards to its impact structurally, like within the Democratic Party, which is the social democratic movement, but broad in society, right? There's a real desire, I think, from people for, yeah, a fight the oligarchy idea makes sense. And social Democrats like Bernie are at least trying to address

the underlying contradiction of, you know, the economic basis of this new era of reactionary authority. But they're not actually capable ideologically, let alone materially, of solving the underlying crisis in any real way, because to actually solve the crisis would be to transcend this political and economic system, which they have tied their entire careers. And in the case of AOC, her entire future towards, not only just the system, but the Democratic Party itself. So their sort of delusion is that they can help turn the Democratic Party.

party into a robust social democratic force that radically redistributes wealth with a donor base of millionaires and billionaires who don't want that at all. So that contradiction has to play out because among the base, there's a real thirst for that. Like regular people that aren't like caught up on political theory and don't understand the problems of capitalism, they understandably think like, yeah, let's just get like health care and housing and like higher wages and like, we'll be okay. and that will probably actually, interestingly, prolong capitalism longer than this fascist accelerationism will, right?

Like, this is fascist accelerationism. It's just flying off a cliff and hoping you land with your wheels down. At least social democracy from the perspective of the elite has the possibility of extending the expired lifespan of capitalism a little bit. But, again, there's too many contradictions to actually make that work. And to go to point to FDR and the news. deal, you're pointing to a very specific time in history where the possibility of building robust welfare states were present in a way that that actually doesn't exist anymore.

So you can't do a new, new deal because the material conditions out of which the new deal emerged were very specific to its time and place, right? Europe is in ruins. The U.S. is becoming the sole superpower militarily and economically, right, with all European cities and ruins and their economy. he's devastated very specific time where the new west with its industrial base can supply to Europe and the rest of the world in a profound way and that's gone so there is no going back to the fDR and the new deal liberal establishment is completely just a drift and lost in

ideology social democracy at least has the idea of the direction to go in but lacks the robustness as well as the militancy the grassroots militancy needed to push meaning in that direction and so yeah there's there's new wrinkles for sure but the same the same delusions and the same contradictions uh still exist yeah it um very good points and i i feel like that book um the ezer klein like abundance book really exemplifies a lot of the uh you know ideological fetishism like of the democratic party recently yeah um yeah and it's a tough thing too because, you know, it doesn't, like, I think it's maybe a bit unfair to accuse AOC and Bernie of, like, sticking the free course on anyone because there's no communists and there's no Nazis,

you know, it's like hard to, like, it's hard to say, like, what, what, you know, how they behave in different circumstances because, you know, we just don't know, but it definitely is the case that one, you know, you can tell that they're both. pretty unwilling to stand up to the um to the genocide in gaza um which is a you know definitely about weather you know it shows they're like they're not really willing to put themselves on the line you know Bernie back in 2016 2020 he used to say well um you know the only thing that will allow my policy platform in the u.s is millions of people in the streets and that seems I think like he was, you know, if the moment can, he certainly would not be, you know,

fighting the powers that be in that way at all, given the fact that he's acquiesced so heavily on the issue of Gaza. And, you know, in AOC too, when you see her talk, she's really like the ultimate liberal because she's very, very good at using leftist language without being a leftist of it, you know, at least a materialist. And, you know, even when it comes to social democratic things, they don't really emphasize very specific demands. Like, we want a single-payer health care system this way, you know,

look at this on our website. You know, there's a lot of claditudes, actually, even when it comes to social democratic policies. I don't know if you saw, but Hassan Piker actually interviewed Melancho the other day. and Mello Scholl was pointing out like you know and most of us we know we might think Melal Shoe is kind of like the Bernie Sanders of France or something

but you know he was saying like yeah Bernie Sanders wouldn't really talk to us he didn't really have any solidarity with us you know he couldn't really get in contact with him or anything and I mean if Melal Shal is too far left for Bernie Sanders I don't think over here we should be holding our breath

I think that's a really good point in that like even if Bernie Sanders and EOC are good intentioned, they still sort of serve the same exact function as Trump. And, you know, that's a radical crazy thing to say. But it is true. Like they, at the end of the day, they serve to strengthen and preserve capitalism. And the only way to stop fascism radically is to overthrow capitalism. It's that classic question, you know, reform or revolution. And reforms, they can be done and they will be dismantled very quickly. I mean, we saw that with the Italian reforms, right? In 1919, the PSI, they got the workers of Italy some reforms. And what happened?

They were used to distract the workers' movement for a little while because the Italian ruling classes were so afraid of a communist uprising, right? You know, the 1990s factory occupations. And while their Italian working class was distracted, they put all of their focus into Mussolini's brown shirts. And the brown shirts became more and more powerful and over time they took over. I don't think there's really a brown shirt in America right now. that's growing. But again, Bernie Sanders and AOC, when they're only speaking towards, they're about as effective as fucking Nancy Pelosi in the black head garment, you know, and the black power fifth, like kneeling down. Like, they're not fighting the root of fascism and the root of Trump, which is capitalism. All they're offering is tepid reforms to, it's a bandaid on a dying system. And really, I think one of the reasons that we're not able to promise a new deal anymore is the falling rate of profit.

I mean, we have got into such an amazing amount of industrial output. You know, the investment within a constant capital has gotten so high that we're not really able to hire that much variable capital under capitalism in America anymore. And all this technology doesn't serve humanity anymore. It serves a big business interest. So we've got a large unemployed class simplifying it for anybody that doesn't understand. the capitalists have put so much money into automation and technology that they can't hire workers anymore. And so we have a very large unemployed class. We have industrial output that's been outsourced

to China and Vietnam and India. And so, you know, while they dream of reforming capitalism going back, you know, they all serve the same exact interests, right? Libertarians, social Democrats, fascists. And it sucks to say, but they all serve the very same interests of preserving a system and going towards a mythical past return that's never going to happen. Yeah, I did want to, I agree with everything, but I wanted to actually harp a little bit more on just briefly on the reform or revolution question

because I don't know that it's as straightforward. Like, I definitely agree that there are lots of historical examples of social democratic or democratic socialist reforms planning to the hands of capitalists by maintaining the system, you know, making it more tolerable for workers or delaying, you know, inevitable collapse into fascism. But I think also there are lots of historical cases that people who are Marxists or Marxist or Marxist-Leninist or, you know, of the left, you know, more militant left ilk aren't as interested in because if you think, for example, the French Revolution, it really was an aristocratic infighting, you know, between the bourgeoisie and the nobility that gave the peasants an opening to revolt you know it wasn't like the conditions got so intolerable for the

peasants that they had no choice um and i think there are other examples of this as well like uh in in in russia actually i mean it wasn't like russia in 1917 was the worst time for peasants you know it was always intolerable um but sometimes if there are certain reforms or certain conditions it can help you know develop class consciousness it's certainly doesn't guarantee it, but I think we shouldn't always be so dismissive of moderate reforms, at least, you know, not without looking at the circumstances. Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. And sometimes I think like, let's think about like the Chinese revolution, the French revolution,

the Russian revolution, all three real ruptural events occurred in a time of complete chaos and collapse. and for various reasons, obviously infighting amongst the elite, but also just wretched underlying economic conditions, military pressures, et cetera. And then I sometimes think also what would the U.S. look like, right? We don't have an organized communist party, even organized militant labor, has been dismantled in a way that wasn't always the case in other places, including like the German situation with the failed German revolution. I look to Latin America and I see us time to your point, Henry, a different form of doing it, right?

Because think of like Chavez in Venezuela or even Chile. What's up? Or Bolivia. Bolivia is another great example. Chile is another great example in 73, obviously, before the Pinochet dictatorship. And they fomented and advanced a sort of revolutionary reformism. that didn't take the form of overthrowing the entire system, but used the electoral terrain to advance not a milk-toast liberal social democratic program,

but a sort of robust Latin American revolutionary social democratic program that always at the same time had to be anti-imperialist because of the world system they operate in and was much more revolutionary than any manifestation of social democracy in the global north. that's another contradiction because the U.S. is in the global north, but I do wonder about some of those tensions, and I think all of us need to think deeply about what that means for us and how we should be sort of operating in that way. But I also want to just quickly gesture to your abundance point, and that is kind of the Democrats' hope at the moment. It's a flash in the pan. It has no staying power. Next year, you'll forget that book even existed, like Matt Iglesias's book

1 billion Americans, right? It's like there's a liberal ephemera that just gets puked out and then runs the ecosystem for a couple weeks and it fizzles out because it's utterly meaningless. But their whole idea is

deregulate and build. We need a liberalism that can build and the first chapters of that book they paint a techno-utopian future where, you know, like public transportation is robust and AI is integrated into smart city.

and all the towers and skyscrapers have plants all along the sides so that we can build vertical gardens in cities. There's no class analysis whatsoever. It's like how do you get to that AI utopian future? You think the AI overlords are going to build public transportation for the rest of us? No, we're going to get Blade Runner. We're not going to get some utopian version because they lack class analysis. Except without the cool lights and the philosophical

quondries. We don't even get the philosophy in the neon. Brett, are you saying my grandchildren won't be reading what happened by Hillary Clinton next to Marx in like 30 years? Like, that's a classic. That's a future worth fighting for. That's not, yeah. No, I mean, I think Henry's point is good.

I think the question is, like, who's in control of the reforms, though, or like working within the system? Is it completely in control of the working class or is it in control of? Because, like, going through the Democratic Party, the work. working class gives up its control to the bourgeois. I think it goes back to Marx's point about forming a working class party. It has to be 100% in the control of the working class. We can't have any control given to the bourgeois or any ruling party. Yes. Absolutely. That is the crucial point. If that's ever going to work, if that strategy is ever going to work, it has to be

with that firmly in mind. And it has to be confrontational, militantly confrontational against the Democratic Party, their elite, their donor base, their consultant. class and that's precisely what Bernie and AOC are not willing to do and that is exactly why they will fail. Yeah. Yeah, and that is why the issue of GUS is so helpful because it's, I mean, that sentence out of context sounds awful, but when you look at people like Bernie, you know, if he was willing to come out on the Senate floor and say this is a genocide and really risk alienating a lot of people, you know, it wouldn't make me like a very, any voter or whatever, but it would show that, okay, he's willing to, um, you know, be principled and

really, you know, go against his political interests for something that he believes. Um, but they're both so unwilling to do that, you know, uh, although it was interesting, because Bernie, to his credit, he is much more class focused than AOC who kind of ignores that. Um, but he was really the one getting the crowds early on and the Democratic Party, I don't know, look too into this, but it feels like they sent AOC down there to kind of capture a lot of that energy, you know, that Bernie was getting, you know, they're still, like, absolutely terrified of left-wing politics, even stuff that's as docile as Bernie. Yeah.

AOC is like, yeah, this, this protot. I think Bernie has real affection for her, and I think he sees her as the torch carrier. Obviously, he's getting very old. and, like, the only person in the Democratic Party, because, again, he's not willing to confront the Democratic Party or run against it that he sees in that bullpen is AOC as the possible, you know, but she's much more, I mean, they're both careerists. I think, I think that's clearly obvious.

And I think AOC is a mixture between Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders. She likes the progressive rhetoric. And I think she would more than the average Democrat support some public, I mean, some progressive reforms, but within limits. But one thing she's not capable of doing, and neither is Bernie, is really confronting the donor class or the elites of the party, and that's what holds them back. If Bernie was serious, if Bernie knew his historical mission and carried it out with fidelity, in 2016, he would have created a third party. Hillary Clinton versus motherfucking Trump, that was the perfect opportunity. Bucked over by the Democratic Party, you have, there was like street confrontations in 2016, 2017, between fascist and anti-fascist, and there was.

real momentum grassroots for a Bernie Standard-style takeover of the entire political system. And if he was serious, he would have sacrificed and risked his future career within the Democratic Party to spearhead a third-party working-class movement that took on both the parties. Instead, like a good lap dog, he sat down, he endorsed Hillary, and he's never changed that. Even in 2020 with Biden, he still gets fucked over 2016 and 2020 by the Democratic Party. these people fucking hate him, and still he is subservient and loyal to them. And that is exactly why they failed and will continue to, unfortunately. It even goes to the question, like, Henry mentioned Palestine.

Like, what kind of rights are you fighting for? Like, if you're universal health care, let's say that Bernie and AOC get in, if your universal health care and free college is built off of the mass graves of Palestinian children, what kind of future is that? That's not a future I want to live in, like personally. Like, that's not the kind of socialism, quote unquote, because, you know, like, I don't know, like, everybody has different definitions of socialism. That's not the kind of socialism that I want to live in, that kind of socialism where our privileges are built off of the backs of people in the global south. Yeah, and that it's the distinction between social democracy and the north and south very important as well.

Absolutely. And as Marxists, we understand the deep connection between capitalism and imperialism, you can't have. have socialism at home and brutal imperialism and neo-colonial, settler colonial apartheid projects abroad that undermines the very basis of it. So unless you're willing to confront that, but again, what would that call it? What would that take from Bernie and AOC to confront the genocide in Gaza in the way that they absolutely need to? It would mean confronting APEC. It would mean confronting not just saying Netanyahu is the reason, but the entire settler colonial project of Israel itself, it would mean confronting the elites and the donors of the Democratic Party itself. It keeps going back to the same exact thing. And they're not willing to do

that. They're not willing to do that on any other front. They're certainly not willing to do it on the genocide. What they will do is mealy-mouthed, half-assed criticisms that try to do what liberal Zionists do, which is blame Netanyahu or the Israeli right for the issue instead of the entire fucking apparatus of settler colonialism. They try to, you know, critique. the capitalist system, but only to an extent. And that, that half-assed approach to criticism isn't going to cut it anymore. And what it does is it mystifies more than it de-mystifies. You actually crank up the ideological obscurantism and, and facilitate capitalism, imperialism by doing so, then unveiling the harsh truths and deep interconnectedness of the

genocide in Palestine, the rise of the oligarchy at home, and the fundamental logic of capitalism itself. If you can't do that all bore, then you can't move forward. You just spin your, spin your, now the other thing I wanted to say, though, is the energy, the grassroots energy that they are stoking is real. And I think that is a basis or a form of energy that socialists and radicals, revolutionaries, we shouldn't ignore that, right? They're trying to kind of co-op that energy back into the Democratic Party, whether they're aware that's what they're doing or not. But what is the energy there? People want radical change. They want working class economics and they want anti-war politics. Now, that might not mean always and

everywhere socialist political economy and principled anti-imperialism, but it's the seeds out of which that consciousness can grow. And so I think we have to be very critical of the leaders while also opening up our arms and our minds and our hearts to the energy that's there, because that's precisely the energy that a socialist movement in the United States is going to have to harness and take full advantage of. I also think like qualitative changes, no, no, quantitative changes like social democratic movements and their failures are sort of training grounds for the working class, right? Like the Russian Revolution didn't happen all in one final swoop. It happened through successive attempts and failures, attempts and failures, you know, Rodnicks, this socialist movement,

that social movement. Let's try this idea. Let's try that idea. And what these movements really do. And Bernie Sanders, to his credit, I mean, the Bernie Sanders, the Bernie to Stalin pipeline was real. Like, we can't deny that. The Bernie to Lenin pipeline, it's absolutely real. He has fermented so many people into a left position way past him. Now, I think to some extent, and to a large extent, he's outlived his utility in terms of demystifying socialism and moving people to the left. And now he's sort of just been funneling people back into Democratic Party politics. But there's still a lot of people who are still scared of big words like socialism that he's still moving along the left pipeline. And to that extent, I think, Brett, you're absolutely right,

criticize the leaders, open up our arms to the people who are slowly moving to the left. The quantity to quality point is really important because I think we've been living through this quantitative buildup over the last 20 years. I mean, WTO in 1999 and then 9-11, the anti-war, and then you go into the financial crisis and then the rise of Bernie and Occupy, and then other things like Black Lives Matter and the pro-Palestine movement, which, you know, globalized the criticism. That has been a radically radicalizing process for many.

And even if Bernie Sanders himself still is chained to the Democratic Party, many people who he ushered leftward do naturally outgrow him right they start looking to his left and then there are plenty of people people listening right now who will undoubtedly say that they were moved left by the Bernie Sanders campaign or the Occupy movement if they're a little older and that they have also outgrown the strategy of Occupy or the social democratic politics of Bernie and so this is quantitative buildup it feels excruciating it's never as fast or as robust as we want, and there are, you know, other historical examples that have outpaced this quantitative buildup, but it is a quantitative buildup. And that does mean at some point,

in conjunction with other crises and events, it spills over into qualitative change. Does that qualitative change necessarily mean a Bolshevik-style revolution in the U.S.? It could or it could not. Who knows? But it could also mean a radical shift in the political realignments, the emergence of brand-new political parties. Who knows? But the there is no doubt a 20-year quantitative build-up that it feels is coming to some sort of crescendo, and it's perfectly in parallel with the crisis of capitalism, imperialism, at home and abroad. Yeah, and the increasing economic hegemony of China and parts of the world is probably driving some of that as well, even though, of course, all of us definitely have criticisms of China.

the average American looks at China and thinks, well, I thought this was some, you know, Stalinist, you know, like horrific, you know, dystopia, 1984 dystopia, and it seems like a lot of people there are doing pretty great and my country's kind of declining and relevance and so on. And you can see, you know, with like in the aftermath of the Russia, Russia-Japan war, early 20th century, that really precipitated. the 1905 failed revolution, you know, people kind of went well. I thought all of these, you know, East Asians were sort of feudal and backwards and whatever and our great European colonial empire, Russia, can't even defeat them. Of course, it was very inspiring to nationalist movements, anti-colonial movements across the global south as well. And it feels like there's a little bit of that, you know, I'm like. grander movement there happening and the more people see china as a place which is wealthy which

you know what's supposed to be this horrible place and the u.s. becomes an increasingly horrible and authoritarian place that could push a lot of people in a certain direction so it'll be very interesting to see yeah yeah really really oh sorry just wanted to add to that really quick i'm sorry for interrupting but yeah just the the prospect of an economic collapse at home then an imperialist lashing out and defeat globally, right? World War III or confrontation with China and the emergence of new examples. Other societies doing different things plus climate change in the background, AI in the background. This is the condition. These are the recipes for a catastrophic sort of crisis and collapse and then the possibility of total and radical rejuvenation, reform,

revolutionary change. And I don't see this system being able to stop itself from flying off all of those cliffs, more or less at the same time. Yeah, they didn't get very competent fascist this time around. I think to some extent where sometimes I feel like we're living in like the late Qing, you know, dynasty, you know, like right before the century of humiliation. We're like, we're just seeing this slow and steady decline in all American institutions, our leaders are, yeah, like you said, Henry, like dumbasses.

Like, at least fucking Mussolini could write a book. You know, like, I don't think Trump can. To be fair, he did those powers as kind of those written. You know, like, like, not to give chops to Mussolini, but like, at least Mussolini knew what the fuck he was talking about. Mussolini actually read Marx. Like, Mussolini understood Marxism. I mean, Trump doesn't understand anything. I think, you know, we're living in a very speed running of a century of humiliation.

Because, like, we're, you know, we've got these old rulers with these old ideas in, like, very radically new world, especially as China is rising. And so our great civilization is being confronted with like the truth that it's not a great civilization. It's not the center of the world. And yeah, it's it's embarrassing. It's you know, it's horrible for us. And yet also I think to some extent it's

there's there's something good at the end of this. It's going to be very brutal. It's definitely going to be very brutal. I also think what this is really embodied by is how different our capitalists are from the industrial capitalists of the old time. Like the industrial capitalists of the old time, like the Rockefellers and the fucking Carnegie's, they knew what the fuck they were doing, right? They knew how to wield power. They had to work. Like, like, obviously, you know, they're exploitors, they're capitalist, they're evil bastards, but they had to work and claw their way to the top. We're living in Nepo babies, the Haskbergs. We're living in

the Charles of the Second of Spain. Like, these guys cannot even fucking form words sometimes. I don't I don't know. It's a mess. Yeah, the in the inbred deformities of the ruling of class replicating itself down the line. Yeah, it's, this, this podcast supports bloodline theory. I do want to say, too,

I want to speak to your optimism because you're right. Short term, it's going to get fucking ugly. It's going to get way worse. We're in for a hell of a time. And it's not ammunition or hoarding food that's going to help you. It's community. family, friends, comrades that have your back and that can work together, compile resources, and help each other out when the collapse hits.

But medium to long term, one thing is for sure. Fascism is inherently short-lived, and capitalism is inherently unsustainable. These two things are not built for the long run. They are going to fail. That failure, unfortunately, does mean short-term chaos, crisis, collapse, But they're just fundamentally illogical, irrational, and increasingly unsustainable ways of organizing society, especially now that human technology has hit the absolute limits of the biosphere, of the environmental context in which all life exists. That is forcing the issue this century. And so I think we're living through scary, but also exhilarating times because I do not think 22nd century forward we're going to have capitalism.

It's just impossible structurally. And it's going to try to hold on. It's going to do everything it can to hold on. And that's what fascism is going to look like. But ultimately, it is going to lose. And our job is to understand our historical moment with open eyes and to, as Fanon said, fulfill our generational obligation, right, to rise to this moment and do everything we can. We can't control the outcome.

We can't control what happens politically, economically, globally. but each and every one of us can contribute, can understand the situation and contribute as meaningfully and as much as we can to pushing things in a positive direction, educating people, uplifting their consciousness, organizing in our communities and beyond. And that is not only what we should be doing as good Marxist, that is our historical obligation to ourselves, our neighbors, our community, our species. Absolutely. Again, building like parallel institutions or alternative institutions to the extent that it's possible is such an important point. But also, you know, I don't know, I wouldn't consider myself a doomsday preparer. You know, I don't know that, I mean, it could go in so many different ways. There's no doubt that there will be, you know, immense crises.

And another way, you know, to look at it as well on top of the Marxist. analysis and contradiction is that throughout history, when new technologies have caused fundamental changes in the economic base, there has been a ton of political turbulence. You know, even before capitalism, as a result of the printing press, you know, you can see like during the Protestant Reformation, the 30 years war, the German Peasants War, and all the chaos that caused, you know, all kinds of, you know, horrified, hopefully it's not. as best of 30 years war, gosh. But, you know, the, when we come upon a huge new, you know, increase in technological development, instability is inevitable pretty much. I mean, it already

is happening. And I'm glad you brought up Mussolini, actually, because I had a quote from him, my member specifically wanting to mention where he was asked, before he, came to power. He was asked about his political program because they, you know, refused to have a political program. You know, we're going to do this, that, and the other thing for the economy, whatever. And he said, you know, and the journalist was from the Lamonde newspaper. And he said, our political program is very simple. We're going to break the bones of the journalists of Lamonde, the sooner the better. And I think it's a very insightful quote because at that time, and especially when you think about technological development at the time there were cars airplanes world war one

had shown this horrific new face of industrialized warfare um and you know the people were were either self-help books were proliferating people didn't really know where their place was in this new complex and uncertain world and the fascists really stepped in and gave people um action You know, they gave people kind of, you know, will, you know, to misinterpret Nietzsche, you know, like this prior for the will kind of, we're going to, you know, trust us. We know what to do. We're going to do something. And it definitely seems like people, you know, especially if you look online, lots of people are gravitating towards that, you know, this, you know, sun will rise again, you know, we're kind of going to conquer all of this, you know, this scary uncertain jungle of modernity. you know, of the modern world of social media, AI, of all of these changes. But sooner or later things will stabilize. And like you pointed out, fascism is an anti-rationalist movement. It has disdain for intellectualism and academia and human knowledge and human life.

So, you know, it can't sustain itself for very long. Even, you know, like Adam 2's, wrote this great book about the Nazi economy, and, you know, it was already coming apart at the seams, even before the war really started beating them. So, yeah, I think that touches on a lot of things, but I think that psychology have disaffected people and then the bigger picture that it sounds just to handle it. You know, those are both important to keep in mind. I think one of the oddest things about previous fascist movements that I don't really see. happening anymore? And to some extent, it kind of has, but it's not as much, is that previous fascist movements came out of the socialist movement, right? Like Mussolini, his name was Benito Mussolini. His father was a big socialist organizer. He himself was in the PSI. He wrote a lot of articles

for it. He organized labor movements in Switzerland. He read Marx. His name, Benito, is literally named after the great liberal Mexican president, Benito Juarez. So he was a guy who was left. And And suddenly, around World War I, he sided with the reformist, the revisionist. He said, let's support World War I. And he got kicked out of the PSI. He started printing newspapers that are for pro-war, funded by big Italian industrialists. And then he starts his own party. And it's called sort of like a social fascist party, right?

And so he uses the fascis of Italy, this unity. And a lot of the founding members of the party are anarchists and anarcho syndicalists, who were part of the socialist movement. And we don't really see that anymore. Like today's fascists are, um, they don't really understand socialism. They haven't come out of the socialist movement. They aren't, um, because like Mussolini's base within the socialist movement was always the petty bourgeois of the socialist movement, like petty bourgeois elements that

implemented themselves in the socialist movement. It led to like revisionism, like left-wing revisionism, right-wing revisionism. Um, or in the modern day, fascists are really just rich guys, right? Like, they're the bourgeois. They're, um, Nepo babies. You know, Trump's a Nepo baby. Malay is just this weirdo economist who was never a socialist. The only one I can think of is Buckele,

because Buckele was part of Salvador's left-wing coalition. He did some PR campaigns for them. And then after that, he became very right-wing. He did like a very hard right-wing turn. Why do you think fascists aren't using that false socialist image anymore, that aesthetics of socialism in order for their fascist false revolution? Yeah, I have a thought. on that. So before

fascism arose, there are, as we keep referring to, these socialist working class movements, right? Mussolini comes out of that movement. His father was a part of it. He's explicitly coming out of Marxism, shifting right word, embraces nationalism in World War I.

The Nazis are contending in a terrain of struggle with the Communist Party, with the Social Democratic Party, which was also hostile to Nazism and had a lot of organized labor. You know, we're living in industrial capitalism, just as and right after capitalism is industrializing, which means lots of workers concentrated in big factories, which is a breeding ground for the ideological dissemination of socialism and Marxism. And so the fascism that arose had to account for the mass embrace of a basic working class politic, ideology, had to confront socialist.

communist movements while also trying to peel off support from them because amongst the working class, which is the majority of society, there is large spread support for that. Even the Nazis are talking about the German Workers Party, framing themselves in terms of nationalism, of course, but also that we are good for all Germans. Now, what is the modern fascism coming out of? It's not coming out of a background of organized unionism and militant worker movements. It's coming out of neoliberalism. And so the fascism arising today in the West is marked by its neoliberal birthing grounds, which is Javier Malay's anarcho-capitalism, which is hyper-individualism,

which is a bunch of rich guys who used freedom and liberty to amass their wealth, which is the manosphere, right? Take these supplements, learn from this pickup artist, think about women in this way, go lift away, it's all hyper-individualistic approaches to social problems, problems. And so out of that, you get this grotesque sort of fascism that doesn't even have to allude to organize workers' movements or appeal to the working class as such. It's coming out of neoliberalism. And I think that, and tell me if you disagree, but I think that goes a long way in explaining the difference in quality.

I haven't heard of it so precisely, but that's really brilliant. I mean, do you think that that makes it just inherently less effective as well, though, on a positive note, because you know, the brown shirts and the black shirts, like, you know, they really knew how to follow orders, you know, they were like, you know, whatever you do, like, whatever you tell me you will do, you know, loyalty to the leaders is like valued above all. And like you've seen that in the MAGA movement and stuff. But like you said, because it's so hyper individualist, you know, there's you know well you know if you stand out to the leader maybe you'll get some respect you know it kind of eats itself I mean do you think I mean I don't know yeah no I think you're

on to something and I think part of that is explained by unions are hyper organized and also in a lot of these contexts you're coming out of periods of war so you have lots of veterans who are used to chains of command organizing you know being in battalions cooperating etc And so you could have a force like the organized brown shirts on the ground, which are really the kind of cosplaying militarism at home. And then you also have an actual force to confront, which is organized workers as well, which necessitates a brown shirt like force on the ground for street fighting, communists, etc. In today's West, and especially in the U.S., there's no real large war experience that most Americans have dealt with. there's no organization socially, like people are even just basic social organizations like the old Lions Club or bowling leagues or at all time lows. There's no real sense of that. It's

hyper individualistic and people are coming out of a very relatively comfortable time, right? People haven't experienced great depressions and world wars. Not every family is full of, you know, sons that have just gotten back from fighting abroad and are battle hardened. And so I I think that adds to it. And then you have the internet, which hyper-individualism, lack of organization, high levels of alienation, individualism taken for granted. And then the internet kind of further fragments society.

There is no monoculture. There's no shared vision. There's not even a shared set of facts about the world anymore. People don't watch the same three news channels. You're now hyper-silode in your own algorithmically constructed, internet bubble, which further fragments, further works against high levels of organization. And while that has been devastating to the left, it's also been devastating to the right. And the hyper individualism creates purity spirals where personalities now dominate

and there is no way for people to cohesively follow orders or get behind a single plan. The moment a fragment of the left or the right puts together some force, some organization, immediately it's criticized from all other angles, immediately it's attacked, you know, and then I think, again, is reflective of the hyper-individualism. So I think all of those factors come into play to help explain that.

I think to some extent we do have a little bit of a paramilitary presence because, like, a lot of Iraqi veterans and Afghani veterans in America, like they've joined, like, the proud boys and, like, paramilitary organizations like that. But I think you're absolutely right, Brett, in that it's not as unified as it used to be in.

You know, it's because we're living in a very different capitalism from the 30s, especially not like an industrial capitalism that's just, that's in the midst of a great depression. I also think it speaks to like how flexible fascism is, right? Like Mussolini himself was like sort of like a, I mean, I hate to say it, but he was sort of like a funny guy in that like, you can take quotes from Mussolini and you can attribute them to Bernie Sanders or Stalin or Hitler. Like he was everywhere in the political spectrum. You know, there's this quote in the book that Arpom Dutt he puts there. And Mussolini's talking to his party

and his party's all like what's our platform and Mussolini is all like well we'll come up with it in two months like we'll just come up with it on the spot like we'll figure it out you know like they're making it up on the spot and also like fascism is so flexible

especially the differences between Italian and German fascism German fascism was very hyper ethno-nationalist right like very anti-Vietnamally Jewish and Aryan race theory Italian fascism really didn't have that Italian fascism was more of like

class collaborationist you know everything for the motherland, everything for the motherland of Italy, right? And so I think once again, fascism, so flexible, such a flexible ideology. At the end of the day, on the outside, like fascism is like an M&M, right? The shell is this irrational ideology, right? But the inner core, like the chocolate, it's the preserving capitalism. It's the big bourgeoisie's interests. And so the shell can change, right? They can change the shell to whatever they want, right? This Trump, geriatric, dementia, whatever the fuck we got going on

in the office right now or it can be Mussolini who's on every side of the political spectrum or it can be a Hitlerism where it's like a very hyper ethno-nationalism things like that. I think one thing that is

generally held in common though is and like so many people on the left I think they like kind of shirk away from the phrase national socialism and you know because it's like well it's not really socialism you know you don't want the association and i get that but it is a very interesting insight

into asgism as well because you know national socialism like when it really you know and anyone who's a marxist anyone who's on the left has considered this before um you know what if you could unify nationalism with um communism with materialism what if you could unify religion with communism you know, maybe this scientific view is too stale and too boring for people, you know, I mean, it's something that, you know, in passing, you know, anyone on the left has considered, but the Nazis really came out and said, you know, we figured out this higher, you know, new innovation in political thought and we're everything that the socialists are and we're also everything that the nationalists are. And we've combined them and we've created

a new, better way of doing things. And, you know, here, you know, have some soup at our soup kitchen, you know, or like with the RSS, you know, India they do like, you know, disaster relief and stuff, you know, they, people who remember, they're like, yeah, you know, nice people, whatever. And they kind of get into people's hearts that way without having to have a real comprehensive view because the communists are talking and people's eyes kind of glaze over, you know, and that's a problem with the ball too, because it's like, you know, and especially the disdain. that you know a lot of uh people who are communists have towards religion you could say you know it's like who yeah sure maybe religion is superstitious and dumb what who cares you know it's not

it's not really you know when you harp on those things you alienate people but the fascists on the other hand because they're really just interested in power you know the leaders at least they're opportunists interested in power they have no problem co-opting um you know fucking anything you know i mean napoleon who you know of course is not a fascist, but you may be a precursor in some ways, at least this is similar. When he went to Egypt and Syria and Palestine, evaded Palestine, you know, he read the Quran and he was very well versed in the Quran and he would give speeches that made allusions to, and references to, you know, Egyptian folk tales and the Quran, you know, he was like, I'm just going to get really, really

into all this, you know, to try to get the Egyptian people on my side. And that's kind of what fascists are interested in doing you know um you know and and above all they emphasize a willingness to do violence a willingness to uh engage in a romantic heroic struggle and to um you know and promise to people that they'll be part of a great story uh you know great fairy tale um and so they they they reach out to people in any given way and they you know because of that um it has no real convictions. Another reason why they can't have convictions is because they're trying to reconcile class contradiction. And you know, and you see this a lot with the Parthia, the Janta party in India, where they really emphasize Hindu nationalism and obscure

contradictions and internal issues within the country as much as possible because there's going to be a lot of problems if people start getting more upset about exploitation and discrimination you know so they have to be very big to appeal to people to you know reconcile these contradictions um and then the interesting thing is they really appeal to something in in and i don't want to say human nature necessarily but something that is it kind of in all people which is this desire to be this hero you know kind of um you know go on this journey, you know, this, you know, fantastical, you know, be this fantastical hero, you know, be a war hero, be, you know, save your family, you know, but they appeal to these emotional,

you know, the ideas people sometimes have and really cling and dig into that. Absolutely. We're all saying, yeah, to add my two cents to that is there's that, there's that deep, Yeah, psychology of heroism and taking control. And there's also this reactionary nostalgia for a time that's gone by, like a golden age that has been destroyed. And now we've got to find the scapegoats who destroyed it. And we've got to get ourselves back, which is an impossible task. And the way that you confront that is as dialecticians,

we believe in dialectical evolution. The only way out is through. There is no golden past to return to. It actually never existed. And even if it did, there's no way. to go back, but it's a much easier sentiment to provoke in people, I think because of people's childhood. So I think a big part of nostalgia and the sentimentality for a previous time is actually people misplacing their longing for the innocence of childhood onto social eras. You know,

like everybody's golden era was when they were growing up at a halfway decent childhood. And there's that they're that deep human impulse to go back to a simpler, more innocent time, which actually never existed in the social realm, but did exist personally, psychologically, when we were children. And so the fascists have that advantage. We have to insist on reality, which is constantly, constant change and forward momentum, and evolution and progress through contradictions and the conflicts that explode out of those contradictions and the progress that is gained by those contradictions moving things forward that's dialectics um and also the american fascism compared to italian and german fascism is interesting as you were saying earlier

the one of you were saying that that's super flexible it's adaptable just like capitalism the system that it arises out of it does have that unique quality of being able to adapt itself to any history and to any culture and german culture is neurotically precise and hyper-organized in Italian culture, not to engage in simplified tropes, but you know, is bravado and then you're coming out of workers' movement. So it does have this element of organization. And in the German situation, you also have them coming out of humiliation. There's a defeat. There's an economic crisis. There's a national humiliation. It's interesting to think that U.S. fascism at this time of capitalist crisis is coming out of hegemony, right? Just like those

earlier iterations came out of more socialist backgrounds, not that the mode of production was socialist, but there was social organization in the form of working class unions and whatnot. And they were coming out of humiliation. The U.S. is coming out of neoliberalism and out of a declining hegemony, which I think is unique because the other iterations of fascism were not coming out of unipolarity and decades of hegemonic domination. So that adds a different flare to it. It adds a comfort, a background comfort, a certain sense of entitlement, and then all the other American accoutrement of being consumerist and hyper-individualist and very, very stupid. When you're the unipolar hegemon, you don't need to know about the

rest of the world. You know, you don't have a robust public intellectual sphere. America is in so many ways just this very shallow intellectually already and so the fascism that fascism is always stupid and irrational but the fascism that emerges out of america is particularly stupid it's almost exasperatingly stupid and i think we've kind of gestured at that it's like like they don't make fascists like they used to well this is american fascism so it has to be fucking extra dumb and it has to be hyper individualistic and personality based very consumerist And then, yeah, that coming out of a hegemonic domination is also an interesting wrinkle as well. So it's a unique phenomenon.

I think we're going to continue to see whatever fascism continues to develop out of the U.S. be a very specifically U.S. type of fascism. Oh, no, go ahead, Henry. I was just going to say briefly, the only real comparison in the sense of a country coming out of global hegemony would be either, would be like Oswald Mosley, you know, that was an ultimately pretty fringe movement in Britain. I was what mostly was so weird, though. Like, he would purposely get beaten up in the streets and, like, he would make a show of it.

I think to some extent, he kind of is a direct line in some ways to, like, Trump in terms of how, like, he was kind of a character. He was kind of goofy. I mean, as evil as he was. Like, he was just this guy who would go around. He would purposely pick fights. And then, like, once people would fight with him and throw him around in the street, he would, like, write about it. And, like, in all the newspapers, oh, my God, look at me. I got a, I got beat up.

I think to some extent, yeah, no, we are like living in a weird fascism compared to Italian and German fascism. We're like, we are in like an American ego versus a century of humiliation sort of fight, right? And Trump very much represents that like greatness of the American past. Let's return to it. Let's get back to it. Let's the rebuild our empire. And it's just not happening.

I mean, China has basically, in every single way, one. And whether that's good or not, I think depends on. your perspective. I, of course, you know, have like many critiques of China, but we're like trying to avoid our century of humiliation. It's already come. It comes in like comments like JD Vance, our vice president, he calling like all Chinese people peasants. And it's like not even. Like like Chinese people live far better superior lives than the average American and almost every single like living metric. Definitely where he's from too. Yeah, yeah. He's like he's from the Appalachia Mountains. Like what else?

I also think like that nostalgia point that Brett had is so true. I mean, Brett, I know you're not online as us and you're not in tune with Gen Z culture. But all fascists do these days online is like post edits to Europop music from the early 2000s. Like, you know, like, I've seen that. I've seen that. I mean, look, look, it is all we do these days too. So, I mean, I mean, they put me onto some bangers. I mean, honestly, like one good thing has come out of fascism, you know, those Europop songs are good.

answer. You know, why? Or sorry, if you wanted to finish, I had a larger point, so I don't want to kill you off. Oh, I think, like, yeah, what Henry was saying about the false story that, like, Napoleon told himself about, you know, reading the Quran. I think that's so true, too. Fascism tells itself this story, you know, we're doing this great revolution. Look at us. And really, what is it? It's always a false fucking revolution.

Hitler was put into power peacefully by von Hindenburg. Mussolini before his march on Rome he talked to all of the advisors the military advisors the parliamentarians of Italy and he was appointed basically peacefully into power and the same thing with Trump

and Trumpism I mean I think Trump's people they believe in themselves in this great revolution you know Trump supporters on TikTok they'll film themselves like taking a shit you know with their fists raised up in the air if you've seen that video

save us President Trump they believe in themselves as doing this great revolution there's no revolution it's always a false fucking revolution and you can see it through how the Nazis had a red flag that was purposely done to mirror the Soviet flag I mean just stupid things like that

go ahead Henry Yeah It's tough because sometimes it feels like It feels like It feels like very out of touch with the working class to say that it's like false consciousness like false revolution or whatever but there's no question in the sense that you're saying it

that it's absolutely fulfilling some desire for revolution some desire for social change and you know maybe not as much as the Nazis and the Italian fascists for sure but it's definitely giving people the sense that they're part of something and I mean And not to say that Napoleon was some great guy or something, you know, obviously, you know, especially in the Syria and the Egypt campaign and, you know, and then in France too, like a lot of bad stuff. But he was a genuinely revolutionary figure and he was part of a, you know, probably one of the most transformative periods of modern history. You know, a lot of fascist leaders, they want to be a guy like Napoleon. They want to be someone like Napoleon, you know, but they don't have any kind of view or framework or principles the way Napoleon did.

I mean, at the end day, he did have like liberal convictions, but they want this Alexander the Great story, this Julius Caesar, you know, Conquest of Gall type story, which in fairness, Napoleon himself wanted to. but but but in a way where they it's simultaneously this deep deep nostalgia for an esoteric mythical past that never existed and also a desire for an extremely advanced future that is brought about by by the collective and unified will of the nation unified in the militaristic way, you know, where you kind of forge the history with your, like, energy and, you know, the, like, will of the society or something. It's like a last-ditch effort to be like, yeah, yeah, but we are actually doing something really important and really great, and this is going to change everything, you know. Once we're done with this orgy of violence and destructive, you know,

destruction, you know, then we'll build Valhalla, you know, is this kind of, like, very bizarre, but simultaneously very human attitude, you know, of like desperation, angered, bitterness. And it's interesting, you know, that fascists and communist view one another as the epitome of everything that needs to be eradicated in the human soul for there to be a utopian future. I mean, you know, you could say principle, you know, Marxists wouldn't look at them that way because you say, well, you know, these are disaffected worker, whatever, you know, they're, you know, lost, they're dumb, they're doing bad things. We have to stop them. But, you know, if they had different material conditions, they'd be better, you know, whatever. But in practice, I'm just look at these people, you know, and I'm what we all do, you know, look at them as just utterly evil and people that need to be, you know, aspects of humanity, like tendencies, emotions of humans, you know, hate, violence, greed, and so on. desire for power that we have to get rid of if people are going to get along and have this nice future. So it's difficult to know exactly how to deal with fascism outside of fighting

it. You know, like what are the conditions that prevent these attitudes from developing, you know, you look at a lot of the former Soviet countries, you know, Ukraine and, you know, I'm against the Russian invasion. You know, I'm not about to say that Putin's denotsify in Ukraine or something but there's no doubt that nazism is still present in ukraine and has was there for the entire soviet period um there's no doubt that nazism or fascism existed throughout the soviet period in some form in um the soviet union in general um you know and we're seeing it's seeing it rear its head in places like hungry now um you know and so what are the material conditions that prevent people from desiring those kinds of things and, you know, preventing leaders from, you know,

people who are motivated by power from mobilizing them and, you know, starting these movements. It's great to think that if, you know, we have a socialist economy or a rift capitalism, that won't be the case, but there is something interesting as well, which is a, you know, an actual destructive nihilism, you know, within humans that we should probably think about as well. Yeah. I think that that's a really insightful point. And when it comes to fascism, yeah, I think we should be aware of the psychological pitfalls of that Manichaeanism, that that nice clean cut that says we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. I mean, historically, we know that we're on the right side of history. And we must fight the material forces of capitalism

and fascism by any and all means necessary. But it does a lot more good for us in the long run. I think for our movement to also try to understand the material and psychological conditions out of which fascism explodes and blossoms. And then even realize that to some degree, these are human traits, and therefore they exist in us as well. And fight against fascism and against capitalism is not only an outward fight where we could project all things bad on our enemies and go out there and destroy them,

but also to understand that insofar as they're human, they're not alien from us either. And those tendencies exist within us, and can we develop the maturity and the introspective capacity to find those elements within ourselves, to confront them and to uproot them as we fight externally? And I think that prevents the very common psychological act of projection, wherein the, the messy gray world is turned into nights and neat black and white good guys versus bad guys that's marvel movie shit that's not reality and so we have a historical social outward political obligation i think we have a a psychological inward obligation as well to transcend and uproot those aspects of

us that are susceptible to that even if they're not full on even if they don't ever full on win and to ultimately confront and even transcend our own egoism which so much of this stuff is rooted in. The other points you made about Napoleon, you've been bringing up Napoleon a lot, and it kind of has me itching for all of us doing an episode on a historical materialist analysis of Napoleon, because he was a conflicted figure historically. Hegel's course called him history on horseback, and he was simultaneously a precursor to right-wing dictators, but also the modernizer of a product of the French Revolution, right? Of course, it can nobody who could never have arisen the ranks.

in the ancient regime, but because of the French Revolution was given his chance through merit to emerge as this sort of, you know, and we look on this very skeptically, but if it applies to anybody, it applies to Napoleon, this great man of history, which is, of course, just a confluence of historical variables that lauded him up at that time and place, but he simultaneously betrayed the French Revolution, the best parts of it, while carrying forward elements of it, right? the Napoleonic wars were part and parcel with the modernization of Europe, the destruction of feudal monarchies and empires, and the rise of nation states, nationalism, liberalism, and capitalism itself.

So he's a fascinating prism through which to understand European and perhaps world history and is worth diving deeper on. So I just wanted to put that aside. The very last point I wanted to make is fascism as a false revolution. and yeah, I think the MAGA movement represents this perfectly. It has the emotional affectation and to some extent even the aesthetics of radical change. You know, he's our guy. We're getting behind him.

He's going to shake up the system, you know, but you can see that we know that. As Marxists, we understand that this is false, that the contradictions he's trying to resolve are irresolvable within the framework in which he's trying to resolve it. the section of the elite that back it prove on its face that it's not revolutionary or else the entire elite class would come together to oppose it but that is a hallmark of fascism it gives you the it gives a lot of people the false perception that real changes here that this miserable conditions created by capitalism are going to be resolved through this reactionary uprising but what happens inevitable disappointment it can't

can't solve the problems because it's too locked inside the system that creates them in the first place. And that does create ideological fallout in the form of more vociferous forms of violent fascism and lashing out, but also in the forms of aspects of the masses who become disillusioned with the false promises of fascism itself, but who still want real change and are therefore, I think, susceptible to some degree to a more robust socialist critique and confrontation with the whole system. And that's not everybody in the fascist movement, of course. But I think especially in the American context, 50% of the voting population who votes for MAGA, I mean, already you can tell in the polling that a huge chunk of those people are immediately disabused and disillusion. And I think that is, those are elements that we should, that we have an obligation to reach out to.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, in many ways, I think fascism represents the worst aspects of humanity and class society. I mean, it is class warfare. its ugliest, most barest face. But I think also Henry is right that there's a very human element to fascism that us socialist, as communists often ignore. I mean, I remember a couple weeks back, Henry sent me a video of a guy, and he's this just really poor guy. He's on

the verge of losing his home and rent, and he's unemployed, and I felt so fucking bad for him. I was about to donate to him, and it turned out that he was a fascist. And I think, like, this is a very often unrealized part of fascism. It's like the social basis of fascism is the petty bourgeois and the lumpen bourgeois. But there's also a very alienated human aspect of fascism that we can't just completely ignore through like saying like all these guys are simply evil. And also the Marvel movie watching class. You know, like like that's that's also the big basis of fascism, Marvel movie watchers. But it is the it is the sort of story of fashion.

You take these, like, people who are on the very edges of society, right? The poor, the unemployed, the lump and proletariat, the veterans, and you give them this promise, this story that they can tell themselves, you know, of this mythical past. We're going to return to the mythical past where everything is great. Recently, a lot of modern A fascism is based off of a return to our primitive past, right? You know, like, you'll see a lot of these guys, like, let's go back to hunter gatherways and, like, primitive. primal shit and restoring our test osterone. They're even going back before class society. It's funny because I want you to keep going, but it's funny because like, do they know

you can do that? She was like, you can go do that. No one's going to stop you. Oh, yeah, nobody's stopping you from grabbing a spear and running into the forest. I mean, you can do that. There are hunter gathers like today is like probably two million of them. Yeah, yeah, go to go to North Sentinel Island, you know, like that's where it's at. And so they're like literally trying to go all the way back before class society.

I mean, they've almost become communist, right? Like that's what us communists look towards. Like Marx looked towards hunter-gatherer societies and they called them primitive communists. And they're looking at it, but they're looking at it for all the wrong reasons. You know, oh, these guys had so much testosterone. These guys were so much healthier. Yeah, they were healthier and happier because they didn't have fucking class society. I mean, they're so close to the right solution.

I also think to some extent, I mean, the fascists of the past, I don't want to glorify them, but they had like somewhat, somewhat noble reasons for becoming fascists, right? You were a veteran of World War I and, you know, you got laid off and, you know, you couldn't find a job because you were amputated or, you know, you're a petty bourgeois small business owner and you're being crushed during the Great Depression. And, you know, I mean, I always believe the petty bourgeois can go fuck itself sometimes. But, you know, like, of course, to some extent, it's noble. Our modern-day fascists are so fucking sad. The majority of them are guys who can't get girlfriends. Like, it's just sad. It's just pathetic. I mean, so many fascists, I can guarantee you, became fascist because they couldn't get a fucking girlfriend. Like, that's it. It speaks to male alienation.

It speaks to how alienated we are under neoliberalism, how much we have destroyed community. Where it's like these guys, and modern day capitalism, the only friend you have after high school in college, is your wife and kids. And so because we've destroyed communities so much, these men, especially woman hatred, woman hatred is the basis of fascism in our modern day. Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because, you know, three guys, like it should have come up earlier.

But I feel like hatred of femininity or perceived feminine traits, you know, it's true that now with like the manosphere, with TNico, you know, I don't know. in, like, addiction to pornography, like, amongst young men and all kinds of other things, like, you do see a component of, like, violent hatred towards women that really sticks out of modern Western fascism, but it feels like hatred of women has always been there, you know, from, in some form, fascism has always been in a very anti-feminine movement. And, like, I've read some interesting analyses of fascism as a, you know form of misogyny um you know you could say that gets into idealism or whatever but

i think it's worth considering the fact that it is such a masculine movement not that there's never been you know women in the history of fascism of course there have been but um not not a whole lot i mean uh it's definitely an overbearing very masculine approach to everything i think there's i think there's a explanation here too and i think this is because yeah fascism always has this masculinist energy, but it is never, you know, it is, it's an insecure masculinity, right? The, the masculinity of men who can't find girlfriends who want to overperform, they want to overperform masculinity as a way to compensate for their lack of actual healthy forms of masculinity, whatever that may mean. So what insecure masculinity necessitates is a policing

of the borders of masculinity, wherein trans people, gay people, and women, women themselves must be subordinated as a performance of masculinity. Now, if you know somebody who is a man and is comfortable and his masculinity, they're not the type that hate women or that need to shit on trans people or be homophobic against gay people. Why? Because they're comfortable in themselves. People who are okay with themselves, who are comfortable in their own skin, don't need to constantly degrade, lash out and denigrate others, that always comes from an insecure place. And because fascism is rooted in economic insecurity, in cultural insecurity, and social insecurity, that obviously cuts

to the heart of individual fears around masculinity. In America, where masculinity has historically been framed in terms of a provider and a protector, you don't have anybody, you don't have the capacity to provide anymore, well, that strikes at the core of what it means to be a man. And unless you're willing to really think through and be vulnerable and, you know, have certain emotional intelligences and capacities for introspection, that's quickly going to turn into a hatred of the threats to masculinity, which are seen as the non-masculine. And those aspects need to be suppressed and subordinated, which is an outward projection of your inward struggle with your own insecurity.

And so fascism and this insecure masculinity have always gone together in every culture, right? In the German and the Italian and in the American examples, that is one feature that stays the same. And I think that is really, really worth thinking deeply on. And then on the other point I wanted to point out is we were talking about primitive communism. And like, there's one thing to go back to a previous time, even the primitive communist time. But it's not framed in terms of community. it's framed in terms of like, well, they just had higher testosterone. And there's an interesting parallel in the MAGA movement where they say make America great again.

And if you ask a lot of them, when was America grade? They'll often say if they don't go crazy. They'll say stuff like, you know, the 50s or the 60s. And then they also marry that to an idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs like we used to have, right? But again, they get the cause wrong. The cause of prosperity back in the 50s or whatever was not. because of manufacturing jobs, nor was it because of the cultural chauvinism of the 50s. It was because of post-World War economic conditions, but also high rates of unionism.

Manufacturing jobs are not prosperous in and of themselves. They were prosperous historically in this country because they coincided with the time of low inequality and high unionism. But that is completely excluded from the conversation. And so what is nostalgically grasped for is the manufacturing jobs and the culture of the 50s without any acknowledgement of what made those things prosperous in the first place for the sort of person that looks back on those times favorably. So, yeah, those are those are crucial components to this new form of fascism, you know. Yeah, yeah. Oh, God.

Well, one of, no, go ahead, Hendry. I got a bigger point. Okay, okay. I just had like, I had like one point, but it's actually two halves of a different point. So it won't be too, too long. But that's a very good point. And in some ways, like the difference between communism and fascism, or at least the most succinct way you could put it,

is that fascism picks these aesthetic goals and tries to achieve them through some, you know, again. And I actually, I really, think you like Nietzsche a lot. I hate how I've misinterpreted him so much, but, you know, this triumph of the will kind of, well, if we have these goals edged in our minds, if we unite people, you know, we will achieve that, you know, whatever good, you know, quote unquote good thing they want, whereas communists say, approach the world from a critical perspective and say, well, how does it work? And then how can we use our understanding of, you know, the material functions in society, how things work, and adjust.

you know, to think about how we can improve things to achieve, you know, certain goals. And, you know, of course, populists prefer the first one. And then I think when it comes to, you know, it's interesting you mentioned like the insecurity men feel if they're unable to, you know, unable to be providers or whatever. This might be a huge oversimplification, but it seems to me, especially in the past, And maybe not to the same degree in the United States today, but certainly in many ways, women are much less, much more familiar with precarity, you know, with a, you know, precarious life, with really having to deal with society in different ways. Whereas when men who are, you know, kind of told, well, you've got to do this. provide for a family but also kind of encourage in certain ways and kind of are taken more seriously

you know by some people and someone when when that it feels like it falls through for them and you know of course you look at societies in general men are overwhelmingly more violent you know that kind of gives a lot of gasoline on the fire of fascism as well you know it's that specific kind of difference in the way that men and women experience society a lot of the time I think one thing that's been unmentioned throughout this podcast is how fascism, modern-day fascism, has re-utilized all of those old anti-Semitic stereotypes and sort of made Arabs the new Jews, really, in a lot of ways, especially migrants and things like that. And I really think Israeli society is sort of a projection as sort of future look at where America is at least on course towards devolving towards. Because, you know, Israeli society, it always envisioned itself as very secular and democracy-like. And slowly but surely, rather than going completely fascist and having like a one-party,

Lakoud rule in one final foul swoop, it slowly devolved over time, over and over and over time. And it sort of surprised a lot of Israelis. You know, like they believe that they were in this beautiful secular democracy. And next morning, they woke up in a sort of essentially what is now, a one-party dictatorship under Lakud, under Nany. Yahoo. And it's kind of amazing how Zionism and Jewish fascism, which of course it doesn't represent all Jews, but, you know, Zionism, which is Jewish fascism, has sort of meddled its way into all of these European right wing circles, these fascist circles, you know, Patriots. EU, which is a meeting of all their outright parties. And it has utilized all of these anti-Semitic tropes, you know, the Jews control Europe, the Jews control this, and they've turned it onto the Arabs. They've turned it into the migrants. you know, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, the great replacement. Who is directing the great replacement? That was always the Jews. And suddenly instead, now it's the shadowy figure that's using Arabs to, you know, replace Europeans. And so, uh, our modernist

fascism, it has a disgusting ethno-nationalist character. And it's using Jewish fascism, especially within Europe as a sort of foremeant to justify itself. It's like, oh, I'm not anti-Semitic, so it's okay. And it's turned to all of these, uh, anti-Jewish frameworks onto Arabs and, you know, African migrants. You know, I, it's interesting you mentioned that whole thing, because the Arabia, you know, conspiracy theory, like that repurposing, is really done by the Zionist, Bad Yor. Like, she was really the first one to do that as a Jewish woman

in seemingly an active in-grouping herself. I mean, and that would be a very crude way to read. But, you know, this idea that Islamic elites are trying to Arabians, Europe, turn into Islamic state, it really does come from, in many ways, the Zionist movement itself. And then, of course, anti-Semitism from the beginning was always about combating Middle Eastern influence. You know, Jewish people cannot belong in Europe from the perspective of the anti-Semite because they're Middle Eastern.

You know, that's where they're really from. So it always had that anti-Arab racism down at the root. Yeah, I just wanted to quickly say, too, with the Israel on the far right, you're right that there is this shifting to the Arab, and I think that's really been just drenching American society in the post-9-11 world, and you can see how that post-9-11 rhetoric is still utilized and marshaled today by the ruling class. support of Israel, just the idea of like, yeah, just the colonial mentality of them being like savages, subhumans, and that takes the form of the word terrorist today.

It's like Hamas, the army that the Palestinians used to fight back are the terrorists, but the brutal regime that is occupying imposing apartheid, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, genocide on an ethno-religious supremacist basis is somehow not terrorist, right? It's just an absurdity, but there's still the contradiction because the right-wing reactionaries, they want Israel in the sense that they want to be ethno-supremicists, and they want a society rooted in violence and exclusion of the other, but the anti-Semitism still definitely exists on the right. So that will often come in conflict, and it comes in conflict within Trump's foreign policy, which there are, you know, lots of aspects of MAGA, which you would expect, which are anti-Semitism. Semitic and who believe in this America First concept and believe Israel is a threat to the America First aspect, as well as this other side of the ruling class and the administration that are ready to go to war with Iran for Israel. So how that contradiction plays out is going

to be interesting, but Israel is losing support amongst all younger Americans across the political spectrum, and that I think spells long-term threats to Israel, which depends on U.S. money a military aid for its very survival, especially in that region. And U.S. obviously uses Israel as a major crucial foothold at the crossroads of three continents as well. So it's a mutually beneficial situation, but both societies are in decay. And there's a certain sort of accelerationism, a death drive accelerationism present in both societies as they enter what I believe to be their final phases. I don't think Israel or the U.S. are going to survive in their current forms, you know, in the second half of this

century. And so we're going to see how this plays out, but it feels like they're going down together no matter what. And Palestine really is the testing ground, because if you want to entrench and keep in place this rotten, unsustainable system, that's going to create mass emiseration for the many and popular discomfort and rebellion. And so the only way to box that in to suppress that, eventually is going, once you lose the more subtler mechanisms that the liberal capitalism have developed, it's going to increasingly have to look like the way that the Israelis are suppressing the Palestinians. And so in that sense, Palestine is the testing ground. And here at home, the emergence of cop cities are the bases of operations out of which

that sort of heavy-handed, explicit, violent, suppressive fascism will explode. And so keeping our eyes on Palestine and the development of cop cities, I think are crucial for our understanding of where things are going. Absolutely. I mean, I think Israel is just America 20 or 30 years in the future. I mean, it's so similar. And in a lot of ways, especially how we're currently degrading and eroding rights for and we're creating second-class citizens, even more so. I mean, undocumented migrants have always been second-class citizens. It's very similar to what was done in Israel. I mean, Israel was, you know, and of course it's not a real democracy and it was built on stone land, but it was in some aspects functioning as somewhat of a democracy, like a liberal

democracy. And slowly, slowly but surely over time, it started to degrade and degrade and degrade and degrade. And now it's a military occupying force with a very heavy-handed second-class citizenry where it's got like separate courts for Palestinians and, you know, it's got an occupying force and it's got a one-party rule, essentially, the Lakud Party. That's the future of America. And if you can't recognize that, and if you think somehow, and there's this liberal avarice, right? There's this liberal avarice.

Let's focus on what's at home and let's not focus on what's abroad. But these two stories are essentially tied in so many ways that's impossible to separate it. I mean, it goes again, I think a lot of these well-beating liberals fall into national socialism to some extent. Let's focus on welfare at home while we abandon the Palestinians, the people abroad. That is essentially just a national form of socialism, accidentally invented by, like, I think like your well-meaning on who wants to like focus on things at home and saying like forget about Palestinians. But it really is interconnected. The global working class is interconnected.

It's an impossible thing to do. It's an impossible contradiction to divide. Yeah. Yeah, you know, I saw a, I did want to mention just before, just from over the end, it really tied into your earlier point, but I saw this Harat's article this week that went, you know, Israel didn't start off racist. It was only once the Russian revolutionaries got involved, that it became racist. And I really, you know, really hit home a lot of, you know, what we've been talking about is, I mean, gosh, just the existence. disillusionment and dread. I mean, you have to be feeling to write something so nonsensical. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Boys, this has been an absolutely fun conversation. What's our plan for Seacot? What are we going to do once we get sent to Seacot? We've got to squat up and organize. Squad up, I'm going to start working out. Henry can write some books. Brett will start like an in-prison podcast, you know. We'll be able to upload it anyway.

but, you know, it'll keep our minds active. This has been a fun conversation. Brett, tell people where they can find you. And, yeah, if you guys have any final concluding remarks, let's get them out. Yeah, final concluding remarks, great conversation. These are the things that all of us need to be thinking about and wrestling with, and climate barbarism is in the background of all of this. And the current elite is going to go for, you know, climate fascism,

violent borders, eco-apartheid, imperialism for resources as they increasingly tried to cement an unsustainable, um, minoritarian rule at home. And so the fights ahead of us and we all got to get educated and organized. And, uh, and I think, you know, people listening to this podcast know that, but we, it's our, it's our deep existential obligation and responsibility. But yeah, I really do love talking to both of you. And now this is two episodes we've done together that have been wonderful and I would love to continue collaborating with you. But as for me, you can find everything politically relevant I do at RevLeftRadio.com. And then Henry, you got any concluding remarks?

Yeah, Henry Martel on Substack and yeah, it was a great conversation. I really appreciate talking to you, Rhett, and too bad we didn't get to Japan. I mean, at a time, but Imperial Japan is a whole interesting set of questions on this topic too. So lots to talk about and much to consider. And, yeah, love to have you on another time as well. And, yeah, stay educated and get organized. Absolutely. The Maoist in Trump's brain, please save us.

The Maoist and Trump's brain, please take over, and you guys have a good one. Peace. Bye. See it. The PokerPreet Pod has been brought to you by our generous members on our Patreon. If you'd like to become one of them, go to patreon.com slash the PokerPriPot. Thank you. What the fuck.

And a special shout out to our Marshal of the Soviet Union member, Matthias T. If you'd also like a shoutout, please consider subscribing to our Patreon, where you can also get episodes up to a month early. Thank you.