Of course, there will be many interpretations, but what are the defining Marxist ideas on the definition?
I ask, because you see a lot of libs and liblefts calling America fascist, but then being asked how, and not being able to respond. It makes them (and us, because we always get lumped in with them) look bad. I’d like to be able to step in if I ever witness such a thing.
IDK if it strictly falls in the line of being Marxist but I’ve long felt that “Fascism is Imperialism/Colonialism turned inward.” hit the mark pretty well especially after reading Fanon and The Jakarta Method. Done overseas, the methods of Imperialism is to use the violence of the State on behalf of the Capitalists as a class, there’s no obfuscation required in order to satisfy the aesthetic performance of a democratic system. That’s why I also feel like it can be seen as an advancing infection whereby the most vulnerable of society can be living under Fascism while those still living in the illusion of the performance are shielded from it until it’s too late.
Oh, an important part of my reasoning that my brain skipped over (and why I brought up Fanon and JM) is that when we look at the violence of imperialism and colonialism we see that it’s directly in opposition to labor organizing and communism. Like communist revolutions are the opposing force which they’re using violence to try and prevent. You’ve always got Labor on one side and the Owners on the other. So when we see those same methods being used at home for the same intention, to me it seems like it fits the bill.
Ehhhh…
I don’t necessarily disagree (love your history posts, btw) but to me, the point of this definition is breaking down the semantics of how Class War is being carried out? Because the alternative, in my mind upon reading your post, is that Fascism is just whatever Fascist do, and that leaves things even more ambiguous.