Portrait of Zhuanzi, Daoist master of the Tang Dynasty
By Tang Aijun
Study Times, China
Jan 15, 2025 – On December 11, 2015, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the National Party School Work Conference: “Marxism is the ‘true scripture’ of us Communists. If we fail to study the ‘true scripture’ well and always think about ‘going to the West to obtain the scriptures’, we will miss out on important things!”
“Zhenjing” originally referred to the works of Taoist masters such as Zhuangzi in the Tang Dynasty. Later, its connotation and extension were continuously expanded to refer to Taoist and Buddhist classics. Now it is often used to refer to classic works or ideological systems that have withstood the test of history and have eternal charm.
General Secretary Xi Jinping used “Zhenjing” to metaphor Marxism, vividly pointing out that Marxism is a worldview and methodology that scientifically explains the world and actively transforms the world, and emphasizes that Marxism is the fundamental magic weapon that guides the Chinese Communists to continuously move from victory to new victory.
The “truth” of the “True Scripture” is reflected in both scientificity and truthfulness, as well as real usefulness. The reason why Marxism is like a “True Scripture” is that it reveals the general laws of human social development, reveals the special laws of the operation of capitalism, points out the way for mankind to leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom, and points out the way for the people to achieve freedom and liberation. The “True Scripture” is really useful and can transform the world.
For more than a hundred years, the Chinese Communists have used Marxism, a powerful ideological weapon, to work tirelessly to achieve national independence, people’s liberation, national prosperity, and people’s happiness, making China, an ancient oriental country, create an unprecedented development miracle in human history. Marxism, the “True Scripture”, has brought both “material achievements” and “spiritual achievements” to the Chinese nation – it has changed the passive mental state of the Chinese nation. The Chinese people have continuously strengthened their ambition, backbone, and confidence in the comprehension of the “True Scripture”, and demonstrated their spiritual self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-improvement in the historical initiative of practice.
After finding the “true scriptures”, we must persist in applying them. If we do not grasp the “true scriptures” well and always think about “going to the West to get scriptures”, we will miss out on important things.
The “going to the West” criticized by General Secretary Xi Jinping refers to some party members and cadres who are unwilling or even disdainful to learn and master the basic principles of Marxism, always want to seek the so-called truth from Western theories, and blindly admire Western theories. Those who always think about “going to the West to get scriptures” are actually people who take Western theories and Western discourse as their criterion. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, “If we use the Western capitalist value system to tailor our practice and use the Western capitalist evaluation system to measure my country’s development, it is fine if it meets Western standards. If it does not meet Western standards, it is backward and outdated, and we must criticize and attack it, and the consequences will be disastrous!” In this regard, we must have a clear understanding that it is absolutely not advisable to always think about “going to the West to get scriptures”.
Grasping the “true scriptures” is a compulsory course for Communists. At the same time, it is also very necessary to master the “true scriptures”. For party members and cadres, they must work hard to truly learn, understand, believe in and use Marxism.
The first is to “read the scriptures well”. Party members and cadres should carefully read the works of classic writers such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and be willing to spend time reading the “true scriptures”. Mao Zedong said: “You can go without food for a day, you can go without sleep for a day, but you cannot go without reading for a day.” He said, “I have read The Communist Manifesto no less than a hundred times.” This is the attitude we should have towards the “true scriptures”.
The second is to “understand the scriptures well”. We must not only read the classics, but also understand the truth and principles in the “true scriptures”. General Secretary Xi Jinping summarized the “four laws” at the conference commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth: the materiality of the world and its laws of development, the naturalness, historicity and related laws of human social development, the laws of human liberation and free and all-round development, and the essence of cognition and its laws of development. Marxism has a theoretical quality that keeps pace with the times and is an open theoretical system that is constantly developing. The Chinese Communists treat science with a scientific attitude and pursue truth with the spirit of truth. They always adhere to combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific reality and with China’s excellent traditional culture, and promote the sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Therefore, in order to understand the “true scriptures”, party members and cadres must not only understand the basic principles of Marxism, but also understand the principles, theories and philosophies contained in the scientific theory of the sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
The third is to “use the scriptures well”. “What is valuable is that it can be used.” We must constantly improve our ability to use Marxism to analyze and solve practical problems, and constantly improve our ability to use scientific theories to guide us in responding to major challenges, resisting major risks, overcoming major resistance, resolving major contradictions, and solving major problems, so that the “true scriptures” can lead us to win new and greater victories.
With each passing day and at an accelerating pace in recent years, it becomes increasingly obvious that we are witnessing a new era of rise of the far right on a global scale, similar to the era of the rise of fascist forces between the two world wars of the twentieth century. The label “neofascism” has been used to designate the contemporary far right, which adapted to our time, out of its awareness that repeating the same fascist pattern witnessed in the past century was no longer possible, in the sense that it was no longer acceptable to the majority of people.
Neofascism claims to respect the basic rules of democracy instead of establishing a naked dictatorship as its predecessor did, even when it empties democracy of its content by eroding actual political freedoms to varying degrees, depending on the true level of popularity of each neofascist ruler (and thus his need or not to rig elections) and the balance of power between him and his opponents. There is today a wide range of degrees of neofascist tyranny, from near absolute in the case of Vladimir Putin to what still retains a space of political liberalism as in the cases of Donald Trump and Narendra Modi.
Neofascism differs from traditional despotic or authoritarian regimes (such as the Chinese government or most Arab regimes) in that it is based, like last century’s fascism, on an aggressive, militant mobilization of its popular base on an ideological basis similar to that which characterized its predecessor. This base includes various components of far-right thinking: nationalist and ethnic fanaticism, xenophobia, explicit racism, assertive masculinity, and extreme hostility to Enlightenment and emancipatory values.
As for the differences between old and new fascism, the most important of them are, first, that neofascism does not rely on the paramilitary forces that characterized the old version — not in the sense that it is devoid of them, but it keeps them in a reserve role behind the scenes, when they are present — and, second, that neo-fascism does not claim to be “socialist” like its predecessor. Its program does not lead to the expansion of the state apparatus and its economic role but rather draws inspiration from neoliberal thinking in its call to reduce the economic role of the state in favour of private capital. However, necessity may make it go in the opposite direction, as is the case with Putin’s regime under the pressure of the requirements of the war he launched against Ukraine.
While twentieth-century fascism grew in the context of the severe economic crisis that followed World War I and reached its peak with the “Great Depression”, neofascism grew in the context of the worsening crisis of neoliberalism, especially after the “Great Recession” that resulted from the financial crisis of 2007-08. Whereas past century’s fascism endorsed the national and ethnic hostilities that prevailed in the heart of the European continent, against the backdrop of the heinous racist practices that were occurring in the colonized countries, neofascism flourished on the dung of racist, xenophobic resentment against the rising waves of immigration that accompanied neoliberal globalization or resulted from the wars that the latter fuelled, in parallel with the collapse of the rules of the international system. The United States played the key role in thwarting the development of a rules-based international system after the end of the Cold War, thus quickly plunging the world into a New Cold War.
Neofascism may seem less dangerous than its predecessor because it is not based on paramilitary appearances and because nuclear deterrence makes a new world war unlikely (but not impossible: the Ukraine war has brought the world closer to the possibility of a new world war than any events since World War II, even at the height of the Cold War in the time of the USSR). The truth, however, is that neofascism is more dangerous in some respects than the old. Twentieth-century fascism was based on a triangle of powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) that did not have the objective ability to achieve its dream of world dominance, and was confronted by powers that were economically superior to it (the United States and Britain) in addition to the Soviet Union and the global communist movement (the latter played a major role in confronting fascism politically and militarily).
As for neofascism, its dominance over the world is increasing, driven by the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in a guise that is much more in line with neofascism than during his first term. Thus, the world’s greatest economic and military power is today the spearhead of neofascism, with which various governments in Russia, India, Israel, Argentina, Hungary and other countries converge, while the possibility of neofascist parties coming to power in the major European countries (in France and Germany, after Italy, and even in Britain) looms on the horizon, not to mention smaller countries in Central and Eastern Europe in particular.
If it is true that the possibility of a new world war remains limited, our world faces something no less dangerous than the two world wars of the twentieth century, namely climate change, which threatens the future of the planet and of humanity. Neofascism is pushing the world towards the abyss with the blatant hostility of most of its factions to indispensable environmental measures, thus exacerbating the environmental peril, especially when neofascism has taken over the reins of power over the most polluting people in the world proportionally to its number, namely the people of the United States.
There is no equivalent in today’s world to what the workers’ movement was like with its socialist and communist wings after World War I. Instead, the forces of the left are suffering from atrophy in most countries, after most of them merged into the crucible of neoliberalism to the point that they no longer constitute an alternative to the status quo in the eyes of society. Or else, they are unable to adapt to the requirements of our era, reproducing the flaws of the twentieth century’s left that led to its historical bankruptcy. All the above makes us uphold that the era of neofascism is more dangerous in some respects than the era of the old. The new generation remains the focus of our greatest hope, and significant sections of it have revealed their rejection of racism, such as that manifested in the Zionist genocidal war in Gaza, and their defence of equality of all sorts of rights, as well, of course, as their defence of the environment.
In the face of the global rise of neofascism, there is a vital and urgent need to confront it by bringing together the broadest ad hoc alliances in defence of democracy, the environment, and gender and migrants rights, with the variety of forces that embrace these goals, while working to rebuild a global current opposing neoliberalism and defending the public interest in the face of the dominance of private interests.
Authoritarians are known for their ability to come to power legally, then destroy the rule of law. Hitler is the best known example.1 If it is difficult to strike the right balance between preventing this and avoiding undue restrictions on political expression in any democracy, it is all the more difficult in Germany, where at every turn you are blackmailed by history.
Germans are highly averse to surveillance, having experienced not only Nazism but also the Stasi, one of the most oppressive intelligence networks the world has known. For the same reason, however, Germans are averse to political figures and parties who seek to undermine the freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung, or free democratic basic order. These are the constitutional principles enshrined in theGerman Basic Law, such as human dignity, equality before the law, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and minority rights.
The conflict between these two sensitivities has been called the democratic dilemma. The problem it entails is vexed: How can liberal democracies protect themselves from those who are willing to use their own liberal institutions to subvert it while remaining a liberal democracy?
Germany’s answer to this question devolves from the work of the political scientist Karl Loewenstein, who developed his ideas in response to the “seemingly irresistible surge” of interwar fascism. In 1937, he published Militant Democracy And Fundamental Rights in the American Political Science Review. I’ll quote from it at length, because it’s fascinating:
… Fascism is the true child of the age of technical wonders and of the emotional masses. This technique could be victorious only under the extraordinary conditions offered by democratic institutions. Its success is based on its perfect adjustment to democracy. Democracy and democratic tolerance have been used for their own destruction. Under cover of fundamental rights and the rule of law, the anti-democratic machine could be built up and set in motion legally. Calculating adroitly that democracy could not, without self-abnegation, deny to any body of public opinion the full use of the free institutions of speech, press, assembly, and parliamentary participation, fascist exponents systematically discredit the democratic order and make it unworkable by paralyzing its functions until chaos reigns. They exploit the tolerant confidence of democratic ideology that in the long run truth is stronger than falsehood, that the spirit assert itself against force. Democracy was unable to forbid the enemies of its very existence the use of democratic instrumentalities. Until very recently, democratic fundamentalism and legalistic blindness were unwilling to realize that the mechanism of democracy is the Trojan horse by which the enemy enters the city. To fascism in the guise of a legally recognized political party recorded all the opportunities of democratic institutions.
… If democracy believes in the superiority of its absolute values over the platitudes of fascism, it must live up to the demands of the hour, and every possible effort must be made to rescue it, even at the risk and cost of violating fundamental principles.
In the second part of the essay, Loewenstein undertakes a study of the measures European states had taken to defend themselves against the threat. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, the Irish free state, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and Czechoslovakia, he writes, had risen to the occasion. They had (so far) successfully resisted fascism by transforming themselves into militant democracies. How, exactly? The effective measures, he reports, were surprisingly similar:
The most comprehensive and effective measure against fascism consists in prescribing subversive movements altogether. … [As a rule], such legislation is formulated very carefully in order to avoid discrimination against any particular political movement, thereby maintaining at least nominally the democratic principles of equality before the law and due process under the rule of law. … The decision as to whether a group is to be declared illegal lies with the discretionary power of the government, subject in some countries to an appeal to the court of the last instance. … Reconstituting a prescribed party under any pretense whatsoever is a crime.
…. All democratic states have enacted legislation against the formation of private paramilitary armies of political parties and against the wearing of political uniforms or parts there of (badges, armlets) and the bearing of any other symbol (flags, banners, emblems, streamers, and pennants) which serve to denote the political opinion of the person in public. These provisions—too lightheartedly and facetiously called “bills against indoctrination haberdashery”—strike at the roots of the fascist technique of propaganda, namely, self-advertisement and intimidation of others. … many states provided rapid remedies for forbidden incitement and agitation against and baiting of particular sections of the people because of their race, political attitude, or religious creed—in particular, because of their allegiance to the existing republican and democratic form of government.
… Perhaps the thornist problem of democratic states still upholding fundamental rights is that of curbing the freedom of public opinion, speech, and press in order to check the unlawful use there of by revolutionary and subversive propaganda, when attack presents itself in the guise of lawful political criticism of existing institutions. Overt acts of incitement to armed sedition can easily be squashed, but the vast armory of fascist technique includes the more subtle weapons of vilifying, defaming, slandering, and last but not least, ridiculing the democratic state itself, its political institutions and leading personalities. … Democracies which have gone fascist have gravely sinned by their leniency, or by too legalistic concepts of the freedom of public opinion. Slowly, the remaining democracies are remedying the defect. … All such restrictions on the use of free speech and free press were greeted by fascists with the outcry that the democratic state was violating the very essence of its principles of freedom. But the measures proved effective in curbing the public propaganda of subversive movements and in maintaining the prestige of democratic institutions.
….Finally, specially selected political police for the discovery, repression, supervision, and control of anti-democratic and anti-constitutional activities and movements should be established in any democratic state at war against fascism. …
Fire is fought with fire. Much has been done; still more remains to be done. Not even the maximum defense measures in democracies is equal to the minimum of self-protection which the most lenient authoritarian state teams indispensable. Furthermore, democracy should be on its guard against too much optimism. To overestimate the ultimate efficiency of legislative provisions against fascist emotional technique would be a dangerous self- deception. The statute-book is only a subsidiary expedient of the militant will for self-preservation. The most perfectly drafted and statutes are not worth the paper on which they are written unless supported by indomitable will to survive.
He concludes on a discordant note, warning that liberal democracy’s time may have passed:
Perhaps the time has come when it is no longer wise to close one’s eyes to the fact that liberal democracy, suitable, in the last analysis, only for the political aristocrats among the nations, is beginning to lose the day to the awakened masses. Salvation of the absolute values of democracy is not to be expected from abdication in favor of emotionalism, used for wonton or selfish purposes by self-appointed leaders, but by deliberate transformation of obsolete forms and rigid concepts into the new instrumentalities of “disciplined” or even—let us not shy away from the word—“authoritarian” democracy.
… In this sense, democracy has to be redefined. It should be—at least for the transitional stage until a better social adjustment to the conditions of the technological age has been accomplished—the application of disciplined authority, by liberal-men, for the ultimate ends of liberal government: human dignity, and freedom.
I hope this introduction to Lowenstein persuades you to read the whole essay. It’s a serious and unsettling argument. It has a powerful logic, yet its conclusions are self-evidently dangerous. It’s an unmistakably German argument. I wish I could ask my grandfather what he thinks of it.
Future generations, I’m sure, will look back at Western democracies and deplore us for doing so little to defend ourselves. But the idea of defending ourselves this way would be anathema to our contemporaries. In the first place, we lack an indomitable will to survive: You’ll look in vain for any figure on our political scene who exhibits a passion to defend constitutional democracy equal to the lunatic vigor of those who wish to destroy it. More to the point, the vast majority of our citizens understand liberal democracy to mean, “I have the right to behave in any way I please, with no limiting principle.” If a large cohort holds that being required to vaccinate themselves against communicable disease is an intolerable violation of their rights, imagine telling them that until they adapt to the conditions of our technological age, they require the tutelage of disciplined liberal authoritarians. That would go down a treat.
But entertaining this thought is a detour. Suffice to say Loewenstein argued that democracies have not only the right, but the affirmative duty to ban organizations and parties that seek to subvert it.
The Taxonomy of Extremism
The democratic dilemma is vexed for every democracy, but particularly for Germany, where it is has hardly been an abstraction. After the fall of the Third Reich, Germany took Loewenstein’s ideas very seriously and, under the watchful gaze of the occupying powers, ensured that the Basic Law enabled the banning of parties that seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order.
The law is not, however, insensate to the risk these powers pose. Banning a party is extremely hard to do so. The legal hurdles are high. It has been done only twice. In the 1950s, the Socialist Reich Party (the reconstituted Nazi party) was banned, as was the Communist Party of Germany. In 2003, efforts to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party, or NPD failed on procedural grounds; in 2017, they failed because the court ruled that while it was assuredly true the NPD was unconstitutional in its attitudes and its goals, it was too insignificant to pose a threat. They would not ban the party simply for being obscene.2
Germany gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, or BfV) highly circumscribed powers to monitor parties that threaten Germany’s constitution. In another effort to balance political rights against the obvious, Section 86a of Germany’s Criminal Code prohibits the use of symbols associated with unconstitutional organizations, including (especially) those of the Nazis. But because it is fearful of going too far, it doesn’t prohibit the use of symbols that everyone knows damned well are just a substitute.
The AfD has long been described as “far-right” in Germany’s public discourse and media, but only in 2021 did Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classify it as a “suspected extremist” organization, a designation that permits intelligence officers to wiretap party members and employ informants to monitor its activities. It arrived at this judgement from publicly available information, such as the party’s program and statements made by its members, following years of observation. The BfV was unequivocal about the party’s youth wing, the Junge Alternative, or JA, and about three of the party’s state branches (Germany has 16 states). These, it said, were “confirmed right-wing extremist.”3
Under German law, an “extremist” organization is defined as a group whose activities are directed against the free democratic basic order. Such a group seeks to abolish the fundamental principles of a liberal democracy, such as the sovereignty of the people, the separation of powers, and the protection of basic human rights. The BfV has a taxonomy of extremism: right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism, Islamist extremism, und so weiter. Right-wing extremism is characterized by nationalism, antisemitism, racism, and xenophobia. The parts of the AfD that were confirmed as extremist organizations, according to the BfV, advocated an authoritarian state, undermined the separation of powers, and rejected pluralism in favor of a homogeneous national identity.
The German broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk has reported that more than 100 people who work for the AfD lawmakers and members of its parliamentary group belong to organizations classified as “extremist.” (The Flügel faction of the party, which was officially disbanded in 2020 but is believed to remain influential, is known for being particularly extreme.)
The AfD denies that it is neo-Nazi party, and unlike Elon Musk, its leading politicians don’t bust out the Hitlergruß with billions of people watching. But this means only that they don’t want their party banned and they don’t want to go to jail. They don’t need to make things explicit: They are very capable of conveying their meaning without violating the letter of the law.
Germany’s federal elections will take place on February 23. The AfD is currently polling in second place. It expects to take about 20 percent of the vote. It will not govern, because all of Germany’s major parties have stated categorically that they will under no circumstances consider the AfD as a coalition partner. The concern, however, is fourfold. First, unlike many radical parties, the AfD has not mellowed with time. To the contrary, it grows more extreme with every change of leadership.
Second, this is not the insignificant NPD, but the biggest opposition party in Germany. It took 15.9 percent of the vote on June 9—its best result nationwide since its founding in 2013—and its vote share is growing. Inevitably, its noisy presence on the political scene normalizes views that are antithetical to the free basic democratic order.
Third, Russia is working assiduously to bring it to power.
Fourth, so is Elon Musk.
The Secret Meeting in Potsdam
In January 2024, the German nonprofit research group Correctiv reported that high-ranking AfD politicians, neo-Nazis, members of nationalist student fraternities, and sympathetic businesspeople had met in secret in a hotel near Potsdam to plan the forcible deportation of millions of immigrants and German citizens.
“The meeting was meant to remain secret at all costs,” wrote Correctiv:
Communications between the organizers and guests took place strictly via letters. However, copies of these letters were leaked to CORRECTIV, and we took pictures. Our undercover reporter checked into the hotel under a false name and was on site with a camera.
Roland Hartwig, personal aide to the AfD’s leader, Alice Weidel—with whom Elon Musk recently giggled and stammered on a Twitter Space chat—was in attendance, as was the Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner.
Sellner is a real piece of work. He became involved in Austria’s neo-Nazi seen as a teenager, coming to the attention of the authorities at the age of 17, when he confessed to defacing a synagogue with swastikas to protest the conviction of British Holocaust denier David Irving. Since then, the police have picked him up regularly for such acts of hooliganism as disrupting a performance of Elfriede Jelinek’s Die Schutzbefohlenen—which treats the odyssey of African migrants to Europe—by throwing blood on the stage. He is barred from entering the United States and United Kingdom; he was arrested in Switzerland and released on the condition that he leave immediately and never come back. After the meeting in Potsdam, he was also barred from Germany.
In 2012, Sellner founded the Identitäre Bewegung Österreich, the Identitarian Movement of Austria, which the BfV categorizes as part of the Neue Rechte, or new right, and the Documentation Center of Austrian Resistance classifies as a far-right and neofascist.
The Neue Rechte superficially distances itself from the neo-Nazi scene. The Identitarian Movement of Germany, for example, uses a yellow lambda, not a swastika, as its symbol, and its slogans are carefully phrased. By “carefully phrased,” I mean, for example, this:
Das EIGENE bedingungslos verteidigen! Die WEISSE HAND ist unser Zeichen gegen alle, die unsere IDENTITÄT zerstören. WIR sagen: Bis hierhin und nicht weiter.
which may be translated,
Defend what is OURS unconditionally! The WHITE HAND is our symbol against all those who destroy our IDENTITY. WE say: This far and no further.”
Note that they do not use words like Rasse and Volk so as not to immediately recall National Socialist slogans. The intentionally vague “Das Eigene”—“one’s own”—is a favorite on the German far-right. So is “identity.” The vagueness of these words provides legal deniability. It also. allows the slogan to appeal to a wider audience. Those who hear it are free to interpret it as a call to defend German culture or European values. The symbol of the white hand, however, speaks for itself.
The Identitäre Bewegung Österreich is relentlessly hostile to the United States and deplores everything they consider to be an outgrowth of American imperialism. They oppose Austria’s NATO partnership. They oppose international sanctions against Russia. They reject capitalism, communism, and socialism in favor of essentialist Third Position economics. Theycall for an “independent alliance of sovereign nation-states” with Russia. On their website and Facebook page, they cite Aleksandr Dugin, Dominique Venner, and Alain de Benoist as major influences.4
The author of the Christchurch mosque massacre, Brenton Tarrant, so admired Sellner that he sent him a considerable amount of money. Austrian investigators suspected that Sellner was Tarrant’s collaborator and raided his apartment in Vienna. After seizing his phone, computer and other devices, they discovered that he had deleted all of his exchanges with Tarrant 40 minutes before the raid, indicating that he had been tipped off.Sellner denied any involvement in the attacks. In 2019, a judge ruled that the searches had been unlawfully predicated and the investigation was dropped. (Continued)
The WIRED & Octopus Energy Tech Summit in Berlin was bursting with innovative ideas for reaching net zero and on working together at an ever-greater scale
November, 2024 – Kraftwerk Berlin, the venue for the Energy Tech Summit with Octopus Energy, offered delegates a powerful lesson from history. Built by the East German government in 1961, the same year construction on the Berlin wall began, the vast turbine hall was hastily assembled to manage a crisis—the wall forced the Communist east and capitalist west to build grids that were not connected. Obsolete at reunification in 1989, it was a stark warning that walls and divisions are a choice the world can’t afford to make when faced with the urgent need to transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
“The biggest risk for Europeans,” Martin Schulz, former president of the European Parliament, told the room, “is political parties who tell citizens that lone nations are the future in a globalized, interdependent world.”
He pointed out that the European Union spent €60 billion in subsidies to citizens and businesses during the recent energy price spike. “What we need is to convince people that it is necessary to change the whole structure of the energy market—but how to create cheaper energy with so many political obstacles?”
Some of the solutions were discussed onstage. Zoisa North-Bond, the CEO of Octopus Energy Generation, spoke about the company’s Fan Club Tariff, which cuts bills for customers living near a wind farm by up to 50 percent when their local plant is producing excess power. “We’ve had 35,000 communities get in touch with us and ask for wind turbines,” she explained, citing the company’s community connection platform Winder. “It’s Tinder for wind, matching communities with wind turbines.”
Image may contain Kevin Magnussen Clothing Footwear Shoe Book Publication Adult Person Electronics and Speaker Formula E CEO Jeff Dodds envisions a future where the world drives electrically. Photograph: Craig Gibson
Luo Xi, head of project development at Geidco, the company behind China’s proposed global grid, explained that linking 80 countries with smart grid technology and significant renewable resources could increase clean energy consumption to 71 percent and reduce global CO2 emissions to half of 1990 levels.
Aaron Ubaa, energy system engineering manager at Nigeria’s solar power pioneer Starsight Power, described how renewables were bringing stability to the country’s erratic and inconsistent power supply. The barriers? Restructuring the national grid. Internationally? Sub-Saharan Africa should be energy rich with solar power, he explained, but “it’s going to start with trying to bring the policy makers on board to incentivize both private and public sectors to buy in.”
The day carried constant notes of optimism. Francis Kéré, a Pritzker Prize–winning architect, described the innovations devised in building a primary school in Burkina Faso that overcame poor lighting and ventilation through creating bricks from local clay mixed with cement that kept the heat out, and using a clay and brick ceiling to circulate cool air without needing air conditioning.
Niclas Dahl, managing director of Oceanbird, discussed how wind-powered cargo ships could reduce shipping emissions by 90 percent. Clean tech pioneer and serial explorer Bertrand Piccard delighted the room with his account of circumnavigating the world in his sun-powered airplane Solar Impulse, pointing out that “aviation has launched 600 electric airplane programs since we flew around the world using just some rainbows.”
Dirk Hoke, CEO of Volocopter, picked up his point. The German company builds electric vertical take-off and landing air taxis. “They are quiet, safer than a helicopter, and sustainable,” he explained. “When the Kaiser saw a car, he said it was temporary and would never replace the horse. And we know how that ended. The Chinese government decided in March to open the low-altitude economy, so it’s just a matter of time.”
Even the world of motorsports had encouraging news. Formula One driver Kevin Magnussen recalled that when he started driving just over 10 years ago, the engines were 2.4-liter naturally aspirated V-8 fuel-guzzlers. “Today, it’s hybrid engines, and we’ve actually got more horsepower than we did when I started.”
And yet Magnussen touched on one of the day’s issues—consumers adopting clean energy tech. “Electric vehicles are the biggest opportunity today, because cars are the vastest bulk of emissions in the transport sector, the emissions are still growing, and the replacement technology is already there,” Julia Poliscanova, senior director at clean energy lobby group Transport & Environment, pointed out. “The reason EVs haven’t been taken up as much, in our view, is not because people don’t want to buy them or because there are no charges, but because we still lack affordable mass market models.”
The public believes charging infrastructure is a problem, she added, which is true in some places and less true in others. The problem? Bureaucracy. She struggles to get an EV charger as she lives in a flat and the building owner finds the paperwork prohibitive.
It was a theme that echoed throughout the day’s transport sessions, although Formula E CEO Jeff Dodds pointed out that his drivers started every race with only 50 percent of the energy they needed to finish the race. Drivers used their brakes to regenerate the battery, showing how a full “tank” wasn’t as important as consumers thought.
All the same, consumer resistance came up frequently. Frank Siebdrat, COO of energy efficient heating and cooling company Tado, pointed out that his company had connected approximately 1 million homes in Europe. “The EU aims to be climate-neutral in 2050, and to do so, we need to think and act collectively,” he explained. “In order to be collective, we need to make technology affordable. One of the most affordable and effective tools to decarbonize homes is smart technology. And using that we have saved already 2 billion tons of CO2.”
When asked why they chose Tado, he said that customers’ main reason was, “I want to save money. The second reason is, I want to make the planet a better place. If we cannot fulfill the first one,” he stressed, “the second one becomes less relevant.”
China seems to offer many solutions. Although coal consumption is climbing, it will peak in 2026 as renewables come online, with MingYang Smart Energy president Qiying Zhang outlining how floating and fixed offshore wind turbines are replacing fossil fuels. In August the company installed the world’s largest single-capacity offshore wind turbine, the MySE18.X-20MW, in Hainan, which can generate 80 million kWh annually, offsetting 66,000 tons of CO2.
Meanwhile, the country’s road transport electrification is moving at pace, thanks to heavy government subsidies. “In China, there were 570,000 EVs bought in August, and if you’re not driving an electric car in China, you’re considered a very boring person,” Stella Li, vice president of Chinese EV giant BYD, told the room. The new Z9 GT offered “intelligent driving,” meaning the car could park itself—even sliding sideways into a tight space, thanks to its flexible rear axle.
“The epicenter of the energy transition is China, which has a beautiful historical symmetry,” Arthur Downing, director of strategy at Octopus Energy explained. “Until the 18th century, the center of the world economically was China. It was the first energy transition of the industrial revolution in Britain that shifted that economic center of gravity to Europe. So we’re coming full circle at a ridiculous speed.”
Ann Mettler, European vice president of Bill Gates’ sustainable energy organization Breakthrough Energy, and Sabrina Schulz, strategic expert in climate, energy, and biodiversity, agreed that while Europe was making progress, it was falling behind and needed a blend of public and private finance to catch up by connecting and renewing grids and considering decentralized or even virtual power plants. “Policy certainty and public guarantees on investment in, say, green district heating is an absolute condition for investors,” Schulz argued.
Sana Khareghani, professor of practice in AI at King’s College London, suggested AI could help, managing and optimizing energy grids and helping develop new batteries to store power for when it’s most needed—helping reduce reliance on the fossil fuel powered generators of last resort.
Towards the end of the day, a warning from Ukraine gave the discussion sharp context. Yuliana Onishchuk, CEO and founder, Energy Act for Ukraine Foundation, described how vulnerable a modern nation’s energy supply really is.
“It is very easy to attack repeatedly, leaving us with no power for up to 56 hours,” she explained. “This summer, by losing one nuclear power plant, we lost 20 percent of our generation capacity. 1,900 rocket attacks over the last two years in Ukraine robbed us of 35 GW of generation capacity, costing us €51 billion.”
She explained how Ukraine managed to “plug into the European Union’s energy system by the second week of the war, preventing a total countrywide blackout.” The government was moving towards shifting its energy dependency away from easily attacked nuclear power plants to renewables for at least 27 percent of its power. Meanwhile, apps informed citizens of when power may be on or off so they could prepare food for the blackout.
Sitting in the turbine hall of the derelict power station built because of political isolationism, it was a sobering moment. Then Kidus Asfaw, founder and CEO of Kubik, an Ethiopian construction company that creates a low carbon, low-cost building material rivaling cement using just recycled plastic, had two positive messages. His company’s energy was very cheap, he explained, because Ethiopia’s energy supply is almost 100 percent renewable, and coming from the global south he had faith in the younger generation.
“I recently had a client sign up who’s a cement manufacturer—so they are a competitor and yet he took our product,” he recalled with a smile. “I asked him why he did it. He said, “because my kid would kill me if I didn’t.” That does make me very optimistic, that young people want a better future.”
This article appears in the January/February 2025 issue of WIRED UK magazine.
How to Build an Underground Resistance Force in 16 Steps
By Kim Drew Wright
BlueVirginia.US
North Chesterfield, VA, Feb 5, 2017
All I wanted was a handful of likeminded neighbors to bemoan the presidential election results, and three months later, I find myself the leader of 1,500 women — a staggering number for an historically red county of Virginia — and a number that increases daily.
Liberal Women of Chesterfield County was born out of my election night angst, when the only safe place to speak of my disgust was in secret social media groups, which were all of a sudden scrambling to make more urgent connections. Intuitively, I knew I needed a physically present support group to get me through the next few weeks — the next four years. So, I posted on my urban area’s offshoot group of the national Pantsuit Nation and on my own page, that I was forming a smaller group for my immediate neighborhood area — originally named Liberal Women for Clinton & Cocktails (I would later think, how serendipitous that the acronym matched our county name).
The requests flooded in — I never knew I had so many liberals within walking distance. Then there were messages from those a bit further out, and then a bit further, people willing to drive over an hour to attend a meeting. The geographic area grew, until, ultimately LWCC expanded to include all of Chesterfield County. Our county comprises large swathes of the western and southern portions of the Richmond suburbs. People came from other parts of the RVA area, including Henrico, Richmond City, Mechanicsville, and Petersburg. As Pantsuit Nation dissolved into book deals and passivity, offshoot groups started renaming themselves and settling into smaller segments. One such group, Together We Will, is organizing the Northern and Eastern sections of RVA and my original members of those areas serve as a link between our groups.
RVA is not the only place this massive grassroots organizing is occurring. I have had leaders of groups from Minnesota, upstate New York, and other outlying areas of Richmond call me for advice. LWCC has developed rapidly and continues to grow and evolve. Here are some tips for how to start your own political and social activism group of concerned citizens.
1 — Capitalize on the passion to CONNECT people. After the 2016 presidential election, more than one person said that it felt like 9/11 all over again. The shock and insecurity overwhelmed many Democrats. I posted on my personal Facebook page and in the aforementioned secret group that if you needed a safe haven to be heard and supported then you were welcome in LWCC. I arranged for our first meeting at a local restaurant/bar, stood on a table, and gave an impassioned speech that summed up not just the way I felt, but according to the nods and cheers of the crowd, how all of us felt. It was a relief to be surrounded by likeminded new friends.
2 — Give them a COMMUNITY. One of the main goals of our first meeting was for each attendee to mingle and meet other people, outside their immediate circle, who identified as liberal — as simple as that. Human beings have a deep-rooted need to feel a part of a larger community. What one person may feel afraid or impossible to accomplish — many voices gain the strength and courage to achieve.
3 — Provide a DIRECTION. At our first meeting I had several leaders from existing organizations speak. Contacts from our local chapters of the Democratic Committee and Women Matter gave information about what their organizations worked toward and how attendees could become involved. Fretful hands and minds need something to do.
4 — People need to feel HEARD. The sign-in sheet for the first meeting listed several things to comment on, including: your biggest concern for a Trump presidency, Ideas for positive social and political change, and, how often would you like to meet? As you can imagine, the concerns and ideas were numerous and varied.
5 — ORGANIZE organically. Also, on the sign-in sheet, I asked for their contact information and their elementary school district. We formed smaller neighborhood meet-up groups based on these districts, as oftentimes people in the same neighborhoods will be zoned for the same elementary school. People need to know they have support near them. We have a leader for each neighborhood group who organizes smaller meet-ups and communicates with their group.
6 — Make the DETAILS work for you. Shortly after the first meeting, we created a google document that members fill out. This document captures their contact information and all their voting districts down to the precinct. I highly recommend this method for several reasons. First, the document automatically creates a spreadsheet of all the tabulated data. Second, you can hone in on which members are in which election districts — this can be especially useful for things like special elections when many people are unaware. Third, it is a step that deters potential moles and helps identify hackers. Fourth, if your social media page is ever taken down or disrupted, you still have a way to reach your members for further instructions.
7 — Create a solid umbrella STRUCTURE. LWCC has its large group which communicates mostly through a secret Facebook group page and large meetings every 6-8 weeks (these occur at schools, churches, and libraries). Then we have breakout neighborhood groups based loosely on elementary school districts that meet regularly at restaurants and members’ houses. Now, we are narrowing those neighborhood groups down to precincts with captains. These will come mostly into play during campaign season, when they can ensure neighborhood canvasing, candidate sign placement, and polling place volunteers.
8 — Spread the RESPONSIBILITY. As LWCC grew we have added other positions within our structure. These include contacts for new members, community outreach, and member ideas or grievances. We have someone who coordinates our large meetings, a team who checks for possible hackers or moles, and a pool of writers to submit articles and letters to editors in local and national media.
9 — Create an atmosphere of ADVOCACY. As well as neighborhood break-out groups, we have advocacy groups within LWCC. Each advocacy group has a leader, many whom had already been advocating for their issue, but several who are first-time advocates who stepped up to the challenge. Our current advocacy groups include: Criminal Justice Reform, Environment, Education, First Amendment, Gun Violence Prevention, Healthcare, Hispanic/Immigration, LGBTQ, Mental Health, Muslim, Racial Justice, Voter Suppression, and Women. Ask members to get invested in one or more issue that affects themselves or their neighbors.
10 — Provide and encourage EDUCATION of how our local governments operate.Hooking up with organizations to attend lobby days, providing speakers on the 101s of bills and campaigning, and encouraging members to take those first steps into activism or political involvement are huge leaps in the right direction. Every time someone makes that first phone call, first visit to their representative’s office, or, even, first Democratic Committee meeting…every step after that initial one becomes easier and more fast-paced. Early on, provide them links to crucial information such as their voter districts and how to find out who are their representatives.
11 — WORK alongside sister organizations. Do not reinvent the wheel. There are many existing organizations that have been fighting for equal rights and other liberal values for many years. Get connected with them and let them help you help them. As I mentioned earlier, at our very first meeting I had members of the Chesterfield County Democratic Committee there to speak. Elizabeth Hardin, the chair of CCDC, has provided many answers to my questions and has co-hosted several events with LWCC to both our groups’ benefit.
12 — COMMUNICATE with the other start-up groups in your area. I created a secret page called Liberal Leaders to connect the numerous other start-up groups like mine surrounding Richmond. This has helped spread our similar messages to each other’s members and a larger geographic area. There is strength in numbers.
13 — Call members to ACTION. We have a member in charge of posting a Daily Call to Action that is actually a compiled list of the actions available to accomplish for that day. These often include calls to representatives, reminders to sign-up for an event, and information on specific bills during the VA General Assembly. Make these easily findable. We use #CallToAction and the abbreviated date. For example today’s post would be — #CallToActionFeb15. Before we consolidated the list into one post, many people were posting calls to action that would get buried in the newsfeed. Now, in one spot, even though the list is sometimes still long — it appears more manageable.
14 — Make some NOISE. Just a handful of concerned citizens can make enough noise to capture national attention. When a dozen constituents tried to attend a Dave Brat Tea Party event in Hanover County, their video of Brat talking about women getting “up in my grill,” went viral and appeared in many national news outlets. When approximately 45 protesters met outside the VA General Assembly with Equal Rights Amendment signs, the local CBS news aired the event and talked about the ERA — a topic that would not have been mentioned on the news that night had the protest not occurred.
15 — Have a MISSION statement and clear goals for your group. The mission statement for LWCC is this: LWCC strives to be a safe haven for liberal women and their allies to support, educate, and encourage one another to be actively involved in our government; and, furthermore, seeks to advance advocacy issues and campaigns that align with our progressive values of inclusivity and equal rights for all people.
16 — Show IDENTITY and SOLIDARITY. When your group is ready to boil their energy to the surface for all to see, design a symbol or logo that is easily identifiable as your group. LWCC has two logo designs that will be unveiled at our next large meeting and then members will be able to participate in an online poll to pick their favorite. The tagline for both is: Each of our causes is all of our causes.
I could go on for many more numerals, but I think this is a good start for any group looking for better ways to organize. I hope this helps new activists become more focused. Try not to get bogged down with it all. Remember it is good to discuss, but the most important thing is — to DO.
Slavery Was Crucial for the Development of Capitalism
Boiling House at the Sugar Plantation Asunción, Cuba, 1857. (Justo German Cantero / Wikimedia Commons)
AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBIN BLACKBURN Historian Robin Blackburn has completed a trilogy of books that provide a comprehensive Marxist account of slavery in the New World. He spoke to Jacobin about the intimate links between the slave systems in the Americas and the origins of capitalism.
Robin Blackburn, longtime editor of the New Left Review, is probably the foremost Marxist historian of New World slavery working today. In The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery: 1776–1848 (1988) and The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800 (1997), Blackburn charts the construction and revolutionary downfall of the slave systems of the colonial Atlantic.
These two volumes — complemented more recently by AnUnfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln (2011), and The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights (2013) — together comprise a comprehensive transnational account of what Blackburn’s newest book designates “the First Slavery.”
With The Reckoning: From the Second Slavery to Abolition, 1776–1888 (2024), the historian provides the long-awaited concluding volume to his chronological trilogy on racial slavery in the New World. Owen Dowling sat down with Robin Blackburn to discuss the book, his now-completed trilogy as a coherent whole, and what a Marxist perspective brings to the study of slavery, racism, and capitalism in global history.
What Made the Second Slavery Distinct
OWEN DOWLING Can you give an introductory explanation of what is meant by the “Second Slavery”?
ROBIN BLACKBURN The Second Slavery is a concept that has been developed over the last ten years or so by historians of the Americas, especially of slavery in the nineteenth-century United States, Brazil, and Cuba. Slavery not only survived the Age of Revolution — 1776 to 1848 — but flourished, with slave-grown cotton, coffee, and sugar dominating the world market.
Slavery not only survived the Age of Revolution — 1776 to 1848 — but flourished, with slave-grown cotton, coffee, and sugar dominating the world market. The European slave colonies in the Caribbean proved vulnerable to the slave revolts and upheavals of the revolutionary epoch. The leading colonial powers — Spain, Britain, and France — each tried to suppress the great slave uprising in Saint-Domingue between 1791 and 1804, but without success. The French colony was eventually replaced by the independent black state of Haiti in 1804. This alarmed slaveholders throughout the Americas and persuaded Britain and the United States to end their open participation in the Atlantic slave trade in 1807.
However, Anglo-American merchants continued to supply huge quantities of “trade goods” — shackles, swords, implements, rum, tobacco, guns, ammunition — to exchange for captives on the African coast. This clandestine traffic carried off more than two million captives in the years up to 1860, as Sean Kelley has shown in his new book American Slavers (2023).
This initial species of “abolition” thus did not end the Atlantic traffic, let alone free the millions of slaves mobilized on the plantations. But it did disturb and discredit the slaveholders, obliging them to build a more fortified “Second Slavery.” Events in the Caribbean continued to have a double impact, inspiring antislavery campaigning but also stoking a proslavery backlash and encouraging an emergent doctrine of racial supremacy in the 1830s and ’40s.
These opposing ideologies pitted whites against blacks, the free against the enslaved, males against females, the African-born against the American-born. But they also informed interracial coalitions that appealed to nonslaveholding whites and free people of color.
Britain’s largest slave colony, Jamaica, was the scene of a major revolt in 1831–32 that was shortly followed by slave emancipation in 1833–38 and “immediatist” antislavery societies. Jamaica was the most valuable British colony, just as Saint-Domingue had been the most valuable French plantation regime. In both Jamaica and Saint-Domingue, slaves had accounted for something like 80 percent of the population, so they had massive numerical superiority — but it still took ten or fifteen years for the movements to achieve a qualified emancipation.
Why did Cuba, Brazil, and the United States stand apart from the debacle of the First Slavery? A key consideration was that the leading slaveholders offered the white majority a stake in the constitutional order large enough to produce and secure racial domination. Fear and privilege all helped to cement proslavery and consolidate the “Slave Power.” White privilege could include a horse, the vote, a gun, “freedom of the range,” patrols, militia, and plantation employment.
In Cuba, Brazil, and the United States, the leading slaveholders offered the white majority a stake in the constitutional order large enough to produce and secure racial domination.
The supposedly “democratic” and republican regime of the United States managed to be even more unequal than the monarchical orders in Brazil and Cuba. The slaveholding order of the United States was also buttressed by constitutional provisions that notoriously counted the slaves as three-fifths of a free person. They also made it virtually impossible to end slavery by constitutional means. Combined with first-past-the-post electoral rules and patriarchal exclusion, this boosted the representation of slaveholders. The enslaved were not a majority and even freedmen rarely had the vote, so there was an important layer of white males to be flattered by gentlemanly demagogues like Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, and Andrew Jackson.
The characteristic feature of the slaveholders of Cuba, Brazil, and the United States was that they had successfully established a mass racial regime of white domination as a buttress to the slave plantation regime. They also were globally rich and could buy in the best military equipment, but they could mobilize the white population in patrols and militias, and that was a sufficient guarantee of their power. These became the heartlands of the Second Slavery, the survivors of the Age of Revolution among the slave regimes of the New World.
By the middle decades of the nineteenth century, the institution of slavery, where it survived, seemed stronger than ever, an example of Friedrich Nietzsche’s dictum that what doesn’t destroy you, makes you strong. The US victory over Mexico in 1848 clearly showed where power lay in the hemisphere. The South boasted more millionaires than the North, and exports of slave produce comprised 70 percent of the national total. The expansion of the American “Slave Power” was impressive but not entirely reassuring in that it was in some ways better exploited by the new capitalism of the North and West.
OWEN DOWLING In what critical ways did the “Second Slavery” of the postrevolutionary nineteenth century differ from the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century “First Slavery”?
ROBIN BLACKBURN The slaveholders of the First Slavery were colonials, absentees, and émigrés; those of the Second Slavery reveled in their sovereignty and supplied leadership to an armed citizenry. They constituted the Slave Power. They supplied a more far-reaching mobilization of race and capital, a stronger — more perfected — regime of race and capital, and therefore it’s all the more curious that it risked everything by hazarding secession from the United States. The slaveholders were dealt a strong hand but played it badly.
There were also important economic innovations, which I explore in The Reckoning, including a new “Anglo-Saxon” credit regime that answered a problem that all the regimes of slavery encountered: a shortage of credit for the plantations. Any agricultural entrepreneur faces all sorts of problems to do with microbes, pests, fire, flood, and climate extremes. Under the First Slavery, there had been a recurrent credit famine.
Planters needed considerable resources in order to produce the next year’s crop; to buy provisions, equipment, seeds, and manure — also reserves to bridge adversity or to profit from a good opportunity (such as a neighbor’s bankruptcy). So slaveholders often wanted extra loans. One particularly important financial change was the lifting of the so-called Latin or Roman ban on using slaves as collateral. This prohibition had long survived because it enabled the estate owner to survive and prosper, but at the expense of a reduced rate of colonial growth.
The larger merchants, bankers, and creditors lusted over an end to the ban. Dutch entrepreneurs had tried to shake it off in early and mid-seventeenth-century Brazil, but it was not until 1732 that the British government formally ended its own ban. The Colonial Debts Act of that year set the scene for a dramatic century of growth in the British islands and enclaves. It was something that proved to really unlock the credit system under the Second Slavery. The planters of the United States inherited from their former master this key to unlocking the prodigious potential of the slave plantations.
How Fascism Typically Takes Over a Nation by Rhetoric
Words. Speeches. News conferences. Rallies. Media. Money. And they all point in one direction: violence in service of the fascist leader.
BYTHOM HARTMANN
The Hartmann Report MAR 29, 2024
Fascism doesn’t typically take over countries by military means (WWII’s temporary order notwithstanding); instead, it relies on rhetoric.
Words. Speeches. News conferences. Rallies. Media. Money. And they all point in one direction: violence in service of the fascist leader.
The rhetorical embrace and appreciation of violence is one of the cardinal characteristics of fascism, and a big step was taken this week in a New York City courtroom to push back against the current fascist campaign being waged by Donald Trump against our American form of government.
Noting that Trump’s “statements were threatening, inflammatory, [and] denigrating” Judge Juan Merchan imposed a gag order on the orange fraudster and rapist, forbidding him from further attacks against the court’s staff, the DA’s staff, witnesses, and jurors.
Why? Because all were concerned about becoming the victims of Trump’s fascist army.
Because the judge omitted himself from the list, as its his job to try send bad guys to prison, Trump got slick and attacked the judge’s daughter (who’s also not on the list). Now she’s getting death threats.
This isn’t the first time. Whenever Trump finds himself in trouble, fraud or violence follow, as has already been determined by a court in New York this month and we saw in the pattern of his presidency.
As Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told Chris Hayes last night about the Trump era since January 6, 2021:
“The threat of violence is part of their new playbook.”
When Trump repeatedly attacked Judge Engoron, who presided over the civil fraud trial that led to his $454 million fine, his fascist fan-boy fans sent envelopes of white powder both to the judge and the prosecutor and phoned in a bomb threat to the judge’s home.
Professor Jennifer Mercieca, author of Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump, notes:
“Donald Trump has a history of refusing to follow the rule of law, he incited an insurrection against the peaceful transferal of power, he claims to want to be a ‘dictator’ if he wins power, and he has released plans to install people into government who are loyal to him instead of the Constitution. These are all signs that he plans an autocratic takeover of the United States.”
Analysts of fascism from Umberto Eco to Hannah Arendt to Timothy Snyder and Ruth Ben-Ghiat generally agree on a core set of characteristics of a fascist movement. It includes:
— A romantic idealization of a fictional past (“Make America Great Again”) — Clear definition of an enemy within that is not quite human but an “other” (“vermin,” “rats,” “animals,” all phrases Trump has used just in past weeks to describe immigrants and employees of our criminal justice system) — Vilification of the media (“fake news” or lugenpresse) — Repeated attacks on minorities and immigrants as a rallying point for followers (shared hatred often binds people together) — Disparagement of elections and the rule of law (because neither favors the fascist movement) — Glorification of political violence and martyrdom (the January 6th “patriots” and Ashley Babbitt) — Hostility to academia and science leading to the elevation of Joe Sixpack’s ability to “do his own research” (simple answers to complex questions or issues) — Embrace of fundamentalist religion and the moral codes associated with it — Rejection of the rights of women and members of the queer community as part of the celebration of toxic masculinity — Constant lies, even about seemingly inconsequential matters (Hannah Arendt noted in 1978: “If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.”) — Performative patriotism that replaces the true obligations of citizenship (like voting and staying informed) with jingoistic slogans, logos, and mass events: faux populism — Collaboration with oligarchs while claiming to celebrate the average person
Donald Trump and his MAGA movement check every single box.
So did the American Confederacy and the Democratic Party it seized in the 1860s. And the American fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s (albeit, they were much smaller). And the white supremacy movement of the mid-20th century, from the KKK to the White Citizens’ Councils (ditto).
This is not our first encounter with fascism, as I detail in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy. Nor will it be our last: fascism has a long history and an enduring appeal for insecure, angry psychopaths who want to seize political power and the great wealth or opportunity that’re usually associated with it.
The good news is that when fascist movements seize entire countries or territories their rule, at least in the last few centuries, tends to be fleeting. The Confederacy lasted only six years and failed in their attempt to take over our entire country; Hitler held power for a mere 12 years; Mussolini 21 years.
The bad news is that when fascist movements do seize absolute power in a nation, they do incredible damage, recovery from which often requires generations. They typically are only dislodged by war, with the loss in that war finally puncturing the bubble of invincibility and the aura of strongman infallibility in which their leaders have wrapped themselves.
Preventing a fascist takeover is not particularly complex, and there are encouraging signs that America is beginning to move in this direction. It involves a few simple steps:
— Recognize and call out the fascists and their movement as fascists
With Trump and his fascist MAGA movement, this is happening with greater and greater frequency. Yesterday, for example, the Financial Times’ highly worldwide-respected columnist Martin Wolf published an article titled Fascism has Changed, but it is Not Dead.
“[W]hat we are now seeing,” Wolf writes, “is not just authoritarianism. It is authoritarianism with fascistic characteristics.” He concludes his op-ed with: “History does not repeat itself. But it rhymes. It is rhyming now. Do not be complacent. It is dangerous to take a ride on fascism.”
For a top columnist in one of the world’s senior financial publications to call a candidate for US president and his movement fascists would have been unthinkable at any other time in modern American history. And it’s happening with greater and greater frequency across all aspects of American media.
— Debunk and ridicule extremism while ostracizing fascists from “polite company”
Increasingly, Trump’s fascist movement and those aligned with it are becoming caricatures of themselves. Book-banners and disruptors of public education are reaching the end of their fad-like existence. Moms for Liberty is a sad joke founded by some of the country’s more bizarre examples of hypocrisy; the former head of the RNC was fired from NBC for her participation in Trump’s fascist attempt to overthrow our government; and CPAC has shriveled into a hardcore rump (pun intended) faction of the conservative movement.
Political cartoonists lampoon Trump followers as toothless rubes and obese, gun-obsessed men; so many women are rejecting Republicans as dating partners that both sociologists and media have noticed; and the GOP is looking at a possible bloodbath (to use Trump’s favorite term) this November, regardless of how many billions in dark money their billionaires throw into the races. We saw the first indicator of that this week in Alabama.
— Support democratic institutions and politicians who promote democracy
The media landscape of America has become centralized, with a handful of massive and mostly conservative corporations and billionaires owning the majority of our newspapers, radio and TV stations, and online publications.
Nonetheless, there are many great online publications beating the drum for democracy, and many allow subscriptions or donations. My list includes Raw Story, Alternet, Daily Kos, Common Dreams, Salon, Talking Points Memo, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Guardian, Democratic Underground, Jacobin, OpEdNews, Slate, Truthout, LA Progressive, Counterpunch, Crooks and Liars, and Free Speech TV. In addition, there are dozens of worthwhile publications that share this Substack platform with Hartmann Report: you can find my recommendations here. And I’m live daily on SirusXM Channel 127 (Progress) and on Free Speech TV, as are many of my progressive colleagues. Read, use, listen, share, and support them.
There are also multiple organizations dedicated to promoting democracy and democratic values in America. They range from your local Democratic Party to Indivisible, Progressive Democrats of America, Move to Amend, MoveOn.org, Roots Action, Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), EMILY’s List, Run for Something, NextGen America, Advancement Project, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Other democratic institutions we should be supporting by joining, donating, or participating in their governance include public schools, libraries, city councils, county government groups, etc. When MAGA fascists show up to disrupt these institutions and intimidate their members, we should be there to defend them.
President Biden, speaking last fall at an event honoring John McCain, laid it on the line and challenged all of us:
“As I’ve said before, we’re at an inflection point in our history — one of those moments that only happens once every few generations. Where the decisions we make today will determine the course of this country — and the world — for decades to come.
“So, you, me, and every American who is committed to preserving our democracy carry a special responsibility. We have to stand up for America’s values embodied in our Declaration of Independence because we know MAGA extremists have already proven they won’t. We have to stand up for our Constitution and the institutions of democracy because MAGA extremists have made clear they won’t.
“History is watching. The world is watching. Most important, our children and grandchildren are watching.”
