Two of my favorite "public intellectual" guys! This subject matter is so thoroughly depressing – how can countries w/the world's most powerful militaries (US & UK) not put them to work guarding the borders? Yes, I know…where there's no will, no way. (Peter, on a different subject: I remember you saying, I think to Andrew Gold, that you knew NOTHING about Israel/Palestine. I don't know much either, but have been trying to improve that. This article discusses the completely ignored, inconvenient reason for the "Palestinian problem": Why the Arab world hates Palestinians (and don't want them in their countries) https://besacenter.org/do-arabs-hate-palestinians/ )
The far left has already become Marxist. Fascism and Marxism are the two sides of the totalitarian coin and are fundamentally the same. I suggest reading "Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America." I have written a review of "Unwoke" at https://2026.substack.com/p/unwoke-review
The left won't become fascist because fascist believe in the idea of the nation state, and the leftist are internationalists and support the concept of a internationalist communist party which is why they're in solidarity with Hamas and other leftist movements abroad. With that said, however, that does not mean that they are don't use the same tactics that the fascist used in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. They learned from the failed revolution in Germany during World War II through the works of Antonio Gramci and Marxists philosophers. Of course they use the same tactics, don't you all know that fascism and communism are two sides on the same coin? Communist to adopt socialism in one country under Stalin. The international movement still this with them them so don't forget it.
With that said, Robert Paxton, debatably, the leading scholar on fascism claims that the ideology is essentially undefinable. But the first historian to write about fascism was a former communist who turned fascist named Angelo Tosca. He claimed "to define fascism is to write his history." This is lack of definition, makes it a significant problem. I must simplify things for y'all. Fascist are by definition reactionaries. That is at least from the communist perspective. Their reacting towards their international call to overthrow and come to power to the international communist Utopia. advocated for violence and the killing of innocent men who may or may not have been wealthy. In places like Vietnam were communist revolutions were successful, the bourgeoisie was interpreted as someone who may have had two chickens. in Cambodia that was took further to killing those who may have had had glasses. But during the interwar period, the communists advocated for the killing of the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries who favored the concept of the nation state because Rome was great, and the Germans had the right to be great I am reunite with the Germanic peoples in the neighboring nation states.
Mussolini, for instance, was actually a famous socialist writer before he created the doctor in a fascism. But again, why support the international movement when you can make Rome great again? In Germany and Italy, the fascist in the communists fight each other in the streets. But the reason they failed was because the leftist advocated for the richest people in their countries to be killed. Whereas the more conservative leaning, wanted to preserve the status quo, but also make it better by adopting imperialist expansion and socialist style production. Mussolini, in fact, argued before split between the communist party that developing socialism in the context of the nation state was a more pragmatic approach to building out of internalist socialist community. The communist influenced by Marxist Leninist doctrine advocated for constant revolution because only when they took over the world, would the working class become free.
With that said, however, communism emerged in the most backward and least develop country in Europe. And fascism emerged as an influencer in the most advanced industrial state in the world at the time in Germany. This was a problem because according to Marx, the revolution would occur in the most advanced location. but Hitler also adopted the same fascist policies as Italy and took it a step further thus establishing more credibility towards the nation state. After that, Stalin. himself decided to break with the internationalist approach by establishing an official policy of "socialism in one country." it was only after his death and the end of World War II that the internationalist call emerged when the two totalitarian regimes of Italy and Germany were no longer a threat.
With this in mind, the main distinction of fascism and communism is the way they plan to implement and on what scale they desire to rule. But the main point is that you do not get fascism and Nazism without the communists provoking the reactionaries first. That is what has happened in history and that is what we are currently seeing. This is why we are living in one of the most dangerous times of history. It's happening and nobody knows the real history are they able to break down the ideological differences and explain the historical trajectory of any of the movements. For most, being a fascist today would mean that you raised your voice in a way that was scary. But the real history of it is a story of ideological communist agressors provoking normal people enough to join in on the movement to stop their insanity.
I shouldn't have to say this, but if you really believe that the bourgeoisie needs to be killed so you could have a better world then not only do you belong in an insane asylum but you also are the type who provoked and established the real origins of totalitarianism. So, hopefully, after you understand the history, you you now recognize why Trump is called a fascist because by definition he's a reactionary that was placed into power in opposition of a leftist movement.
The question is whether the Dems will "Become fascist"? They already exhibit many aspects of fascism. Since fascism overlaps with many aspects of socialism, it's not a stretch at all. The Biden admin already behaves in authoritarian, autocratic ways. But what they will NEVER be able to do is claim a populist, patriotic, working class base again. Fascism must have the support of the majority of working/middle class to take hold as it requires large agreement about the authority of govt in spheres free people won't accept. But the Dems already have the institutional elements of Fascism in place, with the willing cooperation of the media, tech and NGO/activist/governing class already engaging in fascist policies. The suppression of dissent is a KEY feature of all authoritarians but in fascism, dissent is presented as 'anti patriotic'. I see this line of reasoning coming from the Left now, questioning govt itself in any way ss seen as problematic and worthy of censorship. The Left's embrace of mass censorship is fascistic in the extreme cuz they rely on 'private partners' to execute the policy in many cases, illegally of course.
I think if you described fascism without calling it fascism to many Dem voters, the hard core activist types, they would embrace it as long as it supported their worldview.
Yes, there is “a callous regard for evidence”… well said. 👏🏾
Two of my favorite "public intellectual" guys! This subject matter is so thoroughly depressing – how can countries w/the world's most powerful militaries (US & UK) not put them to work guarding the borders? Yes, I know…where there's no will, no way. (Peter, on a different subject: I remember you saying, I think to Andrew Gold, that you knew NOTHING about Israel/Palestine. I don't know much either, but have been trying to improve that. This article discusses the completely ignored, inconvenient reason for the "Palestinian problem": Why the Arab world hates Palestinians (and don't want them in their countries) https://besacenter.org/do-arabs-hate-palestinians/ )
Thank you.
The far left has already become Marxist. Fascism and Marxism are the two sides of the totalitarian coin and are fundamentally the same. I suggest reading "Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America." I have written a review of "Unwoke" at https://2026.substack.com/p/unwoke-review
The left won't become fascist because fascist believe in the idea of the nation state, and the leftist are internationalists and support the concept of a internationalist communist party which is why they're in solidarity with Hamas and other leftist movements abroad. With that said, however, that does not mean that they are don't use the same tactics that the fascist used in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. They learned from the failed revolution in Germany during World War II through the works of Antonio Gramci and Marxists philosophers. Of course they use the same tactics, don't you all know that fascism and communism are two sides on the same coin? Communist to adopt socialism in one country under Stalin. The international movement still this with them them so don't forget it.
With that said, Robert Paxton, debatably, the leading scholar on fascism claims that the ideology is essentially undefinable. But the first historian to write about fascism was a former communist who turned fascist named Angelo Tosca. He claimed "to define fascism is to write his history." This is lack of definition, makes it a significant problem. I must simplify things for y'all. Fascist are by definition reactionaries. That is at least from the communist perspective. Their reacting towards their international call to overthrow and come to power to the international communist Utopia. advocated for violence and the killing of innocent men who may or may not have been wealthy. In places like Vietnam were communist revolutions were successful, the bourgeoisie was interpreted as someone who may have had two chickens. in Cambodia that was took further to killing those who may have had had glasses. But during the interwar period, the communists advocated for the killing of the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries who favored the concept of the nation state because Rome was great, and the Germans had the right to be great I am reunite with the Germanic peoples in the neighboring nation states.
Mussolini, for instance, was actually a famous socialist writer before he created the doctor in a fascism. But again, why support the international movement when you can make Rome great again? In Germany and Italy, the fascist in the communists fight each other in the streets. But the reason they failed was because the leftist advocated for the richest people in their countries to be killed. Whereas the more conservative leaning, wanted to preserve the status quo, but also make it better by adopting imperialist expansion and socialist style production. Mussolini, in fact, argued before split between the communist party that developing socialism in the context of the nation state was a more pragmatic approach to building out of internalist socialist community. The communist influenced by Marxist Leninist doctrine advocated for constant revolution because only when they took over the world, would the working class become free.
With that said, however, communism emerged in the most backward and least develop country in Europe. And fascism emerged as an influencer in the most advanced industrial state in the world at the time in Germany. This was a problem because according to Marx, the revolution would occur in the most advanced location. but Hitler also adopted the same fascist policies as Italy and took it a step further thus establishing more credibility towards the nation state. After that, Stalin. himself decided to break with the internationalist approach by establishing an official policy of "socialism in one country." it was only after his death and the end of World War II that the internationalist call emerged when the two totalitarian regimes of Italy and Germany were no longer a threat.
With this in mind, the main distinction of fascism and communism is the way they plan to implement and on what scale they desire to rule. But the main point is that you do not get fascism and Nazism without the communists provoking the reactionaries first. That is what has happened in history and that is what we are currently seeing. This is why we are living in one of the most dangerous times of history. It's happening and nobody knows the real history are they able to break down the ideological differences and explain the historical trajectory of any of the movements. For most, being a fascist today would mean that you raised your voice in a way that was scary. But the real history of it is a story of ideological communist agressors provoking normal people enough to join in on the movement to stop their insanity.
I shouldn't have to say this, but if you really believe that the bourgeoisie needs to be killed so you could have a better world then not only do you belong in an insane asylum but you also are the type who provoked and established the real origins of totalitarianism. So, hopefully, after you understand the history, you you now recognize why Trump is called a fascist because by definition he's a reactionary that was placed into power in opposition of a leftist movement.
The question is whether the Dems will "Become fascist"? They already exhibit many aspects of fascism. Since fascism overlaps with many aspects of socialism, it's not a stretch at all. The Biden admin already behaves in authoritarian, autocratic ways. But what they will NEVER be able to do is claim a populist, patriotic, working class base again. Fascism must have the support of the majority of working/middle class to take hold as it requires large agreement about the authority of govt in spheres free people won't accept. But the Dems already have the institutional elements of Fascism in place, with the willing cooperation of the media, tech and NGO/activist/governing class already engaging in fascist policies. The suppression of dissent is a KEY feature of all authoritarians but in fascism, dissent is presented as 'anti patriotic'. I see this line of reasoning coming from the Left now, questioning govt itself in any way ss seen as problematic and worthy of censorship. The Left's embrace of mass censorship is fascistic in the extreme cuz they rely on 'private partners' to execute the policy in many cases, illegally of course.
I think if you described fascism without calling it fascism to many Dem voters, the hard core activist types, they would embrace it as long as it supported their worldview.