Enough time has passed now since the emergence of fascism, the extreme crisis that precipitated it, and the hostilities that caused its early development to view it with less of the coloring that sensationalism and war propaganda necessarily create. We should now be able, after time has somewhat dulled the traumatic exchanges of debate and struggle, to analyze fascism objectively–its antecedents, its prime characteristics, and its goals. In denying its ideological importance I am not suggesting that all of its advocates (of the especially early period) were opportunist or deranged individuals reacting to a personal threat to their own situation within the society. A great many of the early fascist intellectuals were responding to a very real social situation. As intelligentsia, keepers of the particular nation’s system of values, art forms and political thought, they felt it was their responsibility to attempt to resolve a growing social problem. My insistence upon nonimportance of ideology indeed rests squarely upon this point: that most of the fascist intellectuals were reacting to the uprootedness and social disintegration of the particular moment, and with each change in the face of this state of affairs they were in large part forced to repudiate most of their former ideology. Weight is given to this observation by the fact that early fascism included an amalgam of expressionists, anoarcho-syndicalists, futurists, Hegelian idealists, theoretical syndicalists, nationalists and, in the case of the Spanish Falange, intellectual anarchists.
The whole theme of this early face of fascism was not merely anti-communist but fundamentally a general indictment of decadence, bourgeois decadance.
George Jackson, “Blood In My Eyes”, pg. 141 – 142
Removing Emotion From Analysis
This above quote is taken from George Jackson’s “Blood In My Eyes”. It is an opening to a chapter from “Blood In My Eyes” entitled, “Mobilization And Contramobilization”.
As stated, this is an opening for one of his more important political analyses of fascism. Comrade Dragon, George Jackson, lays out a fairly general overview here. Later in this chapter, he names names and plots dates to events. I think it is relevant to discuss this overview as it gives a roadmap that can be applied to most times. Most importantly, it can be applied to our times.
I would like to use Comrade George’s own way of seeing things. In his times, “fascism” was not as loosely used as it is in my time zone of USA 2017. In his times, “communism” was used in a manner still reeking of McCarthyism. In my time, “fascism” is often used interchangeably with “communism” or state terrorism. While it lacks nuance and specificity, it hardly needs to borrow any more sensationalism or emotional electricity!!! Taking Comrade Dragon’s lead then, I will attempt to adapt his strategy of removing from my own words any ideological loose wires that could cause undue explosions.
Mr. George is discussing a set of conditions we can describe as “intellectual justification of governments using extreme population control”. He describes where people of a social system begin to give power over to governments, governing officials, and political figures. He is not indicting “intellectual people”. Instead, he is indicting a class of women and men who are tasked with a job of influencing culture through their authority, position, and platforms. This is a similar position held by Antonio Gramsci of a nation’s intellectual class.
These members of what both Gramsci and Brother George are calling “intelligentsia” might today appear on television panels, update Twitter with blue checked accounts, or speak publicly from behind university rostrums. What is being highlighted in this passage is that these people had authority. They were trusted members of society who became desperate to support a movement for social control. In those times that are being spoken of above, all variation of political leanings were seduced. While I do believe Comrade George is being lenient here, given his words, these were well-meaning folk, “good people” as we say. Yet, their desire for social order, for decorum, for preservation of positions of authority led to a dangerous political embrace.
Black Media Trust
This passage above plainly shows exactly why I am constantly discussing Black Media Trust. US Blacks are a very splintered group who waver often about identity. A drive for acceptance from Whytes and proximity to Whytes complicates our unity and compromises our collective power. As individuals, we must have a system of hopeful scrutinizing of those placed in positions of trust. Even good people with that trust of smart people can lead us into damnation.