You're viewing a single thread.
MAGA is popular for the same reason other nationalist, fascist movements have risen over the course of modern history: as a response to Capitalist decay. MAGA isn't popular for genetic reasons, intellectual inferiority, or other reasons like that, but as a common class interest. All of the descriptors in the OP are consequences of the driving factor of class interests, not the drivers themselves.
Fascism is most often represented as an alliance between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie proper, driven by the Petite Bourgeoisie, as monopolization of Capital results in competition becoming more and more difficult, and the Petite Bourgeoisie faces Proletarianization. To prevent the Petite Bourgeoisie from joining the Proletariat in solidarity, the Bourgeoisie proper turns their hatred against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat.
What does this all mean, in practical, American terms? Small business owners, landlords, ie the "middle class," is shrinking in power, so the Small Business Owners are aligning with billionaires like Musk and Bezos against immigrants, workers, unhoused peopled, gender/sexual minorities, women, ethnic minorities, and more.
How do we fix this? Grow the Petite Bourgeoisie and restore their position? Absolutely not! That's when fascism is established. Trying to "turn the clock back to the good old days" results in dramatic reductions in worker rights and a solidification of power.
What we need to do is establish Socialism. A victory of the Proletariat, a folding of the large monopolist syndicates into the public sector so they can be centrally planned for the public good, rather than privately planned for profit, is the way forward. This is the way to escape fascism's rise. This is the way to defeat MAGA.
I recommend reading the book Blackshirts and Reds, fascism's irrationality has rational, material origins, that can be understood and defeated, and it isn't in the "marketplace of ideas."
Genuine question from someone socialism curious: my understanding of petite bourgeoisie was they were upper class but non capital owners, like doctors and lawyers, but i guess business owners and landlords fit too. But Trump's support is largely non college educated white men. When I think of a Trump supporter I think a mechanic in Pennsylvania. I am thinking of the majority of teamsters based on their internal poll. To put a finer point on it, fascism under Trump seems to be driven by the proletariat. The petite bourgeoisie, if anything, is solidly in the Harris camp precisely because of its concern about fascism.
America is a bit unique, it's made up nearly entirely of Labor Aristocracy, ie beneficiaries of Imperialism.
The Petite Bourgeoisie are Capital Owners that must labor, small business owners and the like. The lack of college education doesn't mean they won't be held back from becoming business owners, and the dominance among the religious and white is because of fascism's cultural characteristics, explained in the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds.
Fascism can also be described as Imperialism turned inwards.
Interesting, thank you for the response. I'll give that book a read, and I appreciate the direct link!
No problem! Feel free to DM me if you have any questions. That site is maintained by a comrade here, @Edie@lemmy.ml, it does a great job with the site!
Why not both?
Clearly some people are attracted to far-right ideals without being in the petite bourgeoisie and some people who are in it are even repelled by such ideals, plus there is the whole domain of the "highly educated" who tend to be less attracted to far-right ideals and yet are often generally more prosperous than most shop keepers and similar and some even work in similar business structures (such as Architects with their own Studios or Lawyers with their own small Legal Practices) hence would count a that kind of petit burgeouisie.
I would say that it's a mix of what you point out (so people's petit burgeouis status or, as I would put it: "people who have just enough material wealth to think they're wealthy but without the education and worldliness to understand that they're nowhere close to real wealth"), certain character traits such as one's level of Empathy and Self-awareness, one's breadth of life experience (not in term of years but of how many different things one has done and seen and kinds of people one has met, which would explain why city people are less likely be attracted to the far-right that more provincial types) and one's style of thinking and practice with things like analysing real world situations and trying to solve real world problems (which would partly explain the effect of Education, the other part falling into breath of experience, specifically in the form of how much information one has the tools to understand).
This is without even going into the environment one grew up in and lives in: sometimes that kind of thinking is so widespread in one's family and were one lives that showing the social cues of far-right belief and even believing it is a natural element of fitting in if only for one's own protection, similarly to how people tend to be religious when coming from a religious family and living in a religious community.
It isn't an iron-clad rule, but a tendency. Individuals vary, groups act on aggregates.
This is why the Left always loses.
The Right puts forward a Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump. They give great speeches and stir up people's emotions. The Left tells people to read a book.
People still talk about Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg because then understood this; they stirred the people up and got them excited.
Instead of suggesting a book, why don't you try naming an actual candidate that people can vote for? We're going to have the 2026 election a lot sooner than we're going to have a Socialist uprising.
Bernie was the candidate to vote for, and look what happened
Bernie would not have established Socialism either. Even if the DNC was in lock-step with Bernie, Bernie would have established a Social Democracy. Far better for the American people, but it would be a temporary solution just like FDR's Social Democracy eroded over time.
just like FDR's Social Democracy eroded over time.
Unlike Lenin's communism which was immune to capitalist propaganda and still exists today.
I can explain what went right and what went wrong with the USSR, including the events leading to its dissolution and their material basis and what would be similar and what would be different if the US went Socialist, if you want, but the short response is that the Material Conditions of 2024 US Empire are fundamentally and entirely different to 1917 Tsarist Russia, and to compare them 1 to 1 is false.
Bernie was super popular among young voters who were too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote for him.
This is just my personal experience, but I think it reflects a larger issue. Younger people were not 'too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote'; they wanted to support the party that they felt aligned most with their values, only to be ignored and betrayed in favor of the DNC's neoliberal matriarch.
Back in 2016, a group of us, mostly young people, caucused for Bernie Sanders. We had a strong turnout, with more people in our group than for any other candidate. The next largest group was for Hillary Clinton.
The people running the caucus seemed to have their own agenda. They told those supporting other candidates that their choice was "nonviable" and that they needed to switch to a "viable" candidate. Then, they physically ushered them to stand with the Hillary group while they [the staffers] "figured things out". Many of the attendees were first-time caucus-goers, so they didn't know any better and assumed the staffers were just being helpful by directing them.
For those of us who had caucused before, it was clear what was happening: the staffers were trying to inflate Hillary’s numbers. When we tried to speak up, we were told not to interfere or risk being removed.
It was obvious to us that the DNC was working against Bernie, ensuring the nomination went to their chosen candidate. Even Trump acknowledged that Bernie would have been a tougher opponent to run against.
There are plenty of reasons young voters don't vote as often beyond laziness. Frequent moving, inexperience with the process, lack of knowledge of when primaries happen, ignored by campaigns because they don't have a history of voting, etc.
But yeah let's just call the kids lazy. I bet they should get off your lawn and stop smoking pot, too.
What happened?
The Left failed to get out and support him 100%. Pete Buttigieg, Warren, and a dozen other candidates split the vote and the regular Dem establishment got the most middle of the road candidate they could.
Which gets back to my original point. Instead of sitting around reading books and arguing about the Third International the Left should be a machine that can get people elected.
The book is supplementary to the comment, I explained the big picture in my comment. Blackshirts and Reds isn't a call to action or an explanation of what to do, but an examination of fascism and Communism, who they served historically, and the material basis for them.
Voting for Harris won't stop fascism, because it won't stop Capitalist decay. You can even see her trying to appeal to small business owners, attempting to "turn the clock back," in her own campaign. Neither will voting for Claudia De La Crúz, PSL's candidate, nor will Stein, and obviously nor will Trump.
Electoralism cannot solve the conditions giving rise to fascism.
The answer is to join revolutionary orgs like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) or Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). Only through organization outside the electoral system does the Proletariat have any hope of steering the ship and seizing the reigns.
The Right puts forward a Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump. They give great speeches and stir up people's emotions. The Left tells people to read a book.
The US Empire is far-right, they can field candidates supporting the status quo in both the DNC and GOP. Liberalism is the status quo, taught from birth. Leftism requires reading, because they don't teach it in school, they censor leftism and shun it. It's a struggle, yes, but it's a winnable one.
Thanks for proving my point.
I ask for one simple thing; a candidate that I can support. You couldn't do that one tiny thing.
Why don't you try actually listening to what people want instead of telling them what they should do?
If electoralism will not establish Socialism, what is the point of recommending a candidate? The best candidate you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, but she can't get 270 votes to win, because she isn't on enough state's ballots. Stein will not establish Socialism, she's a Social Democrat, and Harris is firmly right-wing. Trump is Trump, obviously he isn't the answer either.
Your desire for a simple "vote for this person and everything will be alright" does not exist.
The thing is there is nothing actionable at all in that rhetoric. There's a lot of Marxist jargon and a lament that voting can never work, but the only guidance is "establish socialism" with no suggested actionable moves because we can't just wave a wand and make that the case. If you can't envision and recommend a democratic strategy to get there, you aren't going to get anywhere near your objectives.
The answer is to join revolutionary orgs like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) or Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). Only through organization outside the electoral system does the Proletariat have any hope of steering the ship and seizing the reigns.
There is no electoral strategy to get to Socialism because it's nearly impossible, just like asking the board of directors to hand the reigns of the company to you.
You advocate for letting others chose the government while just sitting out and protesting and hoping the people formally being given power by the voting system you say not to meaningfully participate in would heed those protests?
Or are you saying that such groups shall go beyond their stated methods and go to violent revolution, in which scenario I'd ask for a single example of "socialism" achieved through such ends that didn't install a pretty terrible authitarian regime that merely took advantage of social unrest to seize power?
I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.
As for Socialism's historical record, I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds. Cuba, China, Russia, etc. all dramatically improved conditions for the people following revolution as compared to the fascist slaver Batista regime, the nationalist Kuomintang regime, and the brutal Tsarist regime.
I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.
That smells of voter suppression, like you are trying to talk people out of even trying to exercise their voice in the political system. The refusal to specifically spell out which described path you advocate for suggests you want violent insurrection, which is absurd, either doomed to be outgunned or doomed to be exploited by leaders with ulterior motives. If you can't get the votes to your position, then things are going to be very bad if you try to get your way.
None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees. The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix. China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors. While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.
I specifically spelled out my call to action earlier in this very comment chain. Organizing with leftist parties like PSL and FRSO, revolutionary parties. Revolution is necessary, electoralism cannot work.
None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees.
Most of these refugees were historically land owning slavers, fascists, and Capitalists.
The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix.
Communism fixed a great deal of problems with Russia, why do you believe the USSR was dissolved?
China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors.
The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China’s economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.
While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.
Why are you comparing developing countries to the current Imperialist hegemon? Do you think if you adopt Socialism, everything is magically fixed overnight? Have I ever implied that?
A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.
The answer is to join revolutionary org
Why? When is the revolution going to happen? Where and when are we supposed to gather?
I already answered the why. The where and when depends on organization, right now orgs aren't as strong as they need to be, hence the importance of joining. The where is wherever your local org gathers, the when is whenever they meet and based on what they need you to do.
These organizations have been around for decades, yes? Seems like there's never going to be a when.
That's the same logic as saying there's never going to be a cure for cancer because research has been done for decades.
As Capitalism gets older, it trends towards monopolization, increasingly complex production methods take increasing amounts of investment to compete, killing the ability of smaller competitors to exist. The Rate of Profit shrinks the less human labor is involved with production, which is only temporarily countered by consolidation, even further monopolization! Wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, Capitalism reaches a moribund stage.
What is undeniable is that this disparity is increasing further and further, and monopolization is increasing further and further. The revolutionary potential of the Proletariat is held at bay through further exploitation of the Global South, which appears to be weakening over time.
While nobody can name a date, I find it even harder to believe that someone could meaningfully believe that the trends I listed are going to reverse themselves and have Capitalism last forever.
You keep on proving my point.
De La Cruz is unknown to 99.999% of the voters.
AOC, a NY Congress member is known to almost all voters. Everyone has heard of the Squad.
I've watched Socialists/Communists talk about the revolution since I was in middle school, and it's always "just around the corner."
Like I said, why not try to get some people elected in the next cycle?
Because electoralism cannot establish Socialism. The Squad are not Socialists, they are Social Democrats. The only Socialist you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, and she cannot win because she cannot get 270 votes.
I am not "proving your point," it is physically impossible to do what you're suggesting.
Guess what? 99.9% of the people in the country would be happy with having FDR's New Deal back in place.
Again, you prove my point. You'd rather dream about an ideal Socialist state then work to make things better right now.
They aren't dreaming, they laid out very clearly what they believe and how they believe it can be achieved.
You just keep saying "I'm rubber, you're glue".
What's your actual point? That you think the person you are replying to is stupid? That would say more about you than them in my opinion.
how they believe it can be achieved.
that's the part I'm missing.
Like I said, I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Meanwhile there are more billionaires every day, and they are getting more entrenched.
If there's an actual workable plan I've yet to see it.
I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Because we're still in a period of decay.
There's a reason why AES projects are mostly started in underdeveloped regions: once capitalism is established as the dominant system, it is impossible to escape it through democratic means. Capital has captured the democratic process, and it won't allow for its own destruction
If revolution doesn't happen, America will eventually fall to fascism or collapse under its own late-stage capitalism completely. Doesn't matter if you find it impractical, that's just what the analysis points to.
You can suggest your own analysis if you disagree with ours.
And yet Bernie, promising FDR style reform, did not get elected, nor would that stop fascism, just delay it. I am telling you that the way forward requires revolution. This isn't because of an "ideal," but because mechanically it is the only way forward.
Take your own advice chump
What a smart way to build a powerful alliance.
Attack someone who posts anything critical instead of even trying to engage.
Do you ever look in a mirror?
Take your own advice chump
If you think that's a terrible attack, blame Mellow Yella 13, who I was responding to.
Instead of suggesting a book, why don't you try naming an actual candidate that people can vote for?
$16 billion was spent on the political campaigns of the 2020 election. $16 billion! Roughly $8 billion per party. The deeply uncomfortable truth is that the oligarch class has nearly full control over which candidates have the funds necessary to have any chance at winning an election. There are rare exceptions, sure, but most candidates are either oligarchs themselves like Trump or Bloomberg, or they have sold out completely to other oligarchs (like JD Vance belonging to Peter Thiel)
It's what this person does. Check their post history and you will see how often they flog that specific piece of literature.
I recommend many. Blackshirts is just the most relevant both for understanding fascism and contextualizing AES, as well as being more accessible than Marxist texts. I encourage liberals and left-leaning people to read theory constantly. Heck, here's an "intro to Marxism reading list" I commented earlier today that another user requested I make.
Thanks, but I'll just disengage.
It's sad but true that the Right falls in line while the Left waits to fall in love.
The evidence doesn't support that claim. Libertarian candidates for President get more votes than leftist candidates, by far. Compare the leftish Democrats coalescing around Biden in 2020, and Harris this year, to the Republican politicians who get "primaried," and the prevalence of RINO vs. DINO accusations. Look at the votes in the House to select Jeffries vs. Johnson.
It's an old political truism.
Not a presented as a scientific fact.
The Left beat Donald Trump. Even when Trump and his toadies cheated and staged a coup the Left beat his ass.
The Left has skins on the wall. Don't fucking forget it.
The Left beat Donald Trump.
Well, everyone to the left of fascism beat Trump. Biden, like all liberals / capitalists, are on the right as they always end up prioritizing profits before people.