Martyred Black Panther, George Jackson told us long ago that fascism has been the de facto political state of the US for some time. Today we can clearly see that both Trump and Biden are, quite simply, fascists.
The F-word – fascism – is often used to describe political moments in the past, or a political moment just beyond the current historical horizon. It describes Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, or Trujillo – or it is attached to the second coming of Donald Trump, a figure who has carefully (and successfully) cultivated his persona as an authoritarian strong-man, and who was once called the “American Hitler” by his own vice presidential candidate, the neoliberal, neo-confederate tech-honky J.D. Vance.
Yet we do not need to look to the past, or beyond the horizon, to find fascism. Fascism is currently being nurtured by Joe Biden, the doddering but cynically ruthless politician who has enabled a genocide, said nothing as protests and dissent against that genocide are brutally crushed, and overseen the expansion of corporate power and wealth, while the rest of us face an ever-tightening economic and political squeeze.
Fascism is not beyond the horizon. Fascism is here. We have only been unable to name its existence because we have long been narcotized by the ideological vapors released by a corporate-controlled media, an underfunded system of education, and our own spiritual beliefs in the myths of “democracy,” the “free market,” and the “individual.”
Above all, we have lacked the correct analysis of fascism – and we have lacked the correct analysis of combating fascism.
Which is why we are grateful for the words of George Jackson. Jackson argues that three hundred years of capitalism initiated fascism and the more recent rise of monopoly capitalism led us to the current moment of its particular articulation in “corporativism.” “I'd like to emphasize,” Jackson said, “that fascism right from the beginning – and when I say beginning, I'm going all the way back to the point where monopoly capital first started its formation – the culmination of monopoly capital was the fascist corporative.”
Before his assassination by San Quentin prison guards on August 21, 1971, Jackson made a tape-recording outlining his understanding of fascism.The recording was played at Jackson’s memorial services and printed in the Black Panther Intercommunal News Service. It is a stunning document whose resonances for the present are harrowing. Jackson not only describes the uses of both co-optation and violence as strategies of fascist repression, but he allows us to understand the malleable, changing, circumstantial, and conjunctural forms fascism assumes. While its constants remain the same, it also changes shape according to, and in response to, time and place.
We can understand, then, that despite outward appearances and slight differences of rhetoric, both Trump and Biden are, quite simply, fascists, and facism has been the de facto political state of the United States (and the white west) for some time. As the corporate crooks quickly lined up behind Trump’s presidency in the wake of the assassination attempt against him, we must recognize that we are at the stage, as Jackson stated, “wherein fascism is a secured thing, corporativism.” “Can anyone look around the United States and say that this is not a corporative state?” he asked.
It is depressing –and certainly, much of the world is hurtling towards a terrible and unknown place, far worse than many of us can imagine. But Jackson leaves us with, if not hope, at least possibility– the possibility of resistance in many forms, the possibility of the reconstitution of the people’s world after this world, after this world of corporations and police and co-option and repression is completely destroyed and formed anew. Please read George Jackson’s words below.
Analyzing the Correct Method in Combating American Fascism
George Jackson
The co-optation thing is a mechanism of the American brand of fascism. We have to understand that first. In essence, how it works is that each group, each social unit, larger than two, the powers-that-be will approach the element that’s guiding that social unit, and attempt in some way – and we’ll get possibilities, there are a thousand ways of approaching: playing on loyalties; or, let’s say, the money thing, the money syndrome, we’ve had that trained into us from infancy; or they’ll attempt to show us the futility of our actions; and then perhaps, if that doesn’t work, they’ll explain to us how actually our goals are the same as theirs and that they’re not such bad guys after all. But it worked. It’s worked in the past. You’ve heard the stories, the tales about white America and the establishment being able to deal with Black nationalists. Well they have been. They’ve built foundations, you know, the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and so forth. They bought them off. How do we stop those things from happening? As far as I’m concerned our dialectic, our intentions, our goals are so mutually exclusive to those of our opposition, that I can’t see anywhere we can find anything to agree on. And, we have to stop it right from the beginning. In other words, no acceptance of tokens, none whatsoever, in the building of the People’s world. We do it on our own. We do it with our own facilities. And to say that we can’t do it, to say that we don’t have the personnel, that we don’t have the financial means is just like saying that producers can’t produce, that breadmarkes can’t make bread. We don’t need them. That’s the whole point. So we stop them by barring them completely from our program.
We can’t limit ourselves to anyone particular form of struggle; but I’m saying that the people who are given the responsibility of deciding which facilities that we’ll take and use for our own, for the building of the infrastructure, for our own, I think that these people should use extreme caution and always bear in mind that the underlying motive is tokenism, and at all times be– cynical. Take, yes; but, take it in the spirit of reparations, and reparations only.
We have a very, very, very touchy fundamental problem; and, I think it begins with the ideal – I don’t think we fully understand the period or stage that we’re in right now, the stage of struggle that we’re in right now. The ideal situation, where each man can be a man, can be an individual – and I don’t mean in the existentialist sense – where each man can be truly free, to make decisions on his own. Make decisions on his own, and from his own mind. We haven’t reached that point yet and it might be 2,000 years before we reach that point. Right now, at the present, to think that that thing is possible is verging on anarchy. And I seriously feel that the problem lies in the fact that we don't understand what Democratic Centralism means, and its function and its power, and its power to all of our movement. I really, seriously don't believe that anything can be accomplished without Democratic Centralism at this stage, because we've inherited things from thousands and thousands of years ago into our character, into our beings. In particular, we've inherited things over the last 300 years of capitalism and over the last few decades of fascism, corporativism. We've inherited things that disallow us from, let's say, egalitarian conduct. I think we have to recognize that, and understand that our movement has to be carried by, guided by disciplined and sincere, but organized, Democratic Centralism.
Power, in its essence, has a growth process, just like everything else. If we snatch that thing up out of its process and look at it as it WAS, we're looking at a thing that's dead. It's a thing in process, just like everything else. It goes through a state of infancy, maturity and then, of course, decline. The prestige of power at its maturity is a thing that will prevent people from acting against that power. This pig is a psychological thing, a state of being wherein the bourgeoisie reign of terror need not rely on violence to sustain itself. It's relying on something that happened in the past, or some accomplishment, or some, let's say, coup, that went down in the past, where it secured itself. And it's drifting at this point, the prestige of power means that it's drifting at this paint and living off its laurels. At this stage, people just are not inclined to attack that power. So, consequently, our first attack is on the prestige of power. That was Jonathan's job, to destroy the prestige of power, the iconoclastic act of crushing symbols. Once these symbols are crushed, and people see that they are vulnerable, then we can move on to the actual destruction of the basis of power. Because power, after, after the destruction of the prestige of power, power will be forced to revert back to its original force, raw brute force–violence.
First of all, I’d like to clear up a couple of points in that area that have come up, criticisms of my particular analysis of fascism. First, I would like to state unequivocally that complete totalitarianism, the perfect totalitarian state is impossible. We've had 6,000 years of hierarchy; we've had 6,000 years of attempts, of men making attempts to Place themselves above society. It's never worked; it's never worked. So, in essence, pure fascism, pure totalitarianism is impossible, first of all. Then I'd like to emphasize that fascism right from the beginning–and when I say beginning, I'm going all the way back to the point where monopoly capital first started its formation--the culmination of monopoly capital was the fascist corporative. And it took different forms in different countries; and those different forms were principally accountable to the differing national situations, the differing crises that the particular nations were facing; and, of course, the difference in time and place in history. And they each took a different form. In Spain, Francoism and the Spanish new state, that was one form; Italian fascism, that was one form; the Rumanian armed guard, that was one form; then, of course, the national socialism of Germany, that was another form altogether; Peronism, that was another form -that has to be examined very carefully, because there were several asides that altered it from thL other forms that swept Europe. The principal difference between Peronism and the thing that Vargas pulled off in Brazil is that though both those countries were under the influence, the sphere of influence of the United States, and, in effect, they were really neo-colonies and had been ever since the Monroe Doctrine –actually their (Argentina's Peronism) particular brand of fascism was in a way (this a very abstract and complicated question)--this particular form tended to mirror the same thing that went down here in this country. Peron disguised his particular fascism almost, as a benefit to the workers. I mean and disguised it more so than the thing in Germany. The thing in Germany was outright slavery. It was like, as far as I'm concerned, my reading of history, it looked like almost a reversion to the slave state. Whereas Peron was shrewd enough to try to keep a balance–a real balance, no, real, but, let's say, a superficial balance–between the working class and the ruling class-which is just about what happened here in this country -and paralleled a brand, the particular brand of corporative fascism here in this country.
Important in the understanding of fascism, I believe, is not to confuse the different dimensions of the movement. And, we firstly concede that it is a movement, a thing, like I said, at the opening of monopoly capital. First it's obvious that once monopoly capital started forming, old bourgeois democracy began to die, in process. As monopoly capital took over political rule, the political rule of, let's term it, bourgeoisie democracy started diminishing. And at the end of that process, like I said, the culmination of that process, was almost total centralization. So it's not a question of coup, it's not a question of a certain uprising of a small political economic ascendancy destroying the old bourgeoisie, democratic rule – that rule was being destroyed in process right from the inception of monopoly capital. From there I think it’s important to understand that the men who assimilated themselves are fascists, the fascist man, who assimilated himself upon the society, the character who pictured himself or projected himself as being eventually that cat mechanating at the center and above society, he knew all along what he was doing. In the first stage, the first dimension, he emphasized the decadence of laissez-faire capitalism; he emphasized the decadence, I suppose, the death of bourgeois democracy. He emphasized that. And some of those statements that were made prior to fascist takeover, prior to the fascist sweep in Europe, some of those statements can almost be considered anti-capitalist statements.
Now, that’s the first face, the first dimension right there. The second dimension would come after they’ve seized power, but were yet insecure. That’s the spectacular stage that we see on T.V., that we see in the movies, where doors are kicked down and people are being machined-gunned, herded off to camps– like here in this country, put in jails– the Communist Party banned, and forced to write into their constitution a statement that went like this, “Anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the United States is subject to expulsion from the Party.” That’s the second, spectacular stage. But the third stage is the stage wherein fascism is a secured thing, corporativism. Can anyone look around the United States and say that this is not a cooperative state? With the old guard, the point they attempt to use to persuade us that fascism is not a mature fascism in this country yet is a very simplistic idea, that FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) and the New Deal and the thing during the war were actually an attempt to create a welfare state. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Can you believe the United States would today encompass a welfare state. Nothing could be more ridiculous. FDR was a fascist. Roosevelt was a fascist. And the thing that went down during the thirties and forties was not just similar, but it was exactly the same thing with national differences, national differences, it was the same thing that went down in Italy, Rumania, Spain, Germany, or Argentina, Brazil. It’s the same thing. They first attempt to close the economy and use the surplus capital of accumulation to work out problems that should have been worked out long ago right here in the United States. And that’s the essence of the whole closed economy idea. Expansion, at that point, wasn’t working any more; it wasn’t possible because the various Western nations, or advanced industrial states, had expanded to the point where expansion was no longer possible. So they closed their economy and started such projects as the electrification of a railroad in Italy, remember; and the draining of marshes, remember. And then (of course, you don’t remember, but you’ve read about it), in Germany, rearmament was the thing. In the United States, we had T.V.A. (Tennessee Valley Authority)remember – you know, they built the big dam over the Tennessee River and put people to work, make work. They were re-allocating investments, turning them inward, the closed economy idea. And then, the CCC camps, so forth like that, the same type of projects, the same type of economics, stiff regulations on the import-export thing. To be certain that the balance that existed in a particular nation’s favor, the politics and the economics were the same, the exact same, with just slight variations, according to the particular national state of capitalist dilapidation.
Once secure and in power – in the United States that point was reached during the McCarthy era–once secure and in power, it was possible for them to allow some dissent. It was possible then for them to have a C.P. (Communist Party), just so long as that C.P. didn’t have any teeth it was possible, then, for them to allow us to form what appeared to be an opposition party. But, now, to make my point very clear, a real opposition party did come into existence. The BPP, Black Panther Party. What happened? What happened–they reverted back to the second stage, back to the second dimension. They were kicking doors in and killing people. It’s pretty obvious, it's pretty obvious that mature fascism exists in this country and it exists in disguise, and the disguise takes the form of all those idiotic ridiculous statements about a welfare state. If anybody with any intelligence at all can look at the United States and come up with a conclusion that this is a welfare state or any semblance of a welfare state, it’s pure chicanery, an evasion of fact, dereliction of duty and in most cases what they’re doing is really cleaning up the fact that they didn’t oppose capitalism, they didn’t oppose hierarchy when they should have opposed them, in the thirties and forties. They didn’t fight them.
You’ve heard of Ho Chi Minh’s line, I think he wrote it while he was in prison, it goes something like this, in part: “When the prison gates blow open, the real dragon will fly out.” You’ve heard that. Panther was a counter-terror. The first act of terror was committed against us. I understand, I’ve read all the arguments about violence being immature, and violence being non-scientific; but of course, I disagree. There is a way of approaching violence, scientifically; and, of course, my position, wherein I accept the existence of a mature fascism in this country, means that in essence I understand that the only way one can, an organization or people can move against fascism is with counter terror. Counter terror. Panther wasn’t a terror. Panther was a counter terror. The first act of terror was created against us. I’d like to suggest that the violence perpetrated against us all–not just the Black community, but the poor, period, people, ordinary man in the street, the ordinary man in society– the violence perpetrated is through the institutions, through the fascist institutions, the corporative institutions that were intended to perpetuate their own existence. The violence that they forced on us in the maintaining of their power and the prestige of their power. There’s one way to combat it– counter violence, counter-terror, when we can, where we can.
On top of all this, we have to consider a couple of very, very important points in allowing these men who mechanate at the center and above society to perpetrate their violence, which is much, much more damaging and much more severe than anything we’ve ever done. And really, we’ve done nothing to deserve the violence; and considering that –we have to consider that also, right –let’s consider that in taking steps, namely arms, whatever, to stop their violence. I sincerely believe, I stand on the principle, on the fact that in stopping them, and stopping them now, rather than stopping them over the next 50 to 75 years, will save more lives, will save more destruction of minds and of property and of innocent people, human potential.
That’s just what happened during World War II. Socialist consciousness was building to the point where it had to be distracted, so they offered foreign war, and it appealed to loyal instinct, patriotic instinct, to divert the people from their real interests. Because, of course, it’s easy to understand that in protecting the state, we’re protecting the right of the people who own and run the state to continue to own and run the state. It comes right down to protecting hierarchy. In the event of violent, people’s war, we’re building an infrastructure, the separating of the people’s world from the government, from the enemy state. If the corprative powers, the fascist powers saw this thing happening, it’s very possible that they would start a war with someone else, and try to appeal to our loyalty instincts. But that will no longer work. Socialist consciousness all around the world has grown now to the point whereas ideas like that are no longer, it's no longer possible to foist ideas like that on people. I believe, I sincerely believe that socialist consciousness around the world has – and in this country, when I say the world I’m including this country too, although they do separate themselves, that includes this country too– I believe the socialist consciousness has grown to the point where we won’t go for it a second time. We can see that right now. I think we have something like 30,000 draft resisters right here in San Francisco. Correct? And there’s nothing the government can do about it. Nothing whatsoever.
The power of the establishment, the power of the hierarchy depends upon us. They can’t do the things that they’re doing without some consent from us, some consent. That consent can be extracted with brutality; it can be extracted with propaganda, brands of agit-prop; it can be extracted through appealing to short-term interests, but I don’t think it will work this time. We have powerful forces working on our side that won’t let it happen again. But to get back to the question of fighting, of resisting, of finally saying no, and meaning it, and getting out in the street, if necessary, if necessary getting out in the streets and turning tanks inside out with our specialized weapons, ones that we can make right in our basements. I say right on. If we have to do that, we’ll do it; we'll stop the streets; we’ll bust the bridges; we can’t uproot all the pigs, we don’t want to – we might want to use them later, after the revolution. We will break down the viaducts and bridges. And, we can stop transportation; we can stop everything, every utility that every city in this country depends upon to maintain order. And as we’re doing that, we can rebuild the people’s world. We can, we will. Che had ideas about the new world, so did Lumumba, so did Jonathan. Huey’s got ideas about the new world. But the pressing problem right now, I believe, is dealing with this one right here. But, in general, what we want, I think, is a world where there won’t be any war.
Well, one other thing. My reading of the revolutionary literature of Che, Giap, Huey, Angela – I like to mention them – and Jonathan – they envision a world where it adds up. Our principal concern, their principal concern, our really principal concern right now is with the living and the present. But we do have ideas of the way things should be; and principal among those ideas is that terrorism from any quarter should be acknowledged; and that as long as we have to have administrators, those administrators should be chosen from the people, should have distinguished themselves in some way for the people. They’re not administering people; they're not administering our lives, really actually what they’re doing is, as far as I’m concerned, they should be administering things – they can see the big picture, as an individual, and make the ideal feasible, so it will hang together. I would say that each one of the positions should be dependant [sic] upon meritorious conduct of duty, and they’d have to be replaceable.
ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE
“Field Marshall George Jackson Analyzes the Correct Method of Combating American,” Fascism,” The Black Panther Intercommunal News Service, 6 no. 2, (4 September 1971).