Editing Liberal Fascism

[[File:Spencer.png|thumb|Richard Spencer represents the most absurd, and perhaps most logical, conclusion of modern liberal-fascism: a rabid elitist hatred for the working class combined with an equally fanatical support for unipolarity. ]]
Liberal Fascism refers to the idea that modern liberalism resembles historical fascism in its essence, even if aesthetically it's different. Libtards think that the essence of fascism is summed up in Umberto Eco's little pamphlet "Ur-Fascism" as a traditionalist, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist, masculinist ideology. This does describe somewhat accurately the ''form'' of historical fascism, but he betrays his libtard idealism by taking these outward characteristics to describe the unchanging essence of some capital-F Fascism without explaining the actual class character of fascism and why it came about historically, which Dimitrov did in 1935:<blockquote>Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International ''as '''the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.'''''

...

Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the ''lumpen-proletariat'' over finance capital. '''Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.'''

'''This, the true character of fascism''', must be particularly stressed because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been dislocated by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real character and its true nature.

...

'''The accession to power of fascism is not an ''ordinary succession'' of one bourgeois government by another, but a ''substitution'' of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship.''' It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to ''underrate'' the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the ''reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic'' countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.<ref>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm</ref></blockquote>Basically, historical fascism arose in the context of post-WW1 mass proletarian uprisings and the establishment of the Soviet Union. Fascism represented a broad coalition of those who opposed both these, thought the bourgeois liberal governments in power were too soft, and that ''only terrorism at home and militarism abroad could curb the tide of communism and uphold capitalism.'' 

In Germany, this coalition contained many elements, like LGBT activists [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Ernst Röhm]], Anglo bankers like Montagu Norman who supported a strong Germany so it could crush the USSR, German industrialists who wanted to rake in profits by remilitarization, revanchists who thought German defeat in WW1 needed to be avenged, petit-bourgeois business owners who feared proletarianization, drug-addicted schizos who thought they could bring some age of spiritual renewal about, and more. They all agreed that the working masses at home needed to be crushed and co-opted and the USSR not be allowed to succeed, or, in the case of many German workers, were duped by Nazi rhetoric into thinking they were supporting real socialism, but were actually furthering these anti-working class goals. 

Today, fascism still exists and it retains the same core content: terrorize the restive working class at home, crush the rising multipolar world order abroad. The hyper-nationalism, racialism, etc. that German and Italian fascism took on have been swapped for anti-American cosmopolitanism, fanatical support for the LGBT movement and other "progressive" causes as means with which to crush the sovereignty of foreign nations, destroy particular cultures, and reenforce unipolarity, rhetoric about "defending democracy" against "populism", and so on. Ultimately the ends are still the same, showing that it's not ''form'' that matters but ''content''. The most reactionary, chauvinistic, imperialist elements of finance capital today proudly display the pride flag, support [[Antifa]] (the modern Brownshirts, who exist solely to terrorize working class MAGA supporters), and support sending another another billion to both Israel and Ukraine.

Failure to understand that ''this'' is the essence of fascism leads to libtards thinking populist figures like Donald Trump are fascists because fascism is "patriotic, masculine conservatism", or something, when in reality they're the polar opposite and represent (even if they don't perfectly embody) the working class revolt and rising multipolar world order. 

[[Lyndon LaRouche]] (who many libtards irrationally consider a fascist) way back in 2003 understood liberal fascism as representing the interests of the parasitic financial oligarchy:<blockquote>The best way to understand the way in which Chicken-hawk captive President Bush's imperial hubris is being expressed today, is to look at the way in which a concert of Anglo-American financier-oligarchical power led by Britain's Montagu Norman, using Norman's asset Hjalmar Schacht, et al., imposed Adolf Hitler's dictatorship on Germany. The "independent central banking" interest, so expressed, put Hitler into power, both to prevent a Franklin Roosevelt-like option in Chancellor von Schleicher's Germany, and to arm Germany for a world war intended to destroy both Germany and Russia.<ref>https://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3011liberal_fascism.html</ref></blockquote>The same term has been used by libertarian-type ideologues to paint American [[Liberal|libtards]] and [[RedLib|redlibs]] as fascists because they're "socialist" and so were the national "socialists" (in reality neither group is/was socialist). These types will also call historical AES "fascist" by the same logic. It's a retarded misunderstanding and not related to the true sense of the term.