By any other name: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, August 2021

I picked up an archaic paper flyer pinned to an obsolete cork board in the now-defunct Market Street branch of FLAX Art Supplies. The handbill advertised a web designer and mobile app developer—Daniel Goodwyn—who offered to teach virtually any platform or software. I wanted to learn social media to prepare for self-publishing my novel 1% Free, so I called. He was cheap. We arranged to meet at Philz Coffee on 24th Street.

“I only drink Philz coffee,” Daniel said.

We met six or seven times at the end of 2015, beginning of 2016. Daniel was an evangelical Christian favorable to fundamentalism, but he wore his religious beliefs close to the vest. He didn’t proselytize. Instead, he would produce his worn King James Bible from his backpack before starting each lesson. I pulled out my Handbook of Denominations by Mead, Hill and Atwood our third meeting and we were off discussing Christianity between social media tutoring. We talked dispensationalism, cessationism, and biblical inerrancy. He’d attended 24/7 worship and prayer events, and would soon do web design for the messianic Jews for Jesus organization.

Donald Trump was beginning his presidential campaign so our conversations weren’t overtly political. Several years later, on September 15, 2020,  Goodwyn was arrested for not wearing a COVID mask riding a Muni bus. On October 17, 2020, he co-sponsored a sparsely attended SF Civic Center far right Free Speech/anti-Big Tech rally with fellow self-proclaimed Proud Boy Philip Anderson. A much larger riotous antifa protest crowd attacked the ersatz Proud Boys and shut down their rally. On January 2, 2021, Goodwyn refused to mask up, leave, or identify himself at a Wyoming gas station and was arrested by local authorities. Finally, on January 6, 2021, he attended the “Stop The Steal” Trump rally and stormed the Capitol building, for which he was indicted by the FBI on January 15 and arrested on January 29, 2021. He was pictured proudly wearing his red MAGA hat to both the Civic Center and Capitol building riots.

I was appalled reading Goodwyn’s story in the SF Chronicle. And not just because of how quickly he went from relative normality to the fascist fringes, but because of how a significant portion of the country went along with him. It’s one thing to wholeheartedly buy into a mythology—reincarnating some imagined Davidic order of ancient Hebrew worship as primitive Christianity versus contesting the nonexistent voting irregularities and fantasy fraud of a supposedly “stolen election.” But when is belief in virgin birth considered normal and belief that COVID is a hoax considered extreme? It’s a distinction without much of a difference. Why debate your location once you’re already in cloud cuckoo land?

There are fascist forms of Christianity: Christian nationalism, Dominionism, Christian Identity. But Goodwyn’s mainstream Christian beliefs—like most religion—are fantasy, not fascism. I’m not interested in distinguishing between spirituality and religion so much as in keeping the two at arms length. I’ve dabbled in both but I consider them interconnected, subjective, and personal in contrast to my more objective historical, scientific, and materialist mindset. I’ve always had religious/spiritual tendencies, experiences, and affiliations; sometimes central and other times peripheral. I was a Sunday school Catholic raised by parents who wanted me to receive the first four sacraments but also enrolled me in public schools. I hung out with liberal Unitarian ministers, Quaker draft counselors, itinerant Catholic Workers, and committed Liberation Theology advocates in high school during the anti-Vietnam War movement. And I was religious-adjacent to all the crap New Age spirituality for which my generation can be blamed.

During my first semester at Ventura College in 1970 I fell in with the Campus Crusade for Christ crowd and became a born-again Christian for five months. My first mystical experiences were spiritual not psychedelic. But I was a far left Christian anarchist who held up the example of the anti-war civil disobedience of the Berrigan brothers and waved about David Kirk’s little red book Quotations From Chairman Jesus, to the distress of my fellow Christians. I’d calligraphied two slogans on the glove compartment door of my 1958 VW Beetle to summarize my worldview at the time: “He is risen” and “peace, love and smash the state.” “Forget the politics,” an exasperated friend once snarled, “just read your Bible.” I lapsed into agnosticism, if not outright atheism, soon thereafter. Or as I quipped at the time: I gave up Catholicism for Lent and saw the light when I smoked marijuana. My involvement with Zen Buddhism through my alcoholic recovery practice beginning in 2010 meant simultaneously reviving my spirituality and reinforcing my atheism. After all, Zen Buddhism is the closest thing you can get to atheism and remain religious.

Similarly, the often-contradictory beliefs of the right-wing MAGA milieu—distrust of powerful “liberal” elites, COVID as hoax or Chinese bioweapon, vaccines as ruse or social control mechanism, Democrats “stealing” the election from Trump, etc—are certainly delusional but not explicitly fascist. The worldview that a shadowy cabal secretly controls things undergirds both QAnon’s outright idiocy of a secret sect of devil-worshipping pedophiles who dominate Hollywood, big business, the media, and government and more traditional fascist/Nazi/white supremacist antisemitic tropes like the canard that the Jews run the world. Fascism had been building during the four years of Trump’s presidency with the increasing radicalization of right-wing MAGA populism; the mobilization of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, III Percenters, QAnon; and the sense of Weimar deja vu. It’s a wonder those yahoos proudly selfied their own comically failed Keystone Kops insurrection on January 6, 2021.

Spencer Sunshine addresses the hardcore threat posed by the rise of overtly fascist/neo-Nazi/white supremacist tendencies and groups:
We see how they make other right-wing movements more extreme, how they take over cultural and religious milieus, as well as organize in geographical communities—and of course see (and are often subjected to) the violence that inevitably follows. Of course, we do also worry that they will expand into a significant political force, although this has been a rare phenomenon in the United States. It is these movements directly in front of us that are our main concern, not the looming fear that a Nazi administration will be in power in the near future.
But how to think about all the ordinary conservatives apparently going along for the ride? They seem hellbent on asserting their precious individualism while practicing an insipid herd behavior.

Personally, I was stunned I’d gotten to know one of the default ultra-right players in this drama. I’d set up my Facebook account under his tutelage so he was my “friend zero.” He stayed off my posts until this last year when he made a couple of loose comments here and there. Then January 6 happened and he dropped off most social media. At 32, Goodwyn has left behind his so-called “impetuous youth.” “He’s very principled but not always over the right things,” his father told the judge presiding over his case. I’m tempted to offer him the same advice I got back when I was 18 to “forget the politics, just read your Bible.” But I guess the feeling of having god on your side is pretty overwhelming.

I’m also tempted to call Goodwyn what I’ve been called as part of the Left for a half century—a fellow traveler. What else to make of a semi-normie evangelical Christian who willingly bought into the reactionary, meta-fascist MAGA narrative and wholeheartedly participated in the January 6 quasi-putschist assault on the US Capitol building? I’ve been on the left of the Left for over 50 years—first as a left anarchist and then as a left communist. As a libertarian socialist/Marxist I disdained social democrats and denigrated Leninists: disagreeing, arguing, and fighting with them while organizing, demonstrating, and protesting with them around so many causes. I’ve been called a pinko, fellow traveler, and useful idiot by folks on the right. So it’s nice to claim turnabout is fair play labelling useful idiots like Daniel Goodwyn with what Nazi Party sympathizers were called—Mitläufer or “tag-along.” The American occupiers of West Germany had a five-tiered hierarchy in their denazification program after the defeat of Hitler, with Mitläufer the most controversial category. Above Entlastete (exonerated) and below Minderbelastete (minor offenders), Mitläufer were loosely defined indirect supporters of Nazi war crimes not directly implicated in any formal Nazi criminal activity.

Technically, Goodwyn is Minderbelastete with his co-sponsorship of the San Francisco riot and participation in the Capitol riot. But the US government has a long, sorry history of accommodating right-wing extremism, from aborting Reconstruction in restoring the defeated Confederacy to the Union to the superficial denazification of Germany and Austria after WWII.(1) With Trump and his minions still at large, there will be no foreseeable de-Trumpification of America. Sympathizer, ally, collaborator—at what point does it cease to matter? Daniel Goodwyn is indicted on several conspiracy-related Federal charges and his saga remains Great Dictator Chaplinesque.(2) I expect he will be handled with kid gloves.(3)

SOURCES:
Personal recollections
“Statement of Facts, re: Daniel Goodwyn,” Case: 1:21-mj00063, filed 1-15-2021
“Feds Track Down Bearded Proud Boy Seen Smashing Capitol Windows With Police Shield” by Adam Rawnsley and Pilar Melendez (Daily Beast, 1-15-2021)
“SF Proud Boy the Latest Charged by FBI for Storming the Capitol” by Joe Kukura (SFist, 1-15-2021)
“S.F. man, a self-proclaimed Proud Boy, charged by FBI in Capitol riot” by Trisha Thadani (San Francisco Chronicle, 1-16-2021)
“SF web developer, allegedly seen on Baked Alaska’s livestream, charged in Capitol riot” by Katie Dowd (SFGATE, 1-17-2021)
“Web designer who allegedly stormed Capitol refused to wear mask after arrest, feds say” by Kevin Krause (Dallas Morning News, 2-12-2021)
“United States of America v. Daniel Goodwyn,” Case 1:21-cr-00153-RBW, filed 7-28-2021
“FBI says Capitol riot suspect tried to chew through his mask after agents made him put it on during arrest” by Natalie Musumeci, Madison Hall and Michelle Mark (Insider, 7-29-2021)
“Unfinished Thoughts on Fascism #2: Real Existing Fascism in the United States” by Spencer Sunshine (unpublished, Patreon only, 7-5-2021)

FOOTNOTE 1:
The exception was the 1775-83 American Revolutionary War. More Loyalist colonials were forced into exile—mainly to Canada—than were Royalists exiled during the 1789 French Revolution.FOOTNOTE 2:
Daniel Goodwyn, a “self-proclaimed” Proud Boy, was charged Friday with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricting building without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

According to a criminal complaint, Anthime Gionet, a far-right social media personality who goes by the name “Baked Alaska,” called out Goodwyn’s full name while live-streaming the riot.

Goodwyn then asked Baked Alaska to stop “doxxing” him and stated Gionet’s full name. As a Capitol Police officer tried to usher Goodwyn out of the building, he called the cop an “oathbreaker” and yelled for people to get the officer’s badge number, the complaint states.

Gionet also referred to Goodwyn in the live-stream as “SFThoughtCriminal,” the name of a far-right Telegram account popular with members of the Proud Boys.

Goodwyn was later identified when an associate contacted the FBI. He messaged the associate on Instagram while still inside the Capitol, saying, “Tell your dad if he doesn’t want his guns I can find some folks who will.”

Later, Goodwyn wrote on Instagram, “I didn’t break or take anything but I went inside for a couple of minutes.” (from the Daily Beast, 1-15-2021)

FOOTNOTE 3:
Daniel Goodwyn calls himself a citizen journalist and this claim will likely be his main defense in challenging the Federal charges brought against him. I have long supported the alternative media that arose beginning in the 1960s which in turn gave birth to citizen journalism. Also known as participatory, democratic, guerrilla, or street journalism, this type of reporting is proudly opinionated, subjective, activist, and embedded in the communities it covers. But the right to take pictures and record videos in public and then blog about it afterwards doesn’t mean you’re not also a fascist fellow traveler or wannabe who can be arrested and convicted or sued and bankrupted or doxxed and taken down for your sketchy behavior. Whether or not I agree there’s such a thing as objective journalism as claimed by the mainstream media, I consider Daniel Goodwyn and his ilk (James O’Keefe, Andy Ngô, et al) at best as selfie journalists who make themselves the story and take great pleasure in streaming themselves doing so. At worst they work hand-in-glove with the far right, tailoring their activities and messages as propagandists for if not outright members of the right-wing groups they purport to report on.

Buy my book, 1% Free, here.

Alternate socialism: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, July 2021

I received a letter yesterday from my leftist penpal via the Multiverse Postal Service. We’ve been discussing the origins of the Cold War in our respective parallel universes. I quote from his lengthy missive below:

We both agree that the similar contours of our side-by-side worlds were consolidated after the disastrous Afghan war. But we each have differing timelines for the historical sequence of events starting from the February 1917 Russian Revolution that produced our present realities in our alternate universes.

On August 30, 1918, a dissident, Cheka-based conspiracy to assassinate Lenin succeeded when a militant Left Social Revolutionary recruited for the purpose, Fanny Kaplan, shot and killed the Bolshevik Party leader. Authority in the Bolshevik Party transferred to the troika of Trotsky, Bukharin, and Tomsky, who reconciled Bolshevik and Menshevik factions into a strengthened Russian Social Democratic Labor Party by early 1919. The death of Lenin—the “Red Beast”—reverberated beyond Soviet Russia. When working-class social revolution erupted across Germany in October, 1918, the right-wing veteran Freikorps counterrevolution suffered from overconfidence. They succeeded in assassinating Spartakist leader Liebknecht in January, 1919. But Luxemburg and Jogiches survived to consolidate Berlin’s communist uprising. They managed to regroup the German Left into a revolutionary Red Front to provide effective leadership for the country’s inchoate workers’ insurrection by the spring of 1919. Their actions moved the ruling Social Democratic government decidedly to the left with the purge of its right wing in the early summer of 1919. Noske’s assassination that August proved the spur for the bloody civil war’s final phase which saw the suppression of the Freikorps by October, 1919, and the establishment of a council communist regime in central Europe.

The formation of a Soviet Germany broke the suffocating, imperialist cordon sanitaire around socialist Russia. Germany helped negotiate and monitor political settlements to the Makhnovist struggle for anarchist self-rule in the Ukraine and the Social Revolutionary-led peasant revolt in the Tambov region. German support for the Workers Group, Democratic Centralists, and Workers Opposition within the RSDLP, as well as for rebellious Kronstadt sailors and Petrograd workers under RSDLP attack, ensured a broad-based socialism for Russia. Right and Left Social Revolutionaries and sundry anarchist alignments rejoined a multi-party revolutionary Soviet government with Trotsky’s RSDLP by late 1920. With German assistance, this more democratic Russian revolution defeated the remaining White counterrevolution at some cost, and established a worker-and-peasant-run, pluralist socialist society by mid-1921. Russia and Germany then established a revolutionary confederation—initially called the Eurasian Socialist Commonwealth or Red Union for short—and pursued working-class intermarium policies regionally.

The Red Union stretched from Germany through Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and across Russia by 1936. Fascism took power in Portugal, France, Italy, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and the Balkans before the fateful Spanish civil war of 1936-1941. The vicious battle that carved up the Iberian Peninsula was prelude to a savage European war from 1942 to 1949. This bloody internecine conflict witnessed Britain and the United States ally with the Fascist Axis powers and Imperial Japan. Ultimately the victorious Red Union scoured Fascism’s remnants—Pétain’s Vichy France, Franco’s northern Spanish Nationalist redoubt, and Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic—from the European continent by 1951.

As Fascism was driven from continental Europe, an apartheid America converted its alliance with Mosley’s United Kingdom and Hirohito’s Japan into a Mutual Defense Agreement. This renewed Axis eventually came to include Argentina, Uganda, Libya, and Myanmar, among other nations. Mao’s anarchist-communist guerrilla armies gained full control of mainland China from Japan by 1951—two years after the United Stated developed an atomic bomb. The libertarian communist Viet Minh defeated Axis forces in 1954, the same year Red Union scientists matched America’s nuclear achievement. Third World socialist liberation struggles continued to spread, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The conflict between the Red Union and the American-led Axis on the Korea peninsula left a divided Korean nation after almost a decade of brutal warfare. Britain attempted to move nuclear missiles to launch sites in Gibraltar, triggering an armed confrontation between massed Red Union and US-UK militaries on September 19, 1960. Britain agreed to remove the missiles and dismantle the missile sites on September 25. Concurrently, Castro’s focoist forces overthrew Batista in Cuba. Following the disastrous American-sponsored May 3, 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, the Red Union began building missile launching sites on the island of Cuba. US reconnaissance flights detected the construction and US President Nixon demanded the withdrawal of the missiles and imposed a naval blockade on Cuba on October 23, 1962. The Red Union agreed to dismantle the missile sites on October 28.

The Red Union and its mutual aid pact COMECON encompassed roughly a fifth of the world’s land surface and a third of its population by 1980. If the moderate social democratic welfare state countries of the Non-Aligned Movement were included, a third of the world and nearly half of its population lived in some form of socialist society. This socialist Second World squared off against a capitalist First World, which dubbed itself the Free World. Third World brush wars raged between the two contending political blocs across three continents. When Shah’s Afghanistan regime was overthrown in 1978 by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution (April Coup) the Red Union made a serious mistake in backing the unrepresentative PDPA with aid and eventually troops. The nearly decade-long civil war that followed resulted in a tense stalemate between the Northern Red Alliance and an Islamist southern Afghanistan that independent observers considered a military and political defeat for the Red Union. This pivotal event led to the rise of political Islam and Islamist regimes across North Africa and the Middle East which were nominally allied with the Axis powers but often played the two competing political blocs against each other.

The end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first witnessed an uneasy détente between the Socialist bloc and the Free World, between the Red Union and the capitalist Axis powers, which continues to the present. Non-state hybrid socialist forms have recently emerged—the EZLN’s “mandar obedeciendo” in Chiapas, the SDF’s democratic confederalism in Rojava, and the OTF’s neo-Ujaama intercommunalism in Central Africa. But genocidal neo-Fascist movements and regimes have also appeared—the Islamic State in Bādiyat Al-Shām and the Khmer Bleue in western Kampuchea.

That’s how struggles between socialism and capitalism played out on my side of the quantum divide.

This alternate history relies on the multiverse physics of Schrödinger and chaos theory’s butterfly effect trope. Thus it’s not a Marxist rendering of how a non-Stalinist Communism might have arisen based on an interplay of contending social forces. I’ve called capitalism the only game in town. Despite all its failings, “real existing socialism” proved to be the most enduring worldwide opposition to capitalism then and since. The fantasy of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism is also intended to contrast with the Communist bloc fashioned by Leninism after 1917. Lenin reformulated Marx’s rough notions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, lessons from the Paris Commune, and lower vs higher stages of communism into a theory of the Commune State, the workers’ state, and the socialist state transitioning into non-state communism central to Bolshevism. Leninism considered the Soviet Union a workers’ state, but with Stalin’s rise to power Trotsky redefined it as a degenerated workers’ state. Mainstream Trotskyists labeled the Warsaw Pact, Cuba, China, et al, deformed workers’ states. Various conventional Trotskyist tendencies as well as anarchist, left communist, and libertarian Marxist currents riffed on Lenin’s own designation of his New Economic Plan as “state capitalism” to classify “real existing socialism” as state capitalist. Other more obscure Trotskyist tendencies came up with the ambiguous concept of bureaucratic collectivism to describe Stalinist regimes. And taking a cue from Otto Rühle some ultraleftists condemned Stalinism as Red Fascism.

The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union from 1989 to 1991 threatened to make the issue of how to characterize the Communist bloc a moot point. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are all that remain of the socialist Second World that once challenged the capitalist Free World for global hegemony. But as the Cold War witticism went, the Free World isn’t free and the Communist bloc isn’t communist. I often regret not having kept every bit of political ephemera I ran across during my life. I remember a faux quiz during the 1970s humorously designed to determine which tendency of the Left one belonged. One of the questions I remember asked: “When did Russia deviate from true socialism?” The multiple choice options included: “(a) 1917; (b) 1921; (c) 1922; (d) 1929; (e) 1956; or (f) it hasn’t yet, but we’ll be the first to denounce it when it happens.”

An in-depth discussion of how to analyze the worldwide political and economic bloc established by Stalin’s rise to power—not to mention whether it is historically accurate to draw a single direct line from Marx through Lenin to Stalin—remains for future columns.

SOURCES:
“Letter to ‘Lefty’ Hooligan” from G. Metesky, MPS postmark: 5-1-2021

 

Buy my book, 1% Free, here.

National-Bolshevism, communism of-by-for fools: “What’s Left?” February 2016, MRR #393

Wir tanzen mit Faschismus
Und roter Anarchie
Eins, zwei, drei, vier
Kammerad, komm tanz mit mir

Laibach, “Tanz Mit Laibach”

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that Laibach has been accused of glorifying fascism in the past to which their response has been: ‘We are fascists as much as Hitler was a painter.’ Which I assume means they are fascists, they’re just very, very bad at it.

John Oliver. “Laibach goes to North Korea,” Last Week Tonight #45 (7/19/15)

It’s been close to a century since Karl Radek popularized the concept of National Bolshevism. It was June of 1923, after the successful workers’ revolution in Russia and a failed one in Germany which ended the first World War. As the Secretary of the Third International—the Communist International or Comintern—Radek hoped to rally support and solidarity among disaffected German rightwing soldiers, veterans and rank-and-file nationalists for the besieged Soviet Union. The goal was to firm up an alliance between the German Reichswehr and the Russian Red Army, irrespective of the interests of their different working classes, and to this end Radek made an infamous speech in the Executive Committee of the Comintern called “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” which was endorsed by both Stalin and Zinoviev. Radek praised Schlageter—a conservative WWI veteran who joined the German paramilitary Freikorps to suppress the German workers’ soviet revolution of 1918-19 and who then was executed for sabotage against the French occupation army of the Ruhr—as a national hero and argued that “[t]he insistence on the nation in Germany is a revolutionary act.”

Long before the present-day red-brown alliances in Russian politics, over a decade before the Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact, Radek’s “Schlageter Line” imposed an opportunistic alliance between para-fascist ex-military types and Germany’s revolutionary leftwing working class via the ever-pliant German Communist Party, the KPD. This was a strategy of National Bolshevism for the KDP and the German working class, ultimately to defend the Soviet Union and further that country’s interest in an alliance with Germany. To seal this pact with the devil, KDP Zentrale shut down the insurrectionary Hamburg Uprising by the district KP Wasserkante on October 22, 1923. Radek and Trotsky quickly defended the decision to stop the insurrection by condemning the uprising as premature. What followed was nearly a decade of on again/off again collaboration between the KDP and the NSDAP in the streets and the Reichstag against the SDP-dominated Weimar Republic.

This attraction to National Bolshevism on Radek’s part came as much from his personal experiences in Moabit prison trying to convert reactionary German nationalists to Bolshevism as from his reading of two renegade Hamburg communists, Laufenberg and Wolffheim, who coined the term National Bolshevism. These national communists promoted the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat in the service of German nationalism, the formation of a German Red Army, and a German-Soviet nationalist-socialist alliance in an all-out war against the US and UK. Sound familiar? Radek’s temporary and purely tactical “Schlageter Line” was part of a shameful history of Soviet and KDP intransigence, sectarianism and double-dealing that ultimately delivered the German working class into the hands of the Nazi Party in power, much as the PCE’s (Spanish Communist Party) machinations and red terror finally betrayed the Spanish proletariat to the clutches of Franco. Radek’s contribution to this debacle was to legitimize, for the first time as an official representative of the Comintern, the synthesis of right and left, ultra-nationalism with revolutionary socialism in Germany, that was the prototype for the obsessions of fascism’s leftwing thereafter.

To be fair, there were plenty of left-leaning German fascists in the 1920s and 30s, both inside the Nazi Party (Röhm, Gregor and Otto Strasser) and outside (van den Bruck, Jünger, Niekisch). And had the concept of National Bolshevism not existed in Germany by 1923, circumstance would have contrived something analogous, mirroring a common argument made about Hitler. But the initial willingness on the part of the Bolsheviks to cultivate National Bolshevism in Germany came to bite the Left on its ass. (Victor Serge said of the Schlageter tactic: “It’s playing with fire—all right let’s play with fire!”) The ideal of a red-brown, Soviet-Nazi, Russian-German alliance has been a goal of leftwing fascism ever since. From the NSDAP breakaway Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists through the ultra-Zionist, anti-imperialist LEHI (Stern Gang) in Mandated Palestine to the left Peronist FAR-Montoneros guerrillas in Argentina’s “Dirty War,” the archetypal synthesis of revolutionary left and right epitomized by National Bolshevism has recurred over and over, much like a periodic, virulent outbreak of herpes. Most recently, the anarcho/ultra milieu has witnessed @ publisher AK Press accuse white South African journalist, writer and AK author Michael Schmidt of being a secret National Anarchist in league with Troy Southgate.

AK Press did its due diligence, thoroughly investigated Schmidt’s background, and determined that the rumors of his involvement in National Anarchism were true despite his outward adherence to an odd-duck anarchist Platformism. So AK stopped publication of his current book, removed his previous books from its inventory, and disseminated its lengthy, damning findings as widely as it could in the anarcho/ultra milieu. Schmidt’s story is that he is an anarchist and a journalist who was engaged in legitimate research of fringe fascist elements, and that every fact dug up by his detractors has another more innocent explanation. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Michael Schmidt is at present a National Anarchist-identified fascist. Now, I really don’t care whether Schmidt infiltrated anarchism with his authentic NA fascist beliefs intact or simply developed his decentralized, tribal white nationalism “organically” over his time in the anarchist movement. The purported synthesis of revolutionary left and right that is at the core of National Bolshevism, National Syndicalism, National Anarchism, National Autonomism, ad nauseam—what this fascist tendency likes to call metapolitics—is a clear enough political signature for folks on the Left and the left of the Left to help screen against infiltration or “entryism,” or even genuine conversion.

Well done.

The issue is not jurisprudence or a fair trial or innocent until proven guilty or incarceration. Libertarians forget that, in promoting voluntary association, they automatically authenticate voluntary disassociation; everything from caveat emptor to outright ostracism. The anarcho/ultra milieu is just that—a milieu—and not a community, so its ability to put social pressure to bear is limited. Nevertheless, the option exists and needs to be exercised.

The initial opportunism and sectarianism that marked Bolshevik Russia’s attempt to set up a German National Bolshevik sock puppet does not account for the ongoing opportunism and parasitism of this fascist tendency’s constant attempts to piggy back onto the Left. But neither does it set up some sort of equivalency between socialism and fascism. This is not an argument either from Hanna Arendt’s sophisticated if misguided thesis in The Origins of Totalitarianism or its dumbed down High School version that, if one travels far enough along the extremes of either political Left or Right one circles back around toward its supposed opposite, and thus that all political extremism is essentially the same. There are plenty of credible differences that make a true distinction between extreme Left and Right—libertarian and totalitarian—which I’ve covered in past columns. Unfortunately, this sophomoric understanding of politics persists, as does its flip side, a kneejerk contrarianism. So, when a mendacious former columnist proclaims on Facebook by analogy to the original American revolution that “This time it’s TWO royal families,” the Bushes and the Clintons, from which we must declare our independence by voting for either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, the sheer knuckle-dragging idiocy is breathtaking. He was never the sharpest tool in the shed, particularly when it’s clear there’s no exaggeration, hyperbole or parody intended in his political analysis, such as it is.

What is involved is a sentiment akin to épater la bourgeoisie, the rebellious, indiscriminate desire to stick it to the establishment, which needs to be critiqued. The post-Romantic Decadents of the fin de siècle were fond of skewering the cultural banality, economic regimentation and political conformity of the stodgy middle-class society of their day. In this they prefigured virtually every rebellious Bohemian youth culture that followed, from the wandervogel to punk rock. Michael “Bommi” Baumann expressed this best in How it all Began/Wie Alles Anfing when he wrote: “You still didn’t feel like part of the left; but everything that was in opposition was good, including the neo-Nazis. […] Fascism as such was in opposition though, and you found pure opposition better than this petit-bourgeois mediocrity. You considered everything good that didn’t agree with it.” Or, as Sean Aaberg of Pork Magazine crudely puts it in protesting what he considers our “increasingly uptight society,” his magazine’s rebellion for its own sake and swastika iconography is “not suitable for squares” and a way of “outing closet totalitarians.”

As for Laibach’s sly lampooning of similar left-right political lunacy, return to the postmodern angst which begins their song “Tanz Mit Laibach” and defines the épater les bourgeois motivating much fascist courting of the Left:

Wir alle sind besessen

Wir alle sind verflucht

Wir alle sind gekreuzigt

Und alle sind kaputt
Von Reiztechnologie

Von Zeitökonomie

Von Qualität das Lebens

Und Kriegsphilosophie

Piling up the corpses: “What’s Left?” July 2015, MRR #386

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Samuel 15: 2-3 (King James Version)

Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?

Adolf Hitler

The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

attributed to Josef Stalin

Last column, I took anarchism to task and concluded that it is ineffectual in practice. Hell, I called anarchism a joke. But what about anarchism’s chief rival on the Left? Time was, Marxist-Leninist one-party totalitarian regimes ruled over a fifth of the world’s land surface, governing around a third of humanity. Communism has fallen on hard times since those dizzying heights in 1985, yet there are still those who would revive Leninism’s lost fortunes, with many more nostalgic for the “good old days” of Stalinist dictatorships. So, let’s delve into one of the more prominent aspects of the Marxist-Leninist Left, that being mass murder.

Talking about mass murder is a tricky business. After all, who’s hands aren’t steeped in blood. Several years ago, France and Turkey exchanged words in a diplomatic row in which the French insisted that Turkey take responsibility for the slaughter of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, with the Turks responding that France had butchered perhaps 1.5 Algerians during the Algerian colonial war from 1954 to 1962. Claims and counterclaims flew back and forth as to who did what, when, and how, and as to whether one incident of mass murder could be compared to the other. What I’m prepared to do is far more foolish, but potentially more interesting, in that I plan to set up a ranking for mass murder, starting with Leninism’s crimes.

A note first on terminology. Mass murder and mass killing are the general words for a host of terms with more specific meanings. Genocide means the elimination of a race, ethnocide of an ethnic group, and classicide of a social class. Democide means the intentional killing of large numbers of unarmed people, and politicide the extermination of people based on their political beliefs or the deliberate destruction of a political movement. Femicide or gynocide refers to the massacre of women, and fratricide of family members killing each other, which is often used as a synonym for civil war. Finally, ecocide refers to the wanton destruction of an ecology or natural environment. All are perpetrated primarily, but not exclusively, by governments. Humans have become so expert at slaughter that there is a need to specify the kind of slaughter.

Now, let’s consider history’s real mass murderers, a variety of totalitarian regimes all from the 20th century. For sources, I will be using Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder by R.J. Rummel, 1992, and The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Laffont, Courtois, Werth, Panné, Paczkowski, Bartosek, Margolin, 1999. And, to further the thesis I’m arguing, I will consistently cite mortality figures in the mid range.

I’ll begin with worldwide Marxist-Leninist communism. Through “bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide,” all Marxist-Leninist regimes since 1917 have butchered around 110 million people. This breaks down for the major players to 62 million for the old USSR, 40 million for China, 2 million for Cambodia, 1.6 million apiece for North Korea and Vietnam, and 1 million for the former Yugoslavia, covering in total eastern Europe and most of the Asian land mass, as well as significant portions of Africa. Count in another 30 million for aggressive wars, civil and guerrilla wars, insurrections and uprisings, and the dimensions of this “red holocaust” are complete.

But wait, this is superseded by the “brown holocaust” perpetrated by Nazi Germany, which murdered outright roughly 20,946,000 people from 1933 to 1945. That includes some 5,291,000 Jews, 258,000 Gypsies, 10,547,000 Slavs, 220,000 homosexuals, 173,500 handicapped Germans, and assorted millions of French, Dutch, Serbs, Slovenes, Czechs, and other European nationals. This was accomplished “[b]y genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, ‘euthanasia,’ starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps.” Add that to the approximately 20 to 30,000,000 slaughtered by the Nazi’s militarily, and that’s a figure of over 40-50 million human beings obliterated in something like 12 years across continental Europe (this excludes all other fascist regimes; Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Hirohito’s Japan, etc.).

To emphasize how the Nazi “brown holocaust” qualitatively surpassed the Communist “red holocaust,” another quote from R.J. Rummel is in order. With respect to mass murder alone: [a]nnually […] the Nazis killed six to seven people out of every hundred in occupied Europe. The odds of a European dying under Nazi occupation were about one in fifteen. […] Moreover, even though the Nazis hardly matched the democide of the Soviets and Communist Chinese […] they proportionally killed more. […] The annual odds of being killed by the Nazis during their occupation were almost two-and-a-half times that of Soviet citizens being slain by their government since 1917; over nine times that for Chinese living in Communist China after 1949. In competition for who can murder proportionally the most human beings, the Japanese militarists come closest. The annual odds of being killed by the Japanese during their occupation of China, Korea, Indonesia, Burma, Indochina, and elsewhere in Asia was one in 101. Given the years and population available to this gang of megamurderers, the Nazis have been the most lethal murderers; and Japanese militarists next deadliest.

Much the same point is made by Paul Preston in his massive tome The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain (2011). Without discounting, downplaying, or apologizing for either the calculated CP-instigated Red Terror or the more spontaneous anarchist-inspired massacres of capitalists and clergy in the Republican zone, Preston contends that around 50,000 Spaniards were slaughtered by Republican forces, as compared to 150,000 Spaniards massacred by Franco’s rebel forces throughout Spain. This lead Preston to conclude that Franco’s atrocities during and after the Civil War amounted to nothing less than a holocaust, “a carefully planned operation to eliminate … ‘those who do not think as we do’,” a mass murder of Spaniards unprecedented in Spanish history.

In contrast, let’s try and calculate this country’s genocidal/democidal burden, an extremely difficult task for several reasons. First, the native Americans. It’s impossible to know how many Indians lived in what would become the territorial US of A prior to colonization, and thus it becomes just as impossible to come up with a number for those outright murdered by colonial and national Americans. Even if we take the maximum figure of 112 million natives residing across both North and South America prior to 1492, only some 6 million remained alive in the western hemisphere by 1650. Upwards of 90% of the native population on this continent died of European diseases introduced unintentionally after 1492, well before the first English colonists set foot in what would become the United States. And this does not account for native Americans killed in military action or massacred by white American settlers. The black population can be calculated with greater precision: about 645,000 Africans were imported as slaves to America, and that population had grown to 4 million by 1860. But figuring how many black American slaves died from outright murder or were worked to an early grave through forced labor, again, is impossible to accomplish with any accuracy. For the sake of argument, I propose using a figure of 1.5 million, which is incredibly high.

Now, let’s assume that every war Americans ever fought, as colonials and nationals, was imperialist in nature. That amounts to some 26 more or less official wars, and well over 200 unofficial interventions, in which around 1,340,000 Americans died, including the 625,000 who perished during the US Civil War. We didn’t get going with our military killing machine until we started targeting Asians (WW2—2 million Japanese; Korea—1 million North Koreans, 500,000 Chinese; Vietnam—1 million Vietnamese). Combining these numbers with other enemy casualties, we come up with around 8 million dead due to American military imperialism. Now, consider the costs of American capitalism, in workplace casualties, workers killed by Pinkertons and police, industrial accidents, overwork, etc., and put that figure at another 1.5 millions, again super inflated. Let’s put America’s overall genocide/democide of 11 million killed over some 400 years across the territorial United States, western Europe, and select regions of the Third World. This is an insanely hyperbolic description of American mass murder. To make the point this column is striving for, let’s double the figures for people of color killed and death by capitalism to 3 million each as a kind of “liberal white male guilt” gratuity, and round the total American genocide figure to an even 15 million slaughtered over 4 centuries over the same area described above. As a budding leftist in the 1960s, I believed that a wildly exaggerated number like 15 million was quite reasonable.

I’m sure I’ve opened myself up to criticism from those pomo Leftists (the anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-classist, anti-ageist, anti-ableist bastard children of the New Left and French philosophy) who would contend that, because I’m white, male, well-educated, and middle class, I passed—I avoided experiencing America’s full genocidal/gynocidal wrath. But when compared to the blood-soaked history of Nazi Germany or Leninist communism, America’s crimes, no matter how much I intentionally exaggerate them, simply cannot compare.

To conclude, Nazi Germany ranks at the top of the list for murdering people, followed closely by the rest of fascism. Leninism worldwide is actually only middling with respect to massacre. And the USA is in a paltry third place.

There are advantages to living in a liberal Western democracy.

(Copy editing by K Raketz.)

Anarchism for Fools: “What’s Left?” April 2014, MRR #371

Part Three: Anarchism of-by-for Fools

What has to be stressed here, regardless of the philosophical foundations of Anarchism, is that National-Anarchism is Anarchism sui generis. An Anarchism of its own kind. We are not answerable to or responsible for the actions of those who also happen to call themselves ‘Anarchists,’ be they contemporary or in the past.

Troy Southgate

When I hear the term sui generis, I reach for my gun. Also, the term “beyond left and right.” Both are attempts to provide a patina of philosophical respectability to the idiocy that is National Anarchism (NA), an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Two columns ago, I discussed the relationship of capitalist libertarianism to historical libertarianism, that is, to old school anarchism. I didn’t require more than a sentence to position anarchism, which referred to itself as social anarchism, within the context of socialism or the Left as a whole. Individualist anarchism, up to and including its current capitalist iteration, is categorical in identifying the various schools of social anarchism as leftist. And that tiny yet shrill tendency calling itself post-left anarchism, first promulgated by Anarchy, A Journal of Desire Armed, acknowledges the leftism of much previous anarchism by defining itself as “post.” That NA describes itself as a unique “category in itself” suits most anarchists just fine, as they would be happy to be completely rid of these poseurs. NA is far from Fascism sui generis, however. In point of fact, NA is Fascism, simple and unadorned and quite generic.

Which brings up the tricky task of defining Fascism proper. The thumbnail description associated with Fascism is that it’s an “anti-liberal, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist revolutionary ultra-nationalist ideology, social movement and regime.” This tweet-length one-liner is woefully insufficient for most academics interested in researching the nature of Fascism and coming up with a paradigmatic “Fascist Minimum” that can encompass as many types of ultra-right ideological/social phenomenon as possible. But for those on the ultra-right, the above sound bite of a description is too definitive because it tries to nail down what seeks to remain intentionally vague, flexible, and sui generis.

I noted the explosion of political ideas, associations and actions, left and right, that occurred from the fin de siècle to the beginning of the second World War. With respect to the European ultra-right in the decades inclusive of and following La Belle Époque, and aside from Mussolini’s Fascism and Hitler’s National Socialism, there was political futurism, Traditionalism (Evola), völkisch nationalism (Dickel), Novecentismo (Bontempelli), Maurras’s Action Française, young conservatism (Jung), conservative revolutionism (van den Bruck), Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal, national revolutionism (Jünger), the German Freikorps, the Croatian Ustasha, National Bolshevism (Niekisch), leftist “universal fascism” (Strasser), Codreanu’s Iron Guard, Perón’s Justicialismo, ad nauseum. This is by no means an exhaustive list of fascist, quasi-fascist, para-fascist, and crypto-fascist tendencies, movements and regimes in this era, and in a European context.

Despite the short-lived attempt to found a Fascist International Congress at Montreux, Switzerland in 1934-35, the relationships between these highly fractious tendencies, movements and regimes were often less than cordial, and sometimes quite brittle. To briefly illustrate: when National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy formed their Rome-Berlin Axis in 1936 it became clear that Mussolini’s Italy was to play “second fiddle” to Hitler’s Germany in military expansion, empire building, and war against the allies. The Allied invasion of Italy led to German intervention and invasion to shore up Mussolini’s Fascist regime, resulting in the consolidation of the rump Italian Social Republic in northern Italy in 1943. The pseudo-leftist Salo Republic proved a “shrinking puppet-state of the Nazis in economic and agricultural production, in foreign affairs, and in the military campaign against the Allies.” (Roger Griffin) Both Germany and Italy came to the aid of Franco’s Nationalist rebels in Spain with military and financial assistance between 1936 and 1939. After Nationalist victory, Franco joined with Mussolini and Hitler to clamp down on liberal, democratic, secular social elements generally, and specifically to smash the international socialist working class, from anarchist to Bolshevik. But, given that Francoismo was above all traditionalist in orientation, Franco also dissolved the overtly fascist Falange as a party, declared Spanish neutrality, refused to enter the war as an ally of Germany, nixed a plan to seize Gibraltar and close the Mediterranean to the British fleet, and even allowed Jewish refugees escaping the Nazi Final Solution to transit Spanish territory. Italian Fascism made easy accord with the monarchy and the Vatican. Rightwing Italian critics of Mussolini and his Fascist regime were rarely imprisoned, but were occasionally placed under house arrest. Julius Evola was kept at arms length, never embraced but never renounced. Hitler’s National Socialist Germany was far more brutal in dealing with right wing critics and competitors. During the Night of the Long Knives (Operation Hummingbird) in 1934, Hitler ordered the murder of aristocratic and Catholic conservative opposition figures (von Bose, von Schleicher, von Kahr, Klausener, and Edgar Jung), as well as the purge of National Socialism’s left wing. Ernst Röhm, leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA), was first imprisoned and then killed, while Nazi leader Gregor Strasser was assassinated. His brother, Otto Strasser, was driven into exile. The literary figure, war veteran and national revolutionary Ernst Jünger was kept under constant surveillance by the regime.

(Röhm and the Strasser brothers considered themselves “second revolutionaries.” Yet it would be a “historical mondegreen,” referencing Death in June, to believe that the actual history of the Third Reich would have been much different had either of these three been führer instead of Hitler.)

Fascism guilefully thinks of itself as sui generis, beyond left and right. The various groupings within and surrounding Fascism, as well as its National Socialist “blood brother,” each insist on their status as sui generis. In attempting to synthesize a violent opposition to Enlightenment liberalism, Marxism, and capitalism with an embrace of populism, revolutionism, and ultra-nationalism, these ultra-right ideologies, movements and regimes exemplify not fusion and unification but splitting and division. Their sense of distinctiveness and uniqueness might be laid at the feet of Nietzsche and his philosophy of aristocratic individualism, what Jünger called the sovereign individualism of the Anarch. Yet more fundamental socio-political causes must be cited. Unlike Marxism’s highly programmatic politics, the Fascist ultra-right was decidedly less programmatic, and what platforms it did generate were intensely idiosyncratic. Leninism posited a scientific, universalist, international socialism that, when corrupted by nationalism, devolved into particular socialist types, say, a socialism with Chinese or Vietnamese or Cuban characteristics. By contrast, the particular cultural, social and national characteristics of the countries out of which Fascism arose, combined with Fascism’s innate syncretic tendencies, has produced a plethora of Fascist types. Consider the problem of nationalism. In opposition to the secular nationalism born of the Enlightenment, there is Evola’s Traditionalist pan-European Imperium on the one hand and on the other hand de Benoist’s Europe of a thousand flags comprised of separate tribal ethnies. Way stations along this spectrum are völkisch pan-Germanic Aryanism and the Romantic organic nationalism that was a fusion of local ethnic groups within a given nation-state. Then there is the issue of racism. National Socialism’s biological racism and virulent anti-Semitism stands in stark contrast to Italian Fascism which was relatively free of anti-Semitic and eugenic strains until influenced and then subsumed by Nazi Germany.

Academics and intellectuals, whose job it is to formulate unifying theories and overarching explanations of phenomenon, have been stymied by the variegated nature of Fascism. Attempts to define a “Fascist Minimum” have been as diverse as Fascism itself. Marxist approaches have predominated, and at times have been augmented by post-Marxist modernization, structural and psycho-historical theories. Liberal reactions to Fascism have remained thoroughly splintered, ranging from Nolte’s theme of resisting modernization to Payne’s understanding of a new kind of nationalist authoritarian state. A related conceptual constellation offered by Mosse’s “third way,” Sternhell’s “new civilization” and Eatwell’s “new synthesis” hints at a way forward. Personally, I find Roger Griffin’s summation that “Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism” the most convincing.*

Which brings us back to National Anarchism. Troy Southgate has been engaged in “serial Fascism” based on a “palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism” for most of his political career, pursuing the next big Fascist thing from the National Front, through the International Third Position, the English Nationalist Movement, the National Revolutionary Faction, Synthesis and the journal Alternative Green, to his current New Right and National Anarchist affiliation. “As a prelude to an anticipated racial civil war and a collapse of the capitalist system,” NA seeks to “[E]stablish autonomous villages for völkisch communities, which have seceded from the state’s economy and are no-go areas for unwelcomed ethnic groups and state authorities.” Setting aside the ersatz weekend hipster tribalism of your typical Burning Man participant as an outright insult to aboriginal realities, NA’s anti-statist ethnic tribalism is, in actuality, well within the range of Fascist nationalism demarcated by Evola and de Benoist. NA’s racism falls within the spectrum defined by German Nazism and Italian Fascism as well. (“My race is my nation,” or so goes the White Nationalist slogan.) Whether NA prefers mutualism or autarky to national socialism or corporatism for its so-called anti-capitalist economics is also not unusual. Presenting itself as a resynthesis of “classic fascism, Third Positionism, neo-anarchism and new types of anti-systemic politics born of the anti-globalization movement” simply reveals the syncretic character inherent in Fascism as a phenomenon. That this segment of the “groupuscular right” champions a “a stateless palingenetic ultranationalism” amounts to subtle nuance, not radical difference. Nothing distinguishes NA from Fascism proper. Nothing sui generis here. Absolutely nothing.

So, let’s forego all the academic abstractions and get down to brass tacks. Individuals who claim NA talk to, hang out with, organize among, and act alongside fellow ultra-right Fascists. They claim to “go beyond left and right,” but they fully identify themselves as New Right. If NAs rear their ugly pinheads on internet forums like anarchist LibCom or leftist RevLeft, they are immediately identified, isolated, and purged. And if they openly show their faces at explicitly anarchist and leftist events, they risk a serious beat down. In contrast, NAs can and do freely join, discuss, argue and debate on white nationalist/white supremacist forums like Stormfront. They’re also welcome on disgruntled anarcho-individualist and self-styled pan-secessionist Keith Preston’s greatly attenuated Attack The System forum. His American Revolutionary Vanguard argues that “the mainstream of the anarchist movement has become unduly focused on left-wing cultural politics, countercultural lifestyle matters, and liberal pet causes.” His stated goal is to go beyond the Left/Right political spectrum to: “work towards a synthesis of the currently scattered anarchist tendencies. These include anarcho-collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, post-structuralism, Green anarchism, primitivism and neo-tribalism from the Left, and anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-feudalism, national-anarchism, tribal-anarchism, paleo-anarchism and Christian anarchism from the Right.”

Fuck this fascist noise!

*[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.
Roger Griffin, Nature of Fascism
[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led “armed party” which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.
Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology