Since the election, I’ve written several diaries describing 1) the fascist nature of Trump’s candidacy, 2) how Trump voters and supporters are best understood as proto-fascists, and 3) how conservatism is the ideological precursor to fascism, here, here, here, here and here.
My goal is to encourage, and participate in, the development of coordinated resistance to the emerging fascist political order in the US at the local, state and federal levels.
As a starting point, I proposed the creation of a social media campaign, and the use of internet based resources to target fascists and expressions of fascism wherever they appear, in my diary:
Use the weapons of the enemy: creating a social media campaign to fight fascists.
******
I’m a novice at political organizing, and have no background in social media campaigns. This diary, and my suggestions, are only starting points for efforts to resist Trump and his supporters.
Please add your own ideas, practical strategies, additional readings, and resources.
Trump’s election is the most recent, and for progressives in the US, most immediate and terrifying example of how bigoted authoritarians can take power in democratic nations, but it should be viewed as simply that— the most recent iteration of a struggle that stretches back decades, if not centuries, perhaps to the very origins of democracy.
This is not a new struggle, and it seems it is a struggle we will face for generations. If we had grown complacent, it is because we forgot how easily fascism can infect a democratic nation. We must never forget this again.
******
The first step in surviving a fascist regime is understanding it-- the attitudes and motives of its adherents, how it comes to power, and how it operates. The following are articles and books that I used as source materials for the above-linked diaries:
Ur-Fascism, Umberto Eco
Autocracy: Rules for Survival, Masha Gessen
Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti
The Authoritarian Personality, Chap. VII, Theodor Adorno
The Fascist Experience in Italy, John Pollard
Conservative and Right-Wing Movements (journal article), Kathleen M. Blee and Kimberly A. Creasap
Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
******
The next step is learning to manage and navigate under an authoritarian government, from those who have studied them and lived under them:
From Dictatorship to Democracy, Gene Sharp
When one wants to bring down a dictatorship most effectively and with the least cost then one has four immediate tasks:
• One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills;
• One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people;
• One must create a powerful internal resistance force; and
• One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully.
A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance and internal strengthening of the struggle group. (pp. 7-8)
Serious struggle against brutal dictatorships is not a pleasant prospect. Why is it necessary to go that route? Can’t everyone just be reasonable and find ways to talk, to negotiate the way to a gradual end to the dictatorship? Can’t the democrats appeal to the dictators’ sense of common humanity and convince them to reduce their domination bit by bit, and perhaps finally to give way completely to the establishment of a democracy? It is sometimes argued that the truth is not all on one side. Perhaps the democrats have misunderstood the dictators, who may have acted from good motives in difficult circumstances? Or perhaps some may think, the dictators would gladly remove themselves from the difficult situation facing the country if only given some encouragement and enticements. It may be argued that the dictators could be offered a “win-win” solution, in which everyone gains something… Would that not be preferable to a difficult struggle, even if it is one conducted by nonviolent struggle rather than by military war? (pg. 9)
When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should be no compromise. Only a shift in power relations in favor of the democrats can adequately safeguard the basic issues at stake. Such a shift will occur through struggle, not negotiations. This is not to say that negotiations ought never to be used. The point here is that negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition. (pg. 10)
Electronic Civil Disobedience, Critical Art Ensemble
The perception of authoritarianism shifts depending on the coordinates from which a given sociological group chooses to resist authoritarian discourse and practice. How then can this situation be redefined in constructive terms? An anti-authoritarian predisposition becomes useful only when the idea of the democratic monolith is surrendered. To fight a decentralized power requires the use of a decentralized means. Let each group resist from the coordinates that it perceives to be the most fruitful. This means that leftist political action must reorganize itself in terms of anarchist cells, an arrangement that allows resistance to originate from many different points, instead of focusing on one (perhaps biased) point of attack. Within such a micro structure, individuals can reach a meaningful consensus based on trust in the other individuals (real community) in the cell, rather than one based on trust in a bureaucratic process. Each cell can construct its own identity, and can do so without the loss of individual identity; each individual within the cell maintains at all times a multidimensional persona that cannot be reduced to the sign of a particular practice. How can a small group (four to ten people) have any type of political effect? This is the most difficult question, but the answer lies in the construction of the cell. The cell must be organic; that is, it must consist of interrelated parts working together to form a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. To be effective, the schism between knowledge and technical ability in the cell must be closed. (pp. 22-23)
Understanding Resistance: Exploring definitions, perspectives, forms and implications, Stellan Vinthagen
The fundamental and possible normative value of resistance is its creation or expansion of space for making choices, the open up possibilities by undermining or restructuring such power relations which limits and produces our (possible) identities, action space or bodies. Resistance is not necessarily directing people, telling them what to do but enable them to make their own choices. A society thriving with resistance doesn’t necessary lead to nihilism or anarchism – “nothing matters” or “anything goes” – but a limited pluralism. Any vital social arrangement organises certain things while forbidding others. (pg.21)
Dissident Writings as Political Theory on Civil Society and Democracy, Marlies Glasius
According to Brazilian political scientist Francisco Weffort, the ‘discovery that there was something more to politics than the State began with the simplest facts of life of the persecuted. In the most difficult moments, they had to make use of what they found around them. There were no parties to go to, nor courts in which they could have confidence. At a difficult time, the primary recourse was the family, friends, and in some cases fellow workers. If there was a legal chance of defence, they had to look for a courageous lawyer. And, above all, someone who is persecuted can always, as an old Brazilian proverb says, “complain to the bishop”. What are we talking about if not civil society, though still at the molecular level of interpersonal relations?’ (Weffort, 1983/1989, 347) Konrad too writes ‘(w)ithdrawal into our huddled private circles enabled us to survive even the grimmest years of the dictatorship. We didn’t really live in a state of constant tension because every evening we could be with one another. We talked a great deal; congregated in our lairs, we experienced a kind of campfire warmth’(Konrad, 1984, 203). He further points out that it was not by accident that the largest East European democracy movement was called ‘Solidarity’ (Konrad, 1984, 195). Living in the truth But there is more to this molecular civil society than solidarity or ‘campfire warmth’. Another key element repeated by many sources is that of communication, beginning more or less underground but reaching ever wider circles. This has two aspects. The first is the assertion of ‘truth’ unacceptable to the regime. It was along this path that the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo evolved, first searching for their children each on their own, then ‘all for all the children’(Diago, 1988, 119). In the early years they wrote information about their missing children on banknotes in order to achieve maximum circulation (Diago, 1988, 122). After the disappearance and presumed death of the first leader of the Madres, Azucena de Villaflor, the Madres took the difficult decision to remain out in the open, continuing to congregate on the Plaza de Mayo and other town squares. (pg. 5)