It takes two to make war, by whatever means, but it takes only one to make fascism against one’s own people and/or against others. A definition of the essence of fascism has been given: coupling the pursuit of political goals with massive violence. We have democracy exactly to prevent that, a political game for the pursuit of political goals by nonviolent means and, more particularly, by getting the majority, as demonstrated by free and fair elections or referenda, on one’s side. A wonderful innovation with a logical follow-up: nonviolence even
when the majority oversteps lines or limits, for instance, as written into the codes of human rights.

The strong state, able and willing to display its force – including through the use of capital punishment belongs to the essence of fascism. That means an absolute monopoly on power, including the power that does not come out of a gun, including nonviolent power. . . It means unlimited surveillance of one’s own people and others, made possible by postmodern technology. What matters is fear: that people are afraid and abstain from protests and nonviolent action lest they are singled out for the ultimate punishment: extrajudicial execution. More important than actually checking everybody’s email and web activity and listening to telephone calls is that people believe this is happening. The trick is to do so indiscriminately, not focusing on suspects only but making people feel that anyone is a potential suspect.

The even more basic trick is to make fascism compatible with democracy. There are many ways to achieve this alloy—first, a reductionist definition of democracy as multi-party national elections. Second, making the parties close to identical in matters of ‘security’, ready to use violence internationally or nationally. Third, privatizing the economy under the heading of ‘freedom’, the other bridging word, essentially granting the executive power over the judiciary, the police and the military – a move for which there is already manufactured consent. To arrive at that consent, a permanent crisis with a permanent enemy ready to hit is useful, but there are other approaches.

Just as a crisis defined as ‘military’ catapults the military into power, a crisis defined as ‘economic’ catapults capital into power. If the crisis is that the West has been outcompeted in the real economy, then the finance economy – the huge banks – start handling the trillions under the formula of freedom. If freedom is defined as the freedom to use the money to make more money and security as the force to kill the designated enemy wherever he is, then we get a military-financial complex, the successor to the military-industrial complex in de industrializing societies. They know their enemies: peace movements and environment movements, threats to security and freedom, respectively, by not only casting doubts on killing, wealth, and inequality but also framing them as counter-productive. Both movements say that you are, in fact, producing insecurity and dictatorship. . .

So, here we are. Torture as enhanced investigation, de facto camps of concentration like Guantanamo, habeas corpus eliminated. Those who pull the veil aside—Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden—are criminalized, not that building fascism. The old adage: when democracy is most needed, abolish it.