"If you lived with a roommate as unstable as capitalism, you would’ve moved out long ago.”
Some would argue that the term 'fascism' functions as little more than a political slur.
However, as history professor Bruce Kuklick writes, because the term 'fascism' has become an insult, it operates as the rhetorical equivalent to throwing a tomato at a public speaker.
There's no doubt that the word has been used inconsistently, but it can't all be lumped in together as some elaborate ploy to shut down conversation. It could be argued that now, more than ever, fascism — defined broadly as militaristic nationalism and a contempt for progressive politics — should be called out at every turn.
Bertram Gross' 1980 book Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America has been said to leave readers in a state of intense frustration. While Aotearoa New Zealand has its differences in systemic issues, the ideas remain: how could such a clear warning of what was to come result in no action to prevent it?
It's because of the almost slow motion nature of friendly fascism. To understand what this means, we have to explore some definitions.
Capitalism — in which the sole goal is maximising profit over all else — could be seen as a scale of liberalism to fascism. Lenin described imperialism as its highest form with fascism as a major aspect of this.
Liberalism, defined as pro–individual liberty, anti–concentrated power, minority rights (not the ones you're thinking of) for property owners, "the original oppressed group," and the sanctification of private property to an almost holy standard, sees parties representing the same core interests but remaining separate to give the illusion of choice to voters.
Fascism can be defined as an autocratic, dictatorial–run state with a rigid hierarchy and minimal rights for the masses. Most industry is privately owned (opposed to socialist ones, where the workers own and control the means of production).
Global capitalism is currently on the decline. It's outdated, and there's a reason why we're always at war. There's a reason why every few years in every capitalist country there is an economic downturn.
The richest 85 people in the world have more wealth than the bottom half of the global population (3.5 billion). If you took away just half of the wealth from those people, they'd still be wealthiest, only now you'd have money to tend to disease, education, and the lack of food and water for the starving populations.
As Professor Richard Wolff said, "people go out of work and businesses lose business. It's crazy to accept a system that every few years threatens the livelihoods of millions of people."
Homai te pakipaki for such inequality.
When capitalism has to break its own rules to assert dominance over desperate people, fascism has a strong case. It's seen as a solution to the economic problem as is socialism — the difference being that fascism doesn't threaten the supremacy of capital or sheltered lifestyle of the white, residential liberal. Economic hardship creates conditions where bitterness and distrust can thrive, making these people an easy target to mobilise against a common, cultural enemy.
Rather than relying on a militaristic take–over or the charismatic all–supreme leader, Gross argues that this 'friendly fascism' emerges through the politics of trans–national corporations. Simply, this means those elected to parliament are severely influenced by private companies. It's happening right now in Aotearoa.
In New Zealand, National and ACT receive the most from wealthy people and corporations, demonstrating where their loyalties lie. ACT has ties to the far–right US think tank 'Atlas', which David Seymour denies. Alan Gibbs, the father of Atlas's current chairperson and a founding member of ACT, and his wife made a whopping $155,000 worth of donations to ACT last election.
But more — Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's sister–in–law works for a major tobacco company, Chris Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist for Phillip Morris, Shane Jones had a tobacco executive at his ministerial ceremony, and Nicola Willis has family ties to the fossil fuel industry. These blatant conflicts of interest are obvious given their reversal of smoke-free legislation and environmental protections.
The pernicious character of friendly fascism resides in its non–territorial nature. While many large corporations and groups reside in the US, we see that they're not loyal to any one nation. This is a huge distinction between your typical goose-stepping fascism, though both push a bourgeois revolution.
The nation does not need to be at the heart of the takeover at all. Instead, the nation acts as a mere economic unit with its leaders acting as puppets. Powerful oligarchies are able to operate outside the state, suppressing the rising demands for human rights and democracy.
One often–cited example of how these companies view democracy is in the Trilateral Commission's 1975 report on the excess of democracy in America. In it, they argue that engagement with the lower–classes would threaten the dominance of the business world and the ability to maintain trade relations.
So, avoiding the annoyance of accountability, these companies operate outside of the messy democratic limitations of one state. They engage in a multi–state system that encourages tax erosion, leading to a shift in corporate taxation to the individual.This ultimately leads to a "tax revolt movement" within the upper–middle class, making way for that bitterness, distrust and desperation that drives change.
Isn't this terrible for the average person? Why doesn't the population demand more from their representatives? Unfortunately, the co–mingling of big business and government slowly leads to the subversion of democratic principles and rights. Peace rallies and human rights demonstrations are repressed as "unfair" and the government continues to peddle the interests of the few.
Breaches of Te Tiriti, MakeIt16 court cases, the government's involvement in Gaza, tax cuts for landlords and environmental slander, done under the guise of 'healthy debate', shuts down any criticisms of the attempts themselves.
Tactics such as denouncing unions and the loss of overall political influence function to create a world of isolated and helpless individuals. The ordinary Kiwi ends up convinced that Māori, or the 'woke left', are the enemy — not the corporations suppressing them. It's no longer a class war: it's a culture war.
The power is not in the people, so why even try? Gross argues that this doom and gloom is what makes fascism so appealing. Friendly fascism finds its legitimacy in, ironically, the fear that emerges through the social conditions bubbling in the backside of capitalism. Working people see that the three year election cycle fails to deliver long–term change, so are more willing to accept fascism.
Rather than ruling by an iron–fist, friendly fascism offers us velvet gloves. The helpless population begin to support measures that 'defend' national security, traditional liberties and individual wellbeing — even if these measures go against the rights of some.
Nefariously however, the new right shift the blame onto the 'far left' rather than corporations. Socialism, the very system that could offer them political representation, is seen instead as the cause of anxiety and fear. Friendly fascism promises working people the right to self expression at the expense of genuine empowerment.
Capitalism has spent 100s of years fighting against the genuine empowerment of people, leaving people disillusioned and yearning for change. Friendly fascism offers itself as a saviour in this war that it created, when really it's just a half–baked attempt at liberation. We fear that soon the tomato will only have to smile at the public speaker.