Daniel Richter “ Phienox“ 

Are You a Fascist?

Why do we reflexively ask today, “Are you left or right?” but hardly ever, “Whom does this order serve?” Terms like fascist, socialist, communist, liberal are no longer explained. They are deployed as conversation-stoppers, simplified into insults, and they allow for no discourse. But that is precisely what we need.

Fascism is a historically clearly defined term. It designates a palingenetic form of ultranationalism. Palingenesis means rebirth: the idea that a nation must be renewed from a supposed state of decay. This renewal is oriented toward a mythical past, imagined as pure, strong, and morally superior. Fascist movements construct a nation that has been humiliated, is threatened by internal and external enemies, and must be reborn through a revolutionary act of national purification. (Do you see the playbook?)

Fascism is not a system of government, but a political style. Historically, fascism rarely begins with camps and violence. It begins as a protest movement, embedded in conservative coalitions, fueled by political gridlock, economic anxiety, and so-called cultural resentment. (Cultural resentment refers to the collective feeling that one’s own identity, life’s work, or symbolic order is losing societal significance and is no longer recognized.) It rejects liberal reforms just as much as it does left-wing class politics. And it is precisely in this that its potential for alliances lies.

Not every conservative is a fascist. Not every utopian who defends opting out is a fascist. History knows many conservatives who opposed fascism: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Winston Churchill, and others. Yet fascism exploits a structural weakness of conservatism: the greater fear of the left than of authoritarian movements from the right. Out of this fear, alliances are formed that one believes one can control. The result is almost always the same: The fascists take over, and the conservatives realize too late what they have enabled.

Today I see a fascist playbook clearly and unequivocally re-emerging. And why? Cultural resentment arises where formal equality grows while real opportunities for influence shrink. The history of the United States in the late 19th century shows that the political participation of the rich served directly to concentrate economic power to an unprecedented extent. Anyone who does not consider this tension historically still confuses democratic procedures with actual democratic control—that is, the real ability of the population to limit, correct, and hold economic and political power accountable.

Where do we stand today?

1. On Autocracy

Possible definition: A form of rule in which political power is not effectively limited by free, fair, and verifiable procedures.

Key characteristics:

- Power is concentrated in individuals or small circles (e.g., presidential systems without real opposition).

- Institutions are weakened or made loyal (courts, parliaments, electoral authorities).

- Competence is replaced by loyalty.

- Media and narratives are controlled or delegitimized.

Autocracy is not an ideology, but a structure. It can appear nationalist, socialist, radically market-oriented, or technocratic.

2. On Socialism

Historical origin: The 19th century, as a response to the social upheavals (mass poverty, insecure work, housing shortages, uprooting, and the loss of social safety nets) of industrial capitalism.

Core idea: The limitation of private power over central foundations of life such as work, housing, energy, or infrastructure. The goal is the democratization of economic participation, not necessarily total state control. Socialism was never truly implemented and in every attempt transformed into autocracy. Socialism is not a unified system, but a spectrum of approaches. It is more developed as a critical theory and counter-proposal than as a consistent practical model.

3. On Communism

Theoretical origin: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848).

Aspired goal: A classless society without private property in the means of production.

Historical finding: This goal was never realized. Historical “communist states” were authoritarian forms of rule that used communist language for legitimation.

Distinction: Communism is a theoretical utopia, not a historically realized social system.

4. On Democracy

Minimal definition: Free elections, separation of powers, rule of law.

Expanded, realistic definition: Democracy cannot be effective if extreme economic inequality undermines political equality. It is not merely a procedure, but a social practice that requires material prerequisites.

Example: Formal suffrage loses its significance when political decisions are systematically pre-structured by the power of capital.

5. Austrian Economics (contextualized)

The Austrian School emerged as a model of thought that places human action, uncertainty, knowledge, and decentralized coordination at its center. It provides a sharp analytical tool for market processes without central planning, but it is not a complete social theory( but rather perhaps more of an economic perspective.?)

III. Where do “left” and “right” come from?

The origin lies in the French Revolution of 1789. On the left sat those who wanted to abolish the monarchy and existing privileges. On the right sat those who defended order, property, and existing power relations. Left and right are therefore not moral categories, but descriptions of power relations: change versus preservation.

Democracy under Conditions of Capital Power

A brief excursion to reanimate today’s playbooks.

Democracy was formally expanded while it was materially hijacked. Elections were expanded, rights were codified. But the real control of economic power increasingly escaped democratic oversight.

The Actors – Roles in the Power Structure

1. John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937)

Rockefeller established a de facto monopoly with Standard Oil. By 1880, he controlled about 90% of the US oil market. This market power translated directly into political influence: on railroad tariffs, antitrust law, and legislation. Courts regularly ruled in his favor, supported by his proximity to governors and senators and the targeted financing of Republican candidates at the state and federal levels.

Publicly, Rockefeller was hated. The response was reframing. Wealth was declared a divine test, philanthropy a moral duty. This is how Rockefeller established philanthropy as an instrument of power. The reality quickly became apparent: tax avoidance, influence on the production of knowledge, and the legitimation of extreme inequality. (And I’m talking about the fact that “Tax the Rich” was already politically impossible in the late 19th century. Taxes and their purpose are another topic. This is about a metaphor: Rockefeller turned a cult-like worship of money into morality, and morality into political immunity.)

2. Andrew Carnegie (1835–1919)

Carnegie had direct access to political elites and systematically supported pro-free-trade policies. His exercise of power was brutal: the massive weakening of unions, beginning with the suppression of the Homestead Strike in 1892 using military force. Shortly thereafter, he published “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889). A text that still serves as the argumentative foundation for technocratic narratives. The implicit message: Only the rich and elites are capable of leading society into a “great again” future. It is remarkable how today’s level of education is ignored in this, making manipulation all the more effective. Carnegie’s ideology followed clear tenets: inequality is necessary; the rich are better administrators of societal resources; poverty means personal failure; wealth is proof of competence..To this day, the narrative persists that redistribution is morally reprehensible. And the so-called “middle class”which is realistically speaking the working class—that is, everyone except millionaires ( yes you too)—continues to gnaw on this meager bone.

3. J. P. Morgan (1837–1913)

Morgan was less an ideologue than a system architect. His key roles: rescuing the US state during the gold crisis of 1895; stabilizing the banking system in 1907. He functioned as a de facto central banker before the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Morgan openly despised democracy. He preferred rule by experts and elite agreements. Yes, we know that. This is the foundation of technocracy. The consequence: The state learned that it depends on capital and not the other way around.

4. William McKinley (1843–1901) – The Bought President

Context: The presidential election of 1896. Opponent: William Jennings Bryan (anti-trust, pro-silver, pro-labor). Mark Hanna organized McKinley’s campaign, financed by Rockefeller’s networks, Carnegie’s circles, and Morgan’s banks. The budget exceeded Bryan’s resources by more than tenfold. The quid pro quo: the gold standard, pro-trust policies, imperialism (Spanish-American War, 1898). McKinley is considered the first industrially financed president. Many followed him. This is no accident. This is a structural problem. A democratic election in the formal sense, but not in the material one.

Gospel of Wealth as a Cultural “Technology”

The Gospel of Wealth functioned as a playbook: it moralizes inequality and shifts the question from “Who decides?” to “Who gives voluntarily?” The effects: philanthropy replaced tax policy; private foundations replaced democratic prioritization; education and culture were filtered through elites; philanthropy became power without the ballot box. The book worked because it absolved the rich of any moral obligation to structural change. Democracy was instrumentalized and hollowed out as early as the late 19th century. We have been thinking in circles for over a century.

A Brief Detour to Europe

In Europe, class struggle became visible early on. The French Revolution of 1789 created legal equality but left economic power relations untouched.

“Let them eat cake” marks this chasm. The revolutions of 1830 to 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1871 showed that political rights without material participation remain unstable. 

Bismarck’s welfare state arose not from humanism, but from the fear of revolutionary influence. 

In the United States, however, the term class struggle was systematically suppressed. 

The Haymarket Affair of 1886 marks the turning point: a strike for the eight-hour day was criminalized, a bomb served as a pretext for executions and the crushing of unions. May 1st was born here and was later deliberately suppressed in the USA. When Henry Ford introduced the eight-hour day and the five-dollar wage in 1914, he did so out of economic calculation: higher productivity, less turnover, fewer strikes. Later, this was reinterpreted as the narrative of the generous entrepreneur. Hard-won rights are depoliticized. Class struggle is erased from memory. Progress is told as a natural consequence of the market. It’s not that simple.

The Lasting Distorted Image of Democracy

The trickle-down myth stabilizes this narrative, although historically, wealth was only distributed more broadly through unions, regulation, taxes, and the welfare state. This is a fact that cannot be denied. It seems as if democracy is considered failed today, even though it was never allowed to be fully effective under the power of capital. It was limited early on, morally delegitimized, institutionally bypassed, and only tolerated as long as it did not interfere.

In the late 19th century, a narrative emerged that still holds true today: wealth as a sign of competence, poverty as individual failure. This is how a cult of wealth emerged, economically effective and culturally hegemonic.

The Interregnum

Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was an Italian thinker. He wrote his central texts while imprisoned under Mussolini, collected as “Prison Notebooks” (Quaderni del carcere). Original quote (Gramsci): “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” In these writings, Gramsci coined the concept of cultural hegemony: power stabilizes when its values, norms, and narratives appear natural and without alternative, not through force alone, but through cultural consent.

We live in this interregnum. Democracy seems abstract. Capitalism appears inevitable. Welfare states are overwhelmed. Debates are hardening. And yet, possibilities for thinking, organizing, and acting exist; we must not give up on them.

After 1945, a temporary class compromise emerged in the West: high taxes, strong unions, a welfare state, and regulated markets. When profits fell and crises increased in the 1970s, the neoliberal counter-offensive followed: Reagan, Thatcher, tax cuts, privatizations, and the breaking of unions.

Now We Are in the Here and Now

What has really changed?

Why utopias are not a threat

They are movements of thought and only then blueprints. Without them, only administration remains of democracy. We live in systems whose achievements come from struggles, but whose narratives belong to the victors. “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Buffett.

I Have Questions

Is Silicon Valley a new gospel? Do freedom technologies simultaneously serve authoritarian fantasies? How can we discuss this without tearing each other apart? How do we protect ourselves from mental pitfalls and gymnastics ? What do we understand by democracy today? When did it become a state instead of a process? Why is system criticism considered a threat and not a democratic practice? Why do we defend the status quo as reason? And why do we accuse each other instead of thinking about and shaping history together? 

PS: Socialist ideas are in fact part of real political and socioeconomic systems everywhere, but “real-existing” socialism was pressured into autocracy, while capitalism has formed us all but no longer supports its people. All systems are weak, which is why there is an opportunity to work within the emerging spaces for action: with decentralized technologies, Bitcoin, open protocols.

I am not writing this because I want applause, but because I have worked out this stance for myself. I am just sharing this and hope for discourse . Correct me. My experience may come from a divided Germany, but my knowledge also only comes from books and, well… from ARTE. ☺️