21st Century Fascism

Facism isn't a organic social current because it needs mass communication to function. If you want a simplified thought-cookie, you could say without technologically enhanced communication the Führer can't talk to his followers.

That doesn’t make any sense. First off, I don’t see why mass communication is necessary for fascism, political mass movements existed before radio and telegraphs. Second even if that’s true, I don’t see why needing mass communication technology to exist means fascism can’t at the same time be an organic movement.

Even Göbbles admitted that fascism needed to endlessly repeat the propaganda messages to uphold facism, and that without communication systems this would not have been possible.

political mass movements existed before radio and telegraphs.

No, not really. The 20th century mass movements very much count for quantity being quality all of it's own.

Second even if that’s true, I don’t see why needing mass communication technology to exist means fascism can’t at the same time be an organic movement.

communication systems are technological not organic.

Fair enough.
Yes but in and of themselves they don't produce political movements from nothing. Propaganda is only effective if it coincides with the material experiences of a particular group. Existence determines consciousness as Marx said, and thus a fascist ideology can only emerge from a group whose existence is conducive to its development. This means that in order for fascism to have a mass following, there must be a large section of the population whose experiences (which is to say their experience of labour, i.e. their class position) allow them to adopt a fascist ideology. The only alternative is that fascism is created out of thin air purely by propaganda by the big bourgeoisie, which to me smells like idealism.

Yes but in and of themselves they don't produce political movements from nothing. Propaganda is only effective if it coincides with the material experiences of a particular group. Existence determines consciousness as Marx said, and thus a fascist ideology can only emerge from a group whose existence is conducive to its development. This means that in order for fascism to have a mass following, there must be a large section of the population whose experiences (which is to say their experience of labour, i.e. their class position) allow them to adopt a fascist ideology. The only alternative is that fascism is created out of thin air purely by propaganda by the big bourgeoisie, which to me smells like idealism.
You are getting ahead of your self, I though we were specifically talking about the nature of fascism, and my point is that it's dependence on communication-technology rules out, of it being a organic movement. I'm being a stickler here, because there is a sort of category expansion going on where, people point out how both feudalism and fascism used mystical and religious themes for propping up rulers, and then equate the two. I would consider feudalism to be organic, as well as a different thing.
For the material conditions, I don't know I'm considering counting neo-liberalism as a type of fascism, it's clearly aggressively hostile against humans, albeit with different mechanisms, it's clearly corporatist and a tool for imperial finance. It's more incremental than the fascism of the Nazism or Mussolini type though. Maybe there could be a stage theory, or neo-liberalism building the material conditions for fascism. Quite a lot of ex Nazi Secrete service members got hired by the CIA during the Cold war, I'm not sure how much of the ideology was translated with this, and how much influence the CIA had on the development of neo-liberalism.

Ah I misunderstood you then. When you said that fascism wasn't organic I thought you were saying that it was entirely an artificial creation of the big bourgeoisie, rather than a genuine mass movement with its own momentum.
Well I would consider neoliberalism to be an ideology that maintains the institutions of bourgeois democracy by definition, which I would say precludes it from being fascism proper. At the same time however I would also consider there to be two distinct currents as far as the most dangerous threats to democracy and socialism go. The first would of course be "proper" fascism as I described it in the OP, and the second would be a kind of totalitarian neoliberalism as describes. While they're both effectively fascist in the sense that they both abolish bourgeois democracy to preserve capitalism, there are differences. The main difference is of course that totalitarian neoliberalism, unlike genuine fascism, has no mass basis, and is entirely a construct of the big bourgeoisie. To simplify, I would say that Bush Jr. was the avatar of totalitarian neoliberalism, while Trump is the avatar of American fascism. Obviously the two aren't particularly opposed with one another, and I think its pretty clear that the tendency towards totalitarian neoliberalism (patriot act, mass incarceration, etc.) has laid the groundwork for proper fascism. At the same time I think it's important to identify and categorize movements based on what class forces drive them, and in this case the lack of a mass movement of the displaced middle class is an important distinction between the two.

Well it depends what you mean with momentum, without financial and material support from the capitalists facism would never have risen from the fringes. Mussolini's movement almost didn't make it because they almost ran out of money.

You are defining fascism by the level of mass basis ?
Trump's election is history's largest recorded Fuck You, he's not the avatar of Fascism lol.
The American bourgeois is boxed in, they can't attempt to replicate 20th century fascism because that was predicated on militarist expansion, that's no longer an option because of all the nukes. Even conventional wars are kind of unwinable. And the falling rate of profit is now increasingly driven by demography,so installing some brutal terror regime will not restore profitability. Neither will large scale capital destruction, because there's not enough resources to fuel something like a postWW2 boom. They can't really proletarianize the middle income ranges any further because the high-tech sector is tied to distribution, that would shrink. If they sperk out to much they could kill the dollar as world reserve currency and wipe out 90% or so of it's exchange value, and then they won't be able to afford fascism any-more. If they can't reboot the consumer cycle with a new new deal or something, start learning Chinese, so you can understand what the new owners say, you know how everybody in Europe had to learn English last century after the "experimental phase with fascism".

First off it’s not. Spain and Portugal both had fascist governments that lasted 40 years and they didn’t wage any wars of expansion. Second, the US is waging several wars of expansion right at this second, so clearly it’s still possible to do so.
The purpose of fascism isn’t to restore profitability, it’s to secure the bourgeois order from political threats.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that America can’t become fascist because wars of expansion would destabilize the dollar?

Spain and Portugal are secondary economies, and as such are dominated by cartel and mafia, which is not the same as fascism.
The major conflicts the US is currently engaged in are not actually expanding it's influence.
Profitability is synonymous with the security of the political position for the bourgeoisie, remember that the German bourgeoisie didn't survive fascism, it just was restored afterwards. There is nobody on earth able do this for the American bourgeoisie.
No, America can become fascist, but only very briefly.