Neo-reactionism and the 'Dark Enlightenment'

[Jacob Cliff]

The growing popularity of fascist and semifascist thoughts is certainly alarming. This trend in America seems to be largely libertarian and finds its support in protesting the excesses of state surveillance and the rise of the police state, yet attributes this to some cynical new world order (often headed by Jews) and buys into pseudoscientitic, racist garbage and extreme anti-feminist rhetoric (sadly, many of the tumblerite latter to be honest are cringey enough to give these reactionaries legitimacy).
My question is this: WHY is this reactionary trend growing, and what does it signify? Liberalism has been the predominate ideology of capitalism since its conception, but I'm very confused at what this new reactionary trend is reactionary to, and why it's growing. Like, why are people suddenly so disinterested in democracy? Why is it now becoming normal to spew 'scientific-racist' garbage on YouTube? Why is this stuff becoming normal now, and how should communists respond to it?
IMHO, communists need to use the same tools these growing reactionary YouTubers and bloggers use, and vigorously dispel all myths, popularize our program, and clear up our name. My experience of seeing this happen on various social media sites and apps seems to show that communists doing this stuff has been nothing but positive, and could really attract attention to our ideas (and make it impossible for the opponent to strawman us with some judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory, which is also gaining popularity).
Honestly, the current trend of just watching this and letting it happen without taking action against it (and just discussing it amongst ourselves) seems to only worsen the problem, and this is a serious problem.

[Aslan]

This stuff has been around all the time, however now with the eastern bloc down and the internet open. Our world is now more interconnected than ever. This means that these reactionaries can reach out to the ignorant proletarian and offer a seemingly legitimate case. And the lower classes join them, leading a reactionary devolution.

Lets face it, most people in the right under the leaders are fueled by hatred. This hatred is inside but it can be focused to reactionary thought. Education is the key to liberation, and we must liberate these people who are being deceived.

Democracy symbolizes freedom of choice and expression. Something that capitalists and fascists don't want, instead fascists want statism as a tool of control. Fascists want nationalism to penetrate all portions of society, and capitalists help in oppressing and keeping the people docile. Catalysts for reaction such as charlie hebdo and Paris help, along with media and governmental manipulation.

However we now have a new branch of fascist ideology, Libertarianism. This has risen since the fall of nazism in the right and the rise of neo-colonial ideas. This in my opinion is the final will of capitalism, the ultimate conquest of humanity; without using government as a proxy. They are an ''more respectable'' alternative to fascism. These ideas are anti-democratic and anti egalitarian, yet say that they liberate, which is why they are so tempting.

Unfortunately for us, communists are a rare breed. We constantly oppose one another for trivial things, and we are poor too. Which means less resources for us to make videos.

Dark Enlightenment sounds like and awesome band name too!

[Heretek]

Why? Because value able to be extracted without alienating absolutely everyone is be coming scarce. Capital blocs are falling apart and competing against each other. This reaction is perceived weakness of their own domestic programs to assert their dominance. So they seek methods that deliver ever more results to themselves rather than "mutual" benefit.

What does it signify? The decadence and approaching crises in capitalism. More so, it signifies the struggle of socialism or barbarism, which has been warned of for at least the last hundred years, and the potential ultimatum.

People are dissolutioned with liberal democracy because they understand that nothing changes with the election cycles. Simply more of the same exploitation. Of course, the "loser capitalists" don't benefit here, so they support their class ideology, that of fascism. And as the "winners" continue to do so, their polices become more imperialistic until eventually they begin to decay as well. And as one communist said, fascism is capitalism in decay.

Why is "science" so great? Because historical fascist Adolf Hitler had a fetish with technology and any "proof" his ideology was proven. They seek anything to further their agenda. This lets them appear as more acceptable to liberals, who often herald themselves as beacons of reason. Leftists do too, which explains all the fascist apologists, real and imagined, and the "such and such country"-first rhetoric ("Russia first, Germany first, France first, etc").

[ComradeAllende]

The growing popularity of fascist and semifascist thoughts is certainly alarming. This trend in America seems to be largely libertarian and finds its support in protesting the excesses of state surveillance and the rise of the police state, yet attributes this to some cynical new world order (often headed by Jews) and buys into pseudoscientitic, racist garbage and extreme anti-feminist rhetoric (sadly, many of the tumblerite latter to be honest are cringey enough to give these reactionaries legitimacy).

I would think that anyone talking about a "Jewish conspiracy" would be associated with one of the traditional neo-Nazi groups (Stormfront, etc.) or an Alex Jones-type conspiracy nut. From what I can tell about these so-called "neo-reactionaries", their politics are less populist and more academic, espousing "scientific" theories like Human Biodiversity and race-specific IQ levels. Less anti-Semite, more Social Darwinist.

From what I can tell, these "Dark Enlightenment" folks are mostly disillusioned techies/libertarians who think democracy and universal suffrage have, for the most part, eroded "free market capitalism" and pose a threat to capitalism, as well as to "traditional gender norms." They probably dislike fascists, but for different reasons than say a liberal democrat or a socialist; fascists tend to disregard private property (while protecting it from the Left) in the pursuit of national or racial goals.

My question is this: WHY is this reactionary trend growing, and what does it signify? Liberalism has been the predominate ideology of capitalism since its conception, but I'm very confused at what this new reactionary trend is reactionary to, and why it's growing. Like, why are people suddenly so disinterested in democracy? Why is it now becoming normal to spew 'scientific-racist' garbage on YouTube? Why is this stuff becoming normal now, and how should communists respond to it?

Basically, neo-Reactionaries are a reaction (pardon the obvious) to "social justice warriors" (and the Left in general). I guess the neo-Reactionaries are "growing" (haven't gained any statistics on this so idk) for the same reason that Trump and other far-right populists are gaining popularity in Western countries: a demoralized working and lower-middle class alienated by demographic changes (immigration/refugee crisis) and globalization and lacking any alternative to "liberal cosmopolitan capitalism" other than pure reactionary nationalism. And, since the modern Left is perceived to be more obsessed with "identity politics" as opposed to class politics (although the two are similar), these guys end up hating us as much as they hate the cosmopolitan capitalists (free trade, pro-immigration, pro-austerity, etc.).

Of course communists (and the Left in general) should respond, but how? We're weak and disorganized. We haven't been united since the Third Internationale, and even if we were few people take us seriously anymore because we're associated with the USSR as well as a Fordist era of capitalism that has disappeared. Communism is like the payphone to them; quaint and appealing at times, but anachronistic and "out of step" with the modern world.

[Rafiq]

The true significance of so-called "neo-reaction" is that, quite simply unlike other kinds of reaction in the 21st century, it has a potentially hegemonic dimension to it. That is to say, so-called "neo-reaction" IS NOT some impulsive expression of old prejudice, it has proven itself to be fully capable of being taken seriously by those in power. Already in Silicon Valley, significant figures are associated with it - Peter Thiel, for one.

"Neo-reaction" in other words, is nothing more than the conscious articulation of what is already the predisposition of modern capitalism, which needs democracy (outside of being a spectacle) less and less today. Even the spectacle of democracy is challenged now. With our increasingly rent-based societies, as a result of the rise of Silicon valley, we are seeing the emergence of a kind of neo-feudalism (but not feudalism as such - this is still very much capitalism and will be).

Why should we be worried? Because "neo-reaction" does not reveal itself in the form of its fringe internet pseudo-intellectuals - the diffusion of these inherently elitist ideas among the masses, must take the form of a vulgar clown like Trump, Putin, Berlusconi, Orban, whatever you want, else it would never gain any sway. We are heading toward 'dark enlightenment', the destruction of enlightenment values already without the help of the pseudo-intellectual adherence to the 'movement'. This is why they are growing in popularity - they are legitimized by real conditions.

That's why I like to stress - it is fashionable to criticize democracy today as a Marxist, but it's quite tasteless in the predicament we now find ourselves. We should re-invent the rhetoric behind democracy, we should present Communism as interchangeable with democracy insofar as we speak of - for example - democratic discipline, solidarity, and so on. Only Communism can save democracy. Only Communism can save what ought to be saved of liberalism.

Liberalism has been the predominate ideology of capitalism since its conception, but I'm very confused at what this new reactionary trend is reactionary to, and why it's growing. Like, why are people suddenly so disinterested in democracy?

Because it is wrong to assume that (liberal) democracy and capitalism supplement each other 'naturally'. Or, so to speak, the degree of how our formal democracies have actually extended their 'ideal' conception, was not owed to the bourgeoisie but to the struggles of ordinary people for political freedoms, universal suffrage, and so on as as logical extension of freedoms that were in practical terms only reserved for the bourgeoisie. In most countries, the proletariat led the struggle for democratic reform, the bourgeoisie were too cowardly. Social democracy (of the erfurt program) was everywhere built off of this reality.

There are many complex reasons behind this, however that go far beyond that, regarding the current trend - the revival of racism and the decline of democracy.

[Jacob Cliff]

But what conditions are leading to this? What has moved capitalism away from the need of democracy?
And how is it "neo-feudal" if it isn't actually "feudalism," that is, if it's capitalist? Dictatorial, authoritarian, sure, but I'm not sure if this fits the paradigm of lords and ladies with knights paying homage to a king.
And I'm not sure if communists should defend democracy – maybe reinvent and propagate themselves of fighters for "true" democracy, but certainly we should condemn modern liberal democracy to the core.

[Rudolf]

But what conditions are leading to this? What has moved capitalism away from the need of democracy?
And how is it "neo-feudal" if it isn't actually "feudalism," that is, if it's capitalist? Dictatorial, authoritarian, sure, but I'm not sure if this fits the paradigm of lords and ladies with knights paying homage to a king.

I think the neo-feudal thing is to do with rent as opposed to lords and kings. It kinda makes sense. Take software. The ownership of it does not transfer to the buyer. The buyer has, at best, limited 'right to use'. In this sense we can compare it directly to feudal land tenure.

tbh though it's actually more comparable to things such as burgage in Britain which was a rental property in a town and the rent was paid for in money as opposed to what was common at the time: service, fealty etc. But it being more similar to burgage shows what it really is: capitalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Their message isn't growing in popularity, they just have more efficient means of voicing their opinions.

[Rafiq]

But what conditions are leading to this? What has moved capitalism away from the need of democracy?
And how is it "neo-feudal" if it isn't actually "feudalism," that is, if it's capitalist? Dictatorial, authoritarian, sure, but I'm not sure if this fits the paradigm of lords and ladies with knights paying homage to a king.
And I'm not sure if communists should defend democracy – maybe reinvent and propagate themselves of fighters for "true" democracy, but certainly we should condemn modern liberal democracy to the core.

To be very simplistic, and this is worth much more (I plan on actually writing about it, on a blog perhaps), enlightenment values and democracy have become a hindrance to the well being of capital accumulation. This is on top of the fact that insofar as the broad masses are dissatisfied with present conditions, they will articulate the essential basis of their dissatisfaction with the ruling political order - no matter its substitution - this is the reason Fascism can even exist.

You see this trend everywhere. There is a renewed fascination with pre-modern ascetics, i.e. medieval fantasy, ancient adventurism, you see it practically everywhere: Even prominent leaders self-admittedly proclaim admiration for filth like "meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. IN the domain of religion, while Christianity wanes in popularity, pre-modern religious mysticism is becoming more and more popular (i.e. eastern spiritualism). In the domain of the high sciences, an ever increasing tendency for society to WANT to be mystified, mesmerized is there to the point where it actually has become a hindrance in some ways to 'sober-minded' scientific pursuits themselves (journals that get published, get published for money). So you have a general rise of superstitions and a fascination with premodern hierarchies, against both Christianity (i.e. that of the non-catholic variant) and the legacy of the French revolution, enlightenment.

In addition, what remains of Christianity today, is either interchangeable with any other eastern mysticism (evangelicism is thoroughly not 'christian' in its theological character) or all that remains is the Catholic-esque, strict hierarchical skeleton of Christian 'culture'. The Fascists in question call themselves "cultural Christians"... WITHOUT the actual anti-nomianism, and so on that made Christianity worth a shit talking about. Many of these motherfuckers are pseudo-atheists and value Christianity only insofar as it is part of the legacy of the premodern west, so that this Christianity is effectively just like any other kind of paganism. And don't get me wrong - we despise Christianity - but we as Communists identify with the 'break' with paganism wrought from Christianity, as a necessary pre-requisite to modern atheism.

What is ironic for Fascists is that yes, European uniqueness is a big fortress against other parts of the world.... The image of Europe I am referring to is the image of the Conchita Wurst. This 'crazy' side of Europe that gave us the French revolution, indeed that gave us Communism, THIS is the Europe they themselves admit is their enemy. THIS is the universalist Europe, that is continually being suppressed in other parts fo the world - like India, where the prime minister can be both a rabid Hindu nationalist while at the same time a ruthless neo-liberal. Because the social substrate of life is still 'euro-centric' no matter the culture, all these disgusting critiques of 'euro-centrism' are only fashionable because these societies THEMSELVES are pursuing an alternate modernity with retains European capitalism but does away with everything to the advantage of their own working people (i.e. "Your notion of rights is euro-centric").

Effectively, these Fascists want to turn Europe into its own, distinct cultural identity in world multiculturalism, so that with all the "Capitalism with Asian values", "Shop and Pray" (Islamist capitalism), ETC. - there will be a "capitalism with European values". But this 'distinct' cultural identity of Europe was destroyed by its universalism during the French revolution, effectively.

Regarding neo-feudalism, we are talking about our increasingly rent-based societies, and that's why these filthy ideas are becoming more popular in Silicon Valley, which does not produce any real value at all, but parasitically, like a new aristocracy, privatizes and collects rent from that which would otherwise be a commons. In addition, as I spoke about in the previous draft thread, the emergence of professional militaries also marks the decline of democratic standards, because as we know, before the French revolution most of European militaries were organized in such ways (.e. as professional militaries).

[Rafiq]

Their message isn't growing in popularity, they just have more efficient means of voicing their opinions.

Unfortunately I think these are not so dichotomous. They have a more efficient means of voicing their views, and these views are growing in popularity. Perhaps the 'germ' has been around as early as the 90's. But either way, it is a problem.

The reason you do not see it in public life, is because fortunately public life does not yet tolerate it. And with the rise of Trump, this is less and less a standard.

[ManBeaR]

Their message isn't growing in popularity, they just have more efficient means of voicing their opinions.

Even if this is true (I'm not really sure), that's quite alarming as it has been decaying for a while.

[ComradeAllende]

But what conditions are leading to this? What has moved capitalism away from the need of democracy?

Capitalism has never needed a democracy. Or, to be more accurate, capitalism has never needed "mass-based democracy." It needs laws protecting private property, courts/police to enforce contracts, and a system that upholds the free and (relatively) unrestricted political participation of property-owners (haute/petite bourgeois). But universal suffrage? No; the early capitalists feared such a development, thinking that the masses would quickly vote for paper currency, abolition/reduction of debts, and widespread redistribution (and eventually full-blown expropriation).

And I'm not sure if communists should defend democracy – maybe reinvent and propagate themselves of fighters for "true" democracy, but certainly we should condemn modern liberal democracy to the core.

Of course communists have to defend democracy; bourgeois democracy is a necessary condition for proletarian democracy. Bourgeois liberties may be severely limited and contradictory in nature, but without them the revolutionary left (Communists, anarchists, etc.) have no way of subverting the status quo save pure violence, and given our current status an authoritarian police state (which is the current alternative to "liberal democracy") would have little trouble wiping us off the map.