Okay, so the first point that I want to pull out of George Jackson's sort of analysis

of fascism is that George Jackson has a really admirably dialectical understanding of fascism.

And this is incredibly important because I think so often we get sort of bogged down

in trying to create a checklist for what is fascism or we get bogged down in the static

almost metaphysical debates about what the actual definition and elements of fascism are

as if they can be extracted from the dialectical process of history continually unfolding.

And all of these things treat fascism as some discrete thing that one exists outside

of a continuously unfolding process.

And two, especially in Hannah Oren's take, it separates it from capitalism itself.

And by so doing obscures the deep fundamental connections between capitalism and fascism.

George Jackson clearly does not make that mistake and he clearly sees fascism as an unfolding

process, not a static state of affairs.

Making the search for a simple definition impossible.

How this manifests in our own situation today are these debates over whether or not Trump

is fascist.

We'll hear discussions constantly of like, well, okay, he's not ideologically fascist.

He doesn't have an ideology.

But those crackdowns on the Black Lives Matter protests this summer, that was fascist.

And then you have liberal saying, well, now that Joe Biden has won the presidency, we've

defeated fascism, right?

Or we've at least overcome it's a rising for the moment.

And that can be connected to worse takes on the liberal center of like, you know, this

...