Red and Blue Fascism (Full Essay)

Democrat and Republican supporter hats from 2016 (source: Vox).

Part of the Examining Empires topic

            There are two main currents of American fascism. One is colored red, and the other is colored blue. The red variant is radical and pushes the boundaries of acceptable political norms. The blue variant is conservative and cautiously consolidates the gains of past fascist victories. Among the Reds, naked jingoism is promoted. Among the Blues, military action downplayed as a limited humanitarian intervention. In the realm of foreign policy, the Reds favor a strategic retreat from peripheral strongholds and prioritize imperial retrenchment within the core territories. The Blues, on the other hand, stubbornly pursue imperial expansion despite the heavy erosion of American influence around the globe. Political debates between Reds and Blues merely amount to different strategic approaches to their shared objectives. Neither side challenges the fascist nature of these objectives.

            Although the differences between Reds and Blues are few, the similarities are vast. Ideologically, both espouse fascist doctrines of extreme nationalism. Both are tremendously pro-military and turn a blind eye to economic exploitation of the Third World. Adherents of either side will zealously support the preservation of their empire to the detriment of the entire world. In pursuit of hegemony, the Reds and Blues enforce authoritarianism abroad while trumpeting the virtues of democracy at home. All of these shared values are camouflaged by slight variations in tone. Fascist rhetoric spews violently from one side's mouth, while the other side justifies fascist practices in a calm, rational manner.

            On the surface, electoral theatrics portray the Reds and Blues as adversaries. In reality, they are forever united by their common political interests. Their fascist vision of the world is realized within the Republican and Democratic parties. Support for these parties boarders on fanaticism, with many US citizens freely proselytizing their chosen form of cultural fascism during every election. Any citizen who refuses to support one of the two factions is shamed, ridiculed, and marked as the greatest threat to the American Empire. With the 2024 presidential election taking place during a mass genocide in Palestine, a significant threshold has been crossed among the electorate. We have finally seen a true split within US society, one between fascists and anti-fascists.

How Fascism Forms

            When the term "fascism" is used, it often invokes very specific historical examples of European fascist regimes and groups that crudely imitate the ruling parties within these regimes. The rise of fascism in Europe is seen as a black mark on the record of an otherwise progressive and free democratic West. From the defeat of fascism in the Second World War onwards, it was seen as a defunct ideology that could only remerge under extraordinary circumstances. Nonetheless, this did not stop virtually every Western political pundit in the post-war period from using the threat of fascism to promote their chosen political platform. Any electoral opponent or opposition party could be portrayed as paving the way for a new wave of fascistic authoritarianism that ran counter to the pure liberal-democratic ideals of the West.

            From the view of the Third World, it seemed rather insulting that the brief period of fascist domination in Europe could so easily out shadow several centuries of brutal European colonialism. Throughout the colonial history of the Global South, its various civilizations endured numerous holocausts, had their vast resources plundered, and were forced into a perpetual state of underdevelopment by their European oppressors. The famines and colonial wars of this period produced destruction on a monumental scale. The conditions would have seemed apocalyptic to anyone present in these places. When the Second World War broke out, the Europeans finally experienced some of the horrors that they had afflicted upon their colonial subjects. However, what lasted less than a decade for Europe was the everyday reality for many generations of people in the Global South.

            It is often said that fascism is merely colonialism turned inwards. As one who has studied the modern history of the Third World, I find this to be a very apt statement. The use of "fascism" is very selective in most political vocabularies. There are often a litany of perquisites to be met before a state could be said to have "fallen" to fascism. The most often cited criteria is when a state is beholden to corporate interests, maintains a large military presence, and commits numerous acts of aggression against other countries. Despite a country like the US possessing all of these qualities, the US government is typically not labeled as a fascist state.

            Although more mainstream observers might use "fascism" as a dirty word against their political opponents, there is a certain caution against applying the term fully to present-day societies. It is usually implied that a certain political course could "lead" a democratic government down the path to fascism. Even among more leftwing observers in the West, the US is seen, at worst, as a "proto-fascist" state. There is a sense among the left that the rightward shift in US politics a sign that the country is evolving into fascism, but is "not quite there yet".

            In my own analysis, I have come to use a much broader definition of fascism. Historically, as the expansion of capital falters, immiseration gradually increases within both the imperial core and peripheral economies. This is one of the rare scenarios in which it is understood that fascism could develop. If one acknowledges that fascism is capitalism in decay, it could be further argued that fascism exists on a spectrum rather than in only an absolute form. By shortening the history of fascism to a few precise moments, we cheapen the struggles against fascism that have occurred throughout modern history. Many regimes have existed in the modern era that could easily be classified as being highly fascistic.

            The nature of state fascism becomes much more complex when considering the relationship between colonizer countries, the colonized populations, and the neocolonial governments. In the West, the former colonizer countries pride themselves on having a high degree of civil liberties and strong democratic institutions. In the rest of the world, authoritarian governments oppress their people and deny them many freedoms. Neither of these types of government developed on their own, but are a legacy of the old colonial system. Relatively high living standards in the liberal-democratic states allow for a mostly harmonious relationship between the ruling class, the state, and the common citizens. On the opposite side, the authoritarian states preside over a population living in squalor and must maintain their regimes through violence.

            Under neocolonialism, authoritarian states only survive with the support of the liberal states. A parasitic relationship is maintained in which the former colonizers drain wealth from the formerly colonized peoples. Failure to maintain constant economic expansion through this unequal exchange will lead to a political crisis within the liberal-democratic world. The subsequent fall in living standards will necessitate a rollback in political freedoms. In other words, in order to maintain prosperous capitalism in the Global North, the liberal-democratic countries must continuously expand economically and "export" fascism to the Global South. When these advanced economies can no longer expand or trade is equalized, fascism builds up in the West.

            In the present day, we bear witness to a breakdown of this global system. The main guarantor of Global North supremacy, the US, can no longer expand its empire. The decline has brought an extreme rightwards shift in the US government as an economic crisis looms ahead. Now that American fascism is finally coming home, the radical changes in government can be properly be recognized by the general public as "fascist" in nature. While fascism has yet to be fully consolidated in the US, under its Red and Blue factions it will gradually ease its way into American culture.

Fascist Consolidation

            Fascism within the United States has greatly benefited from Americans' distorted view of their own government processes. Traditionally, the Republican Party had been portrayed as the "conservative" force in American politics, while the Democratics have been broadly characterized as a "reformist" party. The latter supposedly introduces extensive policy changes to the legislative, while the former is believed to be an obstructionist force that almost consistently opposes these proposals. As most congressional fables go, the two parties would work together to produce a modified form of the original bill. Under the spirit of "compromise", a moderate level of reform would be allowed. In this vein, the US government as a whole could be seen as a "progressive" and "levelheaded" political body.

            In actuality, the roles of the two parties are reversed; the Democratic Party is the conservative force in US politics while the Republican Party acts as an agent of radical change. It is the Republicans who demand sweeping changes to the structure of the state, and the Democrats merely sculpt the reform agenda into something that is more palatable to the public. The parties work in tandem with each other, rather than acting as two opposing forces. When the Republicans have a majority, they push through radical new practices. Any subsequent Democratic victory would then normalize these policies and broaden their scope. The difference between the two parties is merely experimentation versus consolidation. The Republicans create a purer version of fascism while the Democrats coldly mass produce this new form of fascism. This process cumulates in an extreme rightward drift that cannot be reversed nor slowed under the current system.

            Given the that the Republicans are the ones who introduce new forms of fascism, many American liberals have promoted the false notion that the Democratic Party represents the "lesser evil" within the system. It is argued that voting for the more conservative Democrats will prevent any new fascist policies from being introduced, thus bringing about "harm reduction" to the general public. This flawed logic ignores the vital role played by the Democrats in normalizing the fascist policies of their more outspoken counterpart. Since Republican advances are experimental, they can be relatively narrow in scope and are often challenged by the public. As the party of consolidation, Democrats are more subtle and methodical in the implementation of these same policies. Under Democratic administration, the new misery is intensified and brought to a larger section of the global population.

            In this way, the Democratic Party plays an instrumental role in pushing American society further to the political right. The only realm of politics that the ruling parties cannot directly control is the moral inclination of individual citizens. Fascism is an alien concept that challenges our most basic communal values. To accept fascism, the human mind must be carefully molded through a series of incremental changes. The Democrats are more tactful in this regard, masterfully utilizing the logic of lesser-evilism to gradually indoctrinate the population with fascist beliefs. Normally progressive individuals thus become Blue fascists in order to counter the Red fascists.

            To accentuate the divide between Reds and Blues, the American mainstream media has done its part by insisting that there is a "polarization" of political views among these two groups. In reality, the political distance between the Reds and Blues has shrunk considerably over time. Neoliberalism has become the unquestioned dogma of both sides. Social democratic ideals, which once had a strong presence in American politics, have been relegated to the political fringe. Knowledge of American atrocities abroad has become increasingly more well-known thanks to better news coverage and the rise of social media, yet we have seen growing acquiescence towards American foreign policy. Public opinion has turned from naive ignorance to subdued protest, from subdued protest to verbal rebuke, and from verbal rebuke to broad acceptance.

            The convergence of Red and Blue political positions is reflected in their respective parties. Republicans used to be slightly more bullish on using the military to achieve foreign policy goals. Democrats once favored the maintenance of a welfare state as a means of quelling the development of radical political ideologies within the US. A number of social issues were fought over that sometimes yielded minor concessions to the American working class. Over time, however, it grew more difficult for either party to present a false alternative to the inevitable fascist decay.

            In the post-WWII years, the Republican Party could be said to have been a few decades ahead of the Democratic Party in terms of their radical policy proposals. Early on, the Republicans pushed an ambitious neoliberal agenda against the Democrats' dominant New Deal era policies. It took a significant amount of time for the edifice of the post-war system to be dismantled. By the end of the Cold War era, the positions of both parties had been pushed closer together. There was a consensus on many issues, as the decline of socialism had led both parties to dismiss the need for any kind of permanent welfare system. What had once been a significant lag in the promulgation and consolidation of fascism was shortened to a decade-long cycle. President Clinton expanded upon the policies of his immediate predecessor, George H. W. Bush. President Obama did the same with the radical policies of George W. Bush.

            This trend intensified during the Biden presidency, with the Democrats appropriating the much of the aesthetics and rhetoric used by the Trump campaign from just four years prior. The rise of "Blue MEGA" accompanied the rise of "Red MEGA" in a disturbing, yet predictable pattern of events. By the time that Kamala Harris ran against Donald Trump in 2024, there were no policy alternatives she could offer besides some vague assurances that Trump would be a worse administrator. So complete was the political convergence between the Reds and Blues, that the Democrats had become paralyzed politically. At this point, they are incapable of offering any concessions to the working class, even in the form of meagre symbolic gestures.

            Nothing fundamental changed over this long process. Both parties have always favored militarization, privatization, deregulation, and austerity. Republicans complain constantly about government overreach in economic matters while resorting to Keynesian policies whenever the reality of the market demands government intervention. The Democrats complain about the lack of adequate social spending while methodically shrinking the social safety net. Republicans deny the climate crisis. Democrats acknowledge the crisis. Neither enact any plan to stop the looming environmental catastrophe. The main challenge to the consolidation of fascism now lies in the growing rejection of the entire electoral system, which will necessitate more openly fascistic measures in the near future.

Fascist Intervention Abroad

            With all of the political drama unfolding at home, Americans tend to ignore the role of their country in spreading immense misery across the Global South. As mentioned above, the global system of unequal trade can only be maintained by imposing authoritarian regimes upon the vast majority of the world. Putting these regimes in control requires either direct intervention by the fascist US military, or indirect intervention through a US-aligned proxy. On the use of direct versus indirect intervention, there is an age-long debate between Reds and Blues that questions not the morality of either strategy, but which one is more effective in strengthening the US hegemony.

            Direct interventions benefit from the professionalism and reliability of the US military, but are very costly. Besides the diplomatic repercussions and monetary expenditure, the US must contend with the high social costs of fallen US soldiers. Worst still, the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan have proven that a direct intervention is not guaranteed to achieve a lasting regime change. All of the costs of the intervention are magnified whenever the US military is defeated, creating a massive blowback to American interests. For this reason, many conflicts are resolved by using fascist proxy groups in place of US soldiers. These groups tend to be less reliable but are seen by many US strategists as being more cost effective in the long run.

            The idea of a world free from US interventions is anathema to the Red and Blue fascists. Both are insistent that the numerous interventions abroad are justified by a moral obligation to protect liberalism from an alleged illiberal conspiracy. Any resources used to install a US puppet regime are said to balance out the influence of an imagined malign rival power, or to disproportionately outspend an actual rival. The resulting fascist regimes, who without US aid are merely a fringe movement within their respective countries, are said to represent the true will of the population. The Blues generally favor the use of indirect intervention, since the use of proxies better maintains the illusion that their puppet regime has a popular mandate to rule. The Reds, who are more prone to paranoia regarding US geopolitical rivals, are more likely to advocate for a direct intervention via the US military.

            Regardless of where the Reds and Blues stand on intervention, both ultimately see the US military as a force for good. The Reds tend to glorify nearly every aspect of their armed forces. The Blues are more critical of the military, yet still hold it in a sort of reverence. Sins committed by the military are usually attributed to the poor decisions of the civilian government or downplayed by the mainstream media. US soldiers are often portrayed as "victims" of their own violence, with attention focused on the phycological effects of performing or witnessing war crimes. Meanwhile, the stories told by the recipients of the soldiers' violence are sidelined or are dismissed as enemy propaganda.

            As an institution, the US military occupies a paradoxical place within US society. It is seen as a promoter of liberal-democratic ideals yet maintains considerable distance from actual liberal democracy. To the Reds, the US military is the purest manifestation of American "freedom" and "democracy" since it works to protect the US from perceived threats. The civilian government, on the other hand, is seen as a corrupt and wasteful entity. Although the Reds recognize the need for liberal-democratic institutions to uphold basic administrative functions, they maintain that the civilian government must be limited in size so that it does not impede military operations.

            For the Blues, the dichotomy between military and civilian departments is reversed. Civilian government is presented as the primary guardian of democracy. The US military is widely acknowledged as a reactionary organization within US society, but is also seen as a necessary evil that exists separate from their cherished liberal republic. Under civilian oversight, it is believed that the worst excesses of the military can be curtailed. This viewpoint also insulates the civilian government from the major crimes committed by the Pentagon.

            What the divide between civilian and military branches actually amounts to is a border between the Global North and Global South. The privileged few in the North are allowed to live under the soft liberal welfare state. Outside this zone, the wretched majority in must live under the fascism of the US military. Those not directly invaded by the US are put under pressure by fascist proxy forces that mirror the US military. The Red and the Blues' views on the military simply represent two common reactionary anxieties. The Reds fear a mass revolution from the oppressed Global South against the Global North. The Blues are terrified at the prospect of someday living under the same police state that their government forces upon others.

            Among the American political elite, the Republican Party is viewed as being more hawkish than the Democratic Party when it comes to the question of direct versus indirect intervention. Nonetheless, the strategy of either party can shift based on the most recent performance of the US military. After the disastrous Vietnam War, Republican President Richard Nixon relied on "regional policemen" such as Israel, South Africa, and Brazil to enforce US interests. These proxies served as regional hegemons and were given great autonomy in exchange for their loyalty to the US. Decades later, a series of successful US invasions emboldened the militarists within the US government. President Barrack Obama, a Democrat who campaigned on "peace" and "hope", greatly boosted the number of troops in the US-occupied countries around the world. When Obama destroyed Libya in a hailstorm of missiles, he was praised by the Democratic-aligned media for the relatively low costs of the war.

            It was only after the disastrous US military defeat in Afghanistan that direct intervention again fell out of favor with the ruling elite. Biden's administration heavily relied on Ukraine and Israel as proxies in its attempt to expand US influence in Eastern Europe and West Asia, respectively. In the case of the Ukraine War, most debates regarding the conflict centered around the cost of funding the war and the effectiveness of the Ukrainian army. The Blues, whose fascistic beliefs place the value of American lives high above that of Russian or Ukrainian lives, see the proxy war as the ideal method of striking a blow against their geopolitical rival. The Reds, on the other hand, are skeptical of the results and bemoan the huge monetary cost of supporting Ukraine.

            Morally, it is easy to justify the support for Ukraine, as it is a country fighting a defensive war against an aggressive imperialist power. Much more controversial was Biden's continued support for Israel. When a regional proxy state or security force like Israel is used by the US, its methods can prove to be even more brutal than that of the US military. The Reds openly support these types of regimes, while the Blues quietly dispense aid to them while publicly expressing mild disapproval towards some of their allies' worst excesses. During the intensified assault upon Palestine, President Biden expressed frustration with the rogue state of Israel while still directly funding the genocide. Trump more blatantly showed support for the genocide by saying that Israel should "finish the job". On the same issue, Biden's successor Kamala Harris remarked that Israel had the "right to defend itself".

            Even at a cursory glance, one can clearly see that all three politicians were advocating for the same policy on Palestine. Biden deliberately obscured his part in the genocide by shouldering the blame on Israel. Trump's response was brutish and to the point. Harris made the standard statement that one would expect from a politician who was actively involved a genocide. For the Blues, Harris' transparent lie that she and Biden were working "tirelessly" towards a ceasefire was all it took to maintain their loyalty. The prospect of defeating the Red fascists was cited as justification for the Blue fascists to ignore their country's role in the largest holocaust in generations. The human costs of maintaining the US empire are high, and are almost always passed onto the Third World.

Fascist Expansion Policy

            Like any other empire, the US must continually expand in order to survive. Expansion can take either a horizontal or vertical direction, with the former constituting an expansion into new markets and the latter being a deeper exploitation of regions that are already under imperial influence. Historically, the Blues have pushed for a wider reach, which afforded some level of autonomy to their new vassal states. The Reds are no less aggressive, but prioritize exacting tribute from conquered states. As with the policies discussed above, strategies can shift based on the current geopolitical situation. Both sides recognize the need to expand at any opportunity.

            Being a purely settler-colonial state, every inch of the United States was gained through aggressive wars of conquest. The early Red and Blue factions of that era, which represented a radical progression towards modern-day fascism, unanimously supported territorial expansion west into the lands of the indigenous peoples. Debates over what to do with the native residents ranged from the "extreme" solution of mass extermination to the "moderate" solution of forcibly integrating the natives into European settler culture. While either strategy would be recognized today as a clear case of genocide, the "moderate" solution was an early example of what Blues would consider to be an act of "harm reduction" that would help to assuage their guilty conscience. In the spirit of American compromise, the natives were instead heavily reduced in number by attrition and had their surviving kin herded into tiny reservations while the settlers occupied their lands.

            Once the US had managed to conquer a huge swath of land from coast to coast, the debate over expansion strategy shifted to whether the US should become a global empire or focus on consolidating its power within the Western Hemisphere. European imperialism made global expansion difficult, but the US was still able to conquer Hawaii and several former Spanish colonies due to Spain's decline as a colonial power. The high costs from US involvement in the First World War diminished support for further expansion, as the US was unable to dislodge is competitors from their colonial holdings. While the Second World War raged, the debate over expansion versus consolidation was held between the "interventionists" and "isolationists". The former wished to use the war in an attempt to transform the US into a global power. The latter favored non-involvement and sought to strengthen US dominance over the Americas.

            The common labels of "interventionist" and "isolationist" are completely misleading and serve only to obscure the historically violent nature of US foreign policy. Americans, whether Red or Blue, have been consistently interventionist and never isolationist. The question surrounding intervention has always been concerning which direction to cast the wrath of the US government. Those in the "interventionalist" camp merely saw an opportunity to secure far-off territories during the war, whereas the "isolationist" camp were skeptical of dedicating resources to this end. Parts of the "anti-war" faction even suggested annexing large sections of Latin America, and did not rule out the possibility of invading Europe at a future date once the US had built up a stronger base within the Western Hemisphere.

            Ideological views did play a role in the years leading up to the US entry into WWII. Many of the "interventionalists" were genuinely disturbed by the rabid anti-Semitism of the Nazis and Hitler's extreme authoritarianism. It was widely believed that, if left unchecked, this style of government could spread to every corner of the world. Among the "isolationists", there were many admirers of Nazi Germany who saw Hitler as a bulwark against communism. Hitler reciprocated much of this admiration through his positive views on American conquest of the West. Many Nazi anti-miscegenation laws and plans to expand into Eastern Europe drew heavy inspiration from the historical example of the US. Nonetheless, the argument regarding the US involvement in the war remained primarily centered on expansion strategy, especially among the American ruling elite.

            By the end of the century, Americans got everything they ever wanted. US entry into WWII relegated the old powers into satellite states of the US empire. Throughout the Cold War, the national determination of former colonies was systematically crushed and replaced with US client governments. Socialism was gradually pushed back and dismantled. Stable countries like China and Vietnam began to produce cheap consumer goods for the US market. Yet despite a string of victories for US imperialism, the Reds and Blues could never be fully satisfied with the current state of affairs. They fully understood that the US empire can only sustain itself through constant expansion. Once empires lose the ability to expand, they will inevitably collapse.

            Eventually, the US found itself in the same predicament that all empires eventually face. In Europe, US imperialism violently bumped up against Russian imperialism. In Asia, China presented a formidable barrier. Around the world, the US started to be outbid by Chinese finance capital. The only way to expand in this instance would be to directly counter one of these two rivals, which was risky but imperative for US survival. For over a decade, foreign policy debates centered around whether to focus on countering Russian or Chinese imperialism, as engaging them simultaneously was seen as folly. Although the Reds and Blues both hate Russia and China, the Reds prioritize combating Chinese influence while the Blues seek to neutralize Russia first.

            As with "interventionalists" and "isolationists" on Nazi Germany, the divide between the Reds and Blues is partly ideological. The Blues are greatly irked by Putin's attacks on LGBQT rights. Putin's brand of illiberal capitalism also poses a direct challenge to the Blue's idealized form of liberalism. Russia has become a more blatant form of imperialism and strongman rule, which is conversely admired by many of the Reds. However, the Reds are much less tolerant of China's authoritarianism, due to its supposed communist structure. In ideological and cultural terms, the Reds see China as a dangerous alien entity that operates in direct opposition to Western values.

            Nonetheless, the core of the debate is still over conflicting strategies rather than ideology. The Reds rather naively believed that Russia could be turned against China through diplomatic means and sought to contain Chinese economic growth. The Blues stubbornly pursued complete dominance over Europe, hoping to eventually balkanize or at least weaken Russia. During the first Trump presidency, a low-level trade war was waged against China. Biden's presidency poured vast resources into the costly proxy war in Ukraine. The Blues sought to destabilize Russia in the old manner, not realizing that, unlike in the past wars, the US lacked the wherewithal to successfully carry out this operation.

            In the face of Biden's failure to expand the empire's reach horizontally, there has been a resurgence of "isolationist" consolidation rhetoric among the Reds. By withdrawing from certain flashpoints and allowing sub-imperialist powers such as Russia and India to carve out their own regional spheres of influence, the Reds hope to curb these countries' global ambitions through divide and conquer tactics. They fully recognize that the "BRICS" coalition is a fragile entity built upon mild antagonism towards US unipolarity. Like the "isolationists" of WWII, the Reds hope that the newly emerging powers will fight amongst themselves while the US builds its power vertically within its more established strongholds.

            It should be noted, however, that President Trump's plan is just as delusional as Biden's. Increased dominance over traditional American allies would mean robbing them of their privileged autonomy and exacting more from them in terms of economic tribute. NATO allies already do their part to sustain the bloated US military by importing US goods and using the US dollar in the transactions. Gaps in military spending within the alliance are balanced out by the allies' support of the dollar supremacy. Numerous US trade partners supply the US with cheap resources and consumer goods, at great cost to their own development. The resulting trade surplus is merely a consequence of the international division of labor, which greatly benefits the US hegemony.

            It is no longer enough for these countries to pledge fealty to the US and tailor their economies to suit US interests. Since the US cannot subjugate new territories, it must exact more tribute from its existing vassals. In other words, Trump plans to cannibalize his allies in order to keep the system running awhile longer. This is a short-term solution that will fail in the long-term. The shared anxiety of the Reds and Blues, the end of US empire, will eventually be realized.

Conclusion

            Under either the Red or Blue American political factions, fascism will continue to grow in the world. In terms of ideology and goals, these two groups are fundamentally the same. The only real difference between them is in rhetoric and strategy. A growing rejection of both versions of fascism and the stunted expansion of the US empire has put the system into a state of crisis. During this time, the Reds and Blues will focus their collective energies on destroying the left opposition to American imperialism. Both sides will maintain the false notion that what is good for the empire is good for the world.

            The vast majority of humanity will struggle for freedom and self-determination as the US empire disintegrates. While this upheaval will affect everyone, the peoples of the Global South have less to lose than their counterparts in the Global North. Northern reactionaries will continue to vote Red or Blue for fear of losing their privileged status. The Reds, compromising around a third of the US population, were radicalized into fascism long ago. The Blues, some of which might have included naive progressives, completed their ideological turn when they consciously voted for the genocidal candidate Kamala Harris. Had a Harris presidency managed to prolong the empire for a while longer, it would have come at the expense of the misery of the vast majority of the world.

            Regardless of what the future holds, the Red and Blue fascists will forever be entwined in an alliance against any progressive forces. Amidst their crumbling empire, they will, like all fascists, yearn for the lost glory of the past. The Reds will fondly recall the social conservatism and unmatched military might of the US. The Blues will look back to the Keysian policies that allowed the First World bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy to live in harmony under the welfare state. Neither of these times will return. The next conflict will be fought between the fascists and anti-fascists. For the principled ones who refused to support either Red or Blue fascism, a new reality will take shape under a revolutionary paradigm.