To summarize an answer that became lengthier than I first intended:
The woke and the fascists are both trying to bring about societal change away from the status quo as they see it. In that regard, their argumentation takes the same shape because they are trying to fix the same thing (they just want to apply different fixes).
However, this argumentation by itself is not moral or immoral. It is a tool. The label of morality is decided by the intention of the person/party wielding that tool.
The logic used by "woke" postmodernists could as well be used by fascists.
The scalpel used by a surgeon to save a patient could as well be used by murderers to kill their victim. That doesn't disprove the value of a knife (or any kind of sharp edge), nor does it prove that knives only cause suffering.
Nietzsche was also an ideological inspiration for fascism?
I'm not saying you outright claimed it, but beware of the difference between "X inspired Y" and "X was pro-Y". Nietzsche never claimed that his point was impossible to twist, abuse, misinterpret, or use for nefarious ends.
At its heart, when you look at knowledge (and truth, which is nothing more than knowledge that claims itself to be correct) as a data transfer between humans, what Nietzsche's point comes down to is that:
- There is no universal test to see if the knowledge you received is 100% correct.
- Whenever anyone passes you knowledge, they may have altered it (knowingly or not).
If you oversimplify this, at its very core it sums to "things might not always be what they seem, even though you can't always prove it".
The main philosophical difference between postmodernist "woke" and fascism seems to be the moral guiding principle? In the case of "woke" it is to fight for the "downtrodden" against the "oppressors". In the case of fascism, it is for the "strong" to win over the "weak".
In both cases, the main argument is that the status quo is not okay, and changes need to be made. The two examples take those changes in different directions, but they both "agree" that the current situation is not okay.
When the core of your argument is that changes need to be made, and you're trying to convince people who are less eager to make changes; the first order of business is to prove that the current state of affairs is not good, and that it can be improved by making changes.
"Things might not always be what they seem, and you can't always prove it" is very relevant here. Or, in more concrete words: "What you are being told is not the real truth, they are lying to you".
This rhetoric is a very efficient way to get this message across, specifically because it cannot be disproven without reigniting itself. Anyone who counters that statement and claims that things are exactly what they are would immediately be countered by arguing that they have (at best) drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid or (at worst) are the one supplying the proverbial Kool-Aid.
Using a more blatant and silly example, consider conspiracy theories. Even if you manage to disprove a specific theory, it's always open to the recursive thought pattern of "unless that's what they wanted us to think", sparking a new theory that overshadows the previous one. This is a recursive thought pattern and is turtles all the way down.
The same thing is happening here. If someone claims that "X is not true even though you are told it is", and you manage to debunk that notion, you immediately open yourself up to being labeled as someone who is part of "the ones" that try to tell you that X is true.
The most efficient way to win an argument in the public view is to discredit your opponent, and using this rhetoric, any opponent immediately opens themselves up to being discredited.
Back to your examples of the woke and the fascists.
- Fascists undermine the status quo (i.e. their opponents) via propaganda that says that the status quo is a lie. Anyone who disagrees with them is immediately painted as being an accomplice in the lie.
- The woke undermine the status quo by focusing on immoral things that happen and are commonly accepted or not addressed. Anyone who disagrees with them is immediately painted as being pro the immoral thing.
The same thing is happening on principle. But none of this definitively labels either of them as immoral.
The immorality begins when:
- Claims are knowingly fabricated
- Public intentions are intentionally different from private intentions
- Actively uses ad hominems to win arguments that they would otherwise lose
Fascists, or at least those we commonly agree to label fascists, tend to cross the line of immorality. We tend to only call them fascists once they cross that line of morality.
"Woke" is a bit more liberal in its application. There are cases on the woke side of people fabricating claims as well, and this is equally immoral. Those who use "woke" derisively tend to specifically use "woke" towards those who are immorally woke, not people who are trying to bring a genuine issue to light; but the term is too modern to have been agreed upon by common consensus.
This all brings us back to the scalpel. It can be used for things that are commonly considered moral, it can be used for things that are commonly considered immoral. What you do with the knife and whether your actions are immoral, do not reflect on the knife itself.
Analogously, the philosophy/rhetoric in question here can be used for things that are commonly considered moral, or for things that are commonly considered to be immoral. Whoever uses this rhetoric, and whether their intentions are immoral or not; does that really reflect on the value of the rhetoric itself?
I'm leaving that question open as I suspect there won't be a common consensus on the answer.