Shaping the future from the past

by Ben Soton 

What is history for – Essays in honour of Professor John Foster: Manifesto Press, 2024, 98pp; Pbk: rrp £10.00

Someone of a more pedantic temperament might have asked the question, what is grammar for? as the publishers omitted to include a question mark in the title. But spending too much time on detail can detract from what is actually a serious question. Whether we like it or not we are all shaped by history; that of ourselves, our families, whole nations and humanity as a whole. Marxists, however, have always viewed history through the prism of class struggle.
The Manifesto Press publication is a series of essays paying tribute to John Foster.  Foster was for many years the International Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain as well as Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.  Most noted for work is Class Struggle in the Industrial Revolution (1974) as well as various articles the national question, labour history and urban development.  
The pamphlet consists of eleven essays on a range of subjects.  In the first essay Mary Davis essentially writes a tribute to Foster. She discusses how in the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of academics attempted to water down Marxism into a purely analytical tool rather than a guide to action; examples of whom included Foucault, Wright and Cohen.
Well worth reading is Hyper Imperialism Today by VJ Prashad; who both defends Lenin’s thesis of imperialism as the highest state of capitalism whilst espousing the new theory of Hyper Imperialism. He claims there is a hyper-imperialist bloc of states led by the USA, which include the European Union, Japan as well as outlying countries such as Australia.  Prashad claims that for the first time since the development of capitalism this bloc is being challenged by a group of rivals from the Global South. These states may not be entirely anti-capitalist but they are, to a greater extent, anti-Atlanticist. The only way the Hyper-Imperialist bloc can respond is through military aggression; evidence is increased military spending in the United States and Europe.  
Another article of interest is James Crossley’s essay, Religion and English Radical History which looks at the role played by religion in the Peasants Revolt of 1381.  Meanwhile Jonathan White writes about more recent events such as the strike wave of 2022 -23 and David Horsley discusses the role of Black communists in Britain. Some are written in a highly academic style whilst others are more accessible.  
The final article by Gavin Brewis, Intergenerational psychosocial trauma: violence, social murder and the ‘space between’, was one of the articles I really struggled to unpick.  The article is more of a discussion about negative language toward marginalised groups; such as “chavs” and for those north of the border “neds”.  In recent years right-wing governments have attempted to create a hostile environment towards certain groups; witness migrants and the disabled.  When considering the Starmer Government’s cuts to disabled benefits I am reminded of a quote from the late Eric Trevett, the former General Secretary of the New Communist Party: “you don’t need gas chambers to carry out genocide”.

21st Century Fascism: Fascism Today

Ukrainian fascist militia glorifies their Nazi past

By Wevergton Brito

Wevergton Brito is vice president of the Brazilian Centre for Solidarity with Peoples and the Struggle for Peace (Cebrapaz)
 
The fascism of the 21st century took a long time to mature, and its gestation began as soon as the fascism of the past century suffered a politically, ideologically, and historically demoralising defeat in 1945. 
The epithets "fascist", “national socialist” or "Nazi-fascist" once worn with pride, became a disgrace. Even the most brutal right-wingers began to renounce fascism, which had become synonymous with crime. 
The USSR and the communist movement, which were the most important forces in the anti-fascist struggle, emerged politically strengthened from the Nazi-fascist defeat. 
To mitigate this threatening influence, imperialism reacted on multiple fronts. In the ideological sphere, it resorted to all kinds of distortions to conceal the fact that fascism was a capitalist phenomenon, supported by capitalists. The Theory of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt was, in this regard, a valuable asset for the bourgeoisie. However, Hannah Arendt’s convenient theory failed to explain why "Western democracy," supposedly anti-totalitarian, supported until their very last days the two remaining fascist dictatorships in Europe: Franco's in Spain and Salazar's in Portugal (both of which survived for three decades after the fall of the Third Reich thanks to such support). 
Not to mention the support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa, McCarthyism as well as the organisation and financing of military coups in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and many others, of which I will cite just one more example. 
In Indonesia, an anti-communist purge carried out by the military with CIA backing killed, in 1965, an estimated one million people. That’s right: one million people. The massacre installed General Hadji Mohamed Suharto in power, who would rule the country dictatorially with full U.S. support from 1967 to 1998. 
The truth is that fascist ideas have never ceased to be an instrument in the service of imperialism, one way or another. 

Neo-liberalism and the Unipolar Power of the USA

The late 1980s and early 1990s marked the dismantling of the USSR and the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe. It was the time of the temporary triumph of bourgeois ideals. Before that, the bourgeoisie had already been conducting advanced experiments in neo-liberalism – an aggressive imposition of capital aimed at destroying any social control that could create obstacles to unbridled exploitation and speculation on a global scale. 
One of the most important theorists of neo-liberalism, Wilhelm Röpke, explicitly advocated the need for a certain level of authoritarianism to overcome popular resistance to neo=liberalism: “It is possible that my view on a 'strong State' (a government that governs) is even ‘more fascist’ because I would really like to see all economic policy decisions concentrated in the hands of a vigorous and entirely independent State, unweakened by pluralist forces of a corporatist nature…people need to get used to the fact that there is also a presidential democracy, authoritarian, yes, and even – horrible dictum – a dictatorial democracy”. 
The end of the dispute between the socialist bloc, led by the USSR, and the capitalist bloc, led by the USA, with the emergence of the latter's unipolar power, radically changed the conditions of political struggle – to the detriment of the working class. 
The global imposition of neo-liberalism was a powerful expression of the bourgeoisie's ideological victory. From that point on, in terms of social representation, at best, only thematic and atomised organisations (such as NGOs) that played a passive and subordinate role in non-threatening issues would be tolerated. Collective emancipation projects would be a thing of the past. 
However, more than 30 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, bourgeois democracy is widely discredited. How did this happen? The two main promises made after the fall of the Berlin Wall were never fulfilled. What were these promises? 

First: A World of Peace – With the end of the USSR and the socialist bloc, a world of peace and peaceful resolution of conflicts based on the United Nations Charter would be established, they claimed. Yet, the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on Syria, etc., quickly shattered this illusion.
 
Second – A World of Economic Prosperity – Neo-liberal globalisation would bring economic and social progress within everyone’s reach, they asserted. Instead, in capitalist countries, wealth concentration sky-rocketed and phenomena associated with hunger and misery (begging, homelessness, etc.) emerged even in imperialist core nations. 
In 2015, a study by the Economic Policy Institute (USA) found that the purchasing power of American workers had been practically stagnant since 1978. The report introduction stated: 
“The wage stagnation of the vast majority of workers was not caused by abstract economic trends. On the contrary, wages were suppressed by policy choices made in favour of those who hold more income, wealth, and power”.
 
In the USA and Europe, new generations struggle to maintain the standard of living their parents enjoyed, which has profoundly affected the middle classes. This recalls Umberto Eco’s warning: “One of the characteristics of historical fascisms was the appeal to frustrated middle classes, devalued by some economic crisis or political humiliation”. 
Work has become precarious and devalued. Social mobility has drastically declined, and studies by non-Marxist economists, such as the French economist Thomas Piketty, highlight the growing trend toward the formation of a global financial oligarchy. 
On the other hand, especially in Europe, communist parties, which for decades were the main references for the most combative sector of the proletariat and the channels through which anti-system opinion was expressed, either dissolved in the face of the collapse of the socialist bloc or followed the path of transformation into parties of the Establishment. Some changed their names, programmes, and objectives. Others preserved their identities, though in some cases making serious ideological concessions and, in almost all cases, being strongly impacted by the defeat of the socialist bloc. This resulted in a sharp decline in political influence, during a phase of strategic retreat for the revolutionary movement. 
Within the broader left-wing spectrum, social-democratic parties – some of which even retained the designation "socialist" – fully embraced the neo-liberal and Atlanticist agenda. In Portugal, France, and Italy, to name just a few examples, it was social democracy that dismantled much of the welfare state, degraded labour conditions, and blindly adhered to the dictates of NATO and the United States. 
Disillusionment and discontent are gripping the masses. This phenomenon, with its own nuances and characteristics, has been repeated across the globe, leaving part of the proletariat and middle strata without viable alternatives on the horizon, leading to a sense of political and ideological orphanhood, making them easy prey for the falsely anti-system demagoguery of the far right. 
In Italy, in the 2022 election, the "Regioni Rosse" (Red Regions) –  historically the electoral stronghold of the communists of the former Communist Party of Italy – voted overwhelmingly for the fascists of the Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy) party, led by current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The motto of  "Brothers of Italy" is "God, Homeland, and Family," and their symbol is a tricolour flame representing the fire rising from Mussolini's tomb. 
Here, we must highlight the different political developments of European social democracy compared to some sectors of Latin American social democracy after the Second World War. 
While in Europe, social-democratic parties generally became direct representatives of capital and imperialism, in Latin America, many parties of this tradition maintained anti-imperialist orientations and commitments to progressive popular causes. Examples include the Socialist Party of Salvador Allende in Chile and, much later in Brazil, the Democratic Labour Party (PDT) of Brizola, and more prominently, the Workers' Party (PT) of Lula. 
This is one of the factors that may help explain why Latin America became a global bastion of resistance to the hegemonic neo-liberal agenda starting in the 1990s. 
At the beginning of the 1990s, there was only one left-wing government in Latin America and the Caribbean: Cuba. From Mexico to Argentina, neoliberalism was triumphant. However, the neo-liberal project sparked waves of popular discontent. 
Resistance and struggle arose in every corner of the region. After the initial shock of the collapse of the socialist bloc – and despite the various interpretations of the causes and significance of that downfall – the committed Latin American left, with the active participation of communist parties, understood the need to find broad forms of action, demonstrating mobilisation and organisational capacity. 
In 1998, Hugo Chávez won the presidential elections in Venezuela. In successive years, progressive forces won elections in Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, and El Salvador. 
Public policies were implemented to combat hunger and social injustices. The sovereign integration of Latin America and the Caribbean gained unprecedented momentum, with the creation or strengthening of mechanisms such as Mercosur, Unasur, CELAC, and ALBA. 
For the first time in nearly 100 years – since the early 20th century, when they consolidated continental hegemony – the Americans could no longer treat the region as their backyard. They had to watch as the continent as a whole gravitated increasingly toward China, and to some extent, Russia.
 
the "end of history" 

 
The victory over the socialist bloc in the late 1980s convinced capitalism that its model of bourgeois democracy was destined to be the mandatory and eternal standard. "It is the end of history," proclaimed one of its ideologues, Francis Fukuyama. 
Such was their confidence that fascist ideas and methods were relegated to a secondary role, as a tactical reserve. Even in the most developed capitalist countries, there was some progress on cultural and social issues that posed no real threat to the bourgeoisie's class power. But that phase, in historical terms, lasted only a blink of an eye. 
A growing challenge to US unipolar dominance, led by the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, began to take shape, making the emergence of a multipolar world an undeniable reality. In 2009, the presidents of Brazil, Russia, India, and China met in Moscow, and two years later, with South Africa's inclusion, the BRICS bloc was born. 
In 2013, China launched a new proposal for economic globalisation: the "Belt & Road Initiative" also known as the New Silk Road. This project challenges neo-liberal globalisation, which seeks to perpetuate relations of subservience, as it is based on the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s thesis of "shared development for humanity." 
Faced with powerful geopolitical shifts –including movements in Asia, Eurasia, and Africa that began contesting US unipolar power, the anti-neoliberal resistance in Latin America, and the growing discontent of workers and the middle classes in Europe—the "tactical reserve" arsenal of fascism was once again activated. Anti-communist, authoritarian, racist, misogynistic, and irrationalist rhetoric gained new momentum. 
In Latin America, which we will discuss further, the experience of progressive governments was constantly under attack. There were periods of greater stability, but never of a truce. 
What was once hidden in the sewers has begun to emerge, aided by imperialism and the traditional right wing, which, it must be noted, skilfully exploited the limits, mistakes, and shortcomings of the progressive camp. 

The Return of the Big Lie 
 
A close reading of the book in which Hitler laid out his profession of faith, Mein Kampf, reveals that the Nazi leader was deeply fascinated by the use of lies as a mass manipulation technique. According to Hitler, the use of a colossal, absurd lie would always leave the public with some doubt that there must be some truth in a "Big Lie," because no one would be crazy enough to invent such nonsense unless there was some real basis for it. 
Using the pretext of “denouncing” the so-called “Jewish and Marxist lies” Hitler could not conceal what was, in fact, a strategic proposal for his movement and his main propaganda technique, which became known as the “Big Lie” method “… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper layers of their emotional nature …and thus, in the primitive simplicity of their minds, they fall more easily victim to the big lie than to the small lie…t would never enter their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the audacity to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts that prove this may be clearly brought to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there might be some other explanation” (Hitler, in Mein Kampf). 
And indeed, this method was applied with resounding success by the Nazis, convincing millions of Germans that communism was a Jewish invention and that Germany lost the First World War due to the betrayal of Jews and communists. 
The journalist William Shirer, a staunch conservative, witnessed first-hand the Nazis' rise to power and reports in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: “Many times in a German home or office, or sometimes in casual conversations with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I came across the most exotic statements from seemingly educated and intelligent people. It was evident that they were repeating some absurd excerpt heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes I was tempted to point out certain truths, but on these occasions, I was met with such a look of disbelief, such shocking silence, as if I had blasphemed against the Almighty, to the point that I understood the futility of trying to reach a mind that had been perverted and for whom the facts of life had been transformed into whatever Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disdain for the truth, said they were”. 
Shirer’s account is shockingly relevant today, as it reflects the experiences of any anti-fascist engaging with friends and family who support 21st century fascism, regardless of the country in which they operate, with few exceptions. 
Without a doubt, the Trumpist Steve Bannon and his acolytes have studied this technique. With the rise of social media, the effectiveness of the “Big Lie” has been amplified and deployed on a global scale, with the undisguised complicity of mainstream media when it served their interests. Often, by the time it ceased to be convenient, the damage was already irreparable. The monster had taken on a life of its own. 
Millions of Americans firmly believe that Joe Biden is a communist and that communists rigged the 2020 US election. During the last US election, I saw on TV a Trump supporter declaring to a reporter that Democrats control hurricanes and tornadoes, directing them toward areas with more Republican voters. This claim circulated on social media before the election and was “confirmed” by a Trumpist Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who stated, “Yes, they can control the weather”. Perhaps not even Hitler could have imagined such a degree of insanity. 
(

Trump’s big day

The Trump administration launched a global trade war this week with a tranche of tariffs on most countries – including the United Kingdom. Trump announced a 10 per cent baseline tariff on all imports wherever they come from and higher rates on a number of countries whom he deemed the “worst offenders” in terms of imposing tariffs on American goods. Britain is in the 10 per cent general band. Even the uninhabited Heard and McDonald islands, a remote Australian outpost near Antarctica, is on the basic rate – even though the population consists largely of seals and penguins.
A few,  devoid of any meaningful trade with the USA like Belarus, Cuba, Democratic Korea, Iran and the Russian Federation, get off scot-free. Others were not so lucky. Cambodia tops the list at 49 per cent and Vietnam is second on 46. People’s China gets 34 per cent, pushing their overall tariff to a stomping 54 per cent,
Tariffs are used by the capitalists to boost domestic manufacturers and punish those from other countries whose interests conflict with theirs. A tariff is essentially a tax paid by companies who import goods from the targeted countries. This is then normally passed on to the consumer in higher prices. The Trump administration seeks to “Make America Great Again”, largely at the expense of its own allies, and boost American manufacturing through tariffs and protectionism while using secret diplomacy and economic blackmail to achieve its goals. 
By turning trade into an over-simplistic tit-for-tat game, the Trump administration is dismantling a global trade system based on efficiency, specialisation and mutual benefit and hurting both the US economy and the global economy at large. The idea of “reciprocal tariffs” is particularly misguided. The principle of comparative advantage allows countries to focus on what they do best and trade for the rest. Ignoring this leads to economic inefficiencies. 
Despite Trump's claim that higher tariffs will help bring in revenue for the government and revitalise American manufacturing, economists have warned that such measures will push up prices for US consumers and businesses, disrupt global trade, and hurt global economy.
European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen called Trump's tariffs a "major blow to the world economy"  while People’s China promises counter-measures. China “will take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests" a Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson told the media in Beijing this week saying that there is no winner in a trade or tariff war, and that protectionism offers no solution.
On the White House lawn Trump said this was “Liberation Day” holding up a board showing the rates he was imposing on different countries throughout the world. He said a “golden age” was coming back the United States.
That wasn’t the view in the money markets of New York and the City of London as shares of the multinational companies tumbled when they heard the news. Crude oil, Big Tech stocks and even the going rate for the US dollar against other currencies fell. Even gold, which hit records recently as investors sought something safer to own, has dipped.
As big brands lose their value in early trading and shares crash on Wall Street many fear that far from heralding a new era Trump’s draconian protectionist measures will simply trigger a trade war and another global capitalist slump.

Resist Nato!

On 18th March 2025 the Bundestag [the German parliament] voted to change the German constitution to allow unlimited debt for military spending. A majority of the “old” parliamentarians, who were voted out on 23rd February, revealed their plans to expand German imperialism by preparing the country for war at the expense of its residents.
The Bundestag has set aside a 500 billion euro special fund for “infrastructure,” meaning the military. Instead of investing in basic needs and public social services like schools, hospitals and smaller initiatives that uphold social welfare, Germany is investing in anti-social warfare.
Although Christian Democratic Union leader and likely next Chancellor Joachim-Friedrich Merz claims this fund is to “defend” Germany from Russian attack and the need for Nato, the German government is playing into the hands of weapons companies seizing the billion-dollar cash-in from the arms race, and US imperialism that has turned its attention to the Asia-Pacific region in its preparation for war with China.
The law is a pathway to weaponise public spending – a service that won’t be returned. Imperialist countries fuel global conflict, colonialism and conquest by supplying weapons, exploiting land and resources and forcing people from their homes. All the while, they use migrants as easy scapegoats to gain votes and at the same time profit off the backs of exploited migrant workers. Out of proportion with the growing inflation, salaries won’t rise, and several sectors are on strike due to burnout of health care workers and loss of public funding. We will not bow down.
Yet military facilities grow. Volkswagen factories’ management are resuming conversations with weapons factory supplier Rheinmetall to repurpose the car factories into military infrastructure for production. These are the same factories once used to fuel the war economy of Germany in the 1930s.
While millions of euros are spent on “defence” the people will suffer. In Berlin and across Germany, cuts to social services, education, health care and welfare programmes leave many people unsupported – especially working people, migrants, women, LGBT people and children.
Rather than seeking solutions to the root causes of violence on the continent, Germany is playing a leading role in militarising the European Union for the benefit of the arms industry.
These cracks in the US-led Nato alliance are an opportunity for the anti-war, anti-fascist and pro-people movements to expose the German parties and Nato for their fundamental role in causing instability and violence across the world, from Palestine to the Philippines.
At the same time as the vote, people gathered across Germany to raise their voices against Germany’s warmongering and further militarization. Let us unite against our primary enemy, US imperialism and its European lackeys.
We oppose Germany’s imperialist expansion of the war machine! We call on all anti-war, anti-fascist and peace-loving people to join the RESIST NATO 2025 Campaign.
The organisations of Resist NATO 2025 are conducting an education and mobilization campaign to mount mass opposition from across Europe and around the world to directly confront the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands, happening this coming June.

Rise and Shine!

 By John Maryon

Originally forming part of a biblical verse from the book of Isaiah that calls for God's light to shine, today it has become an idem to encourage anyone to get up and achieve something. And in the context of the working class to stand up for their rights through class struggle. An essential time to take the path of building socialism and lay the foundations of a beautiful communist society. The New Communist Party of Britain (NCP) is part of that struggle and recognises that complete emancipation from capitalism and imperialism can only be achieved by a revolutionary change.
Our chosen route and rate of progress will be influenced by both internal social and economic conditions and also the international threat from imperialist aggression.  We may face trade sanctions, attempts to cause political instability and “colour revolutions” or direct military aggression.  The British road would have been much quicker when the spirit of revolution was in the air immediately following the Second World War. and before Mrs Thatcher sold off the family silver. These events are history so let us examine the prospects for building socialism in Britain today.
We must through our political work overcome the apathy and servile acceptance by the masses to their deteriorating social and economic conditions. Within a socialist society people would not be left to shiver in the cold, too afraid to turn on their expensive heating.  Bringing back the Electricity and Gas Boards would provide a mechanism to control prices and allow for long term strategic planning that would provide secure and affordable supplies.  Engineers, not marketing men, would decide how to invest and provide the best possible service to their consumers.  Events such as the Heathrow outage would become impossible and energy costs would be a fraction of today's inflated values. State owned utilities are much more efficient and accountable than rip off get rich quick outfits.
Water, fresh air, shelter and food are all basic human requirements. Water and sewage systems were once upon a time in England provided by local councils and paid for through the rates. Public ownership of these essential public services ensured affordable services that were the envy of the world. Millions of pounds wasted on water meters could have been spent fixing leaks. In the good old days we could water our favourite flowers and vegetables with confidence. 
Socialist housing would mean a roof over their head for everyone with rough sleeping just a horrible nightmare from the capitalist past. A National Housing Board should be established to build enough wonderful council houses  for all who need them.  In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea housing is now becoming a free vital service paid for from the profits of State enterprises. This is the power of true socialism.  How unlike Britain where rents are becoming unaffordable and homeowners struggle all their lives to pay the mortgage on a home which may then have to be sold, to pay extortionate fees for private care homes, when they become elderly. 
Education is an investment for the future. A proper socialist government would make education free up to university level and create trade apprenticeships for all those that need them. Every one would reach their full potential and society would flourish.  In Britain today the children of deprived or broken families are not encouraged by the system to make an effort. They remain destined to live a dull, hard life in some dead end job on minimum wage.  To build a successful socialist society we have to enable these children to rise and shine. A full socialist society would overcome the social barriers between so called manual workers and those who occupy white collar professions.  It is important to note that the so called middle class are just better off members of the working class itself. They also serve the super rich capitalists who run their world. 
Those who are fortunate enough to live in a low stress caring socialist society are starting to become more healthy and live longer than we are.  Rebuilding the NHS to the body it was intended to be would provide free full dental treatment, free podiatry care and free prescriptions and full medical and social care for long term sick and elderly. And importantly proper loving care for those mentally ill. Rapid referral would avoid waiting for years in pain for treatment.
We seek a return to a fully funded aftercare service to allow patients to stay in convalescent homes before being returned home to an often cold bleak house without proper food. And of course under socialism, doctors, nurses, ambulance staff and all ancillary workers would be paid properly with secure defined benefit pensions.  New hospitals would be planned well in advance of need and steps taken for proper full funding. No PFI would be allowed. When the NHS was founded in the 1940s it should have been allowed to manufacture its own drugs and equipment, which would have saved a fortune. 
People's China has demonstrated how its people's have been able to rise and shine under socialism.  What, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, it has managed to achieve is amazing, improving the quality of life for over a billion people with infrastructure development and a dynamic expanding economy.  A socialist Britain would recreate a national public owned integrated bus and train network for a safe, green and stress free environment. Socialism would make available large amounts of cheap renewable energy to power a new transport system. 
Socialism is far more than just improving people's standards of living and welfare. Under it's benevolent wing the arts, music, books and films are able to flourish, stimulate, enrich and nurture an ethos of comradeship, harmony and cooperation in opposition to the selfish individualism of western society that leads to conflict and aggression.  The working class may create and enjoy its own culture, one without elitism. 
One may well ask where all the money is coming from to construct and develop our brave new world.  I have a little list.  Major fiscal changes to tax the wealthy and use the money to help the less fortunate in our society. Modest profits from the nationalised utilities and industries would be ploughed back to improve and expand services.  An end to outsourcing by the NHS and other public services would lead to impressive savings. Slashing the obscene levels of military expenditure, and the funding of neo-fascists, would enable billions of pounds to be directed to peaceful construction and building a better life for everyone.  As the economy expands under socialism greater public income would be generated to make tax cuts a reality. We would quit NATO, forget the European Union and join BRICS for expanded trade.  And finally we could join China's Belt & Road Initiative to benefit from infrastructure investment projects. 
Socialism offers a bright future in which we all can excel. With it would come a new spirit of fraternity and comradeship.  Capitalism has little left to offer apart from continued recession, economic decline and endless warmongering.  I know who I am batting for.  Support the NCP and hasten the day we can all rejoice!

21st Century Fascism: Reflections for Debate

  by Wevergton Brito

Vice President of the Brazilian Centre for Solidarity with the Peoples and Struggle for Peace (Cebrapaz) 
 
Nazi-fascist ideas were so powerful, so influential, and caused so many traumas and disasters in the 20th century that they continue to strongly impact today's far-right currents. One of these strands has once again taken command of the world's leading imperialist power, the United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump. 
However, the legitimate concern for theoretical rigour raises an important question: is it correct to label the most significant elements of the modern far-right as fascist? 
Clearly, not all conservative or right-wing movements can be lumped into the category of fascism. Such a mistake would lead antifascists to commit tactical errors, such as failing to exploit contradictions that could weaken and isolate the enemy, distancing them from potential temporary allies. Nevertheless, it is vital to correctly understand what we are facing; otherwise, there is a risk of adopting insufficient measures. 

What is fascism?
 
The core definition of fascism, as formulated by the International Communist Movement and particularly by Georgi Dimitrov in his famous report presented at the 7th Congress of the Communist International in 1935, remains strikingly relevant. It was summarised in the Short Philosophical Dictionary (Rosental & Iudin), published by the Soviet state: "Fascism is the most reactionary and openly terrorist form of the dictatorship of financial capital, established by the imperialist bourgeoisie to crush the resistance of workers and all progressive elements in society. The rise of fascism is proof that the bourgeoisie can no longer impose its interests through the routine means of normal bourgeois democracy". 
For Brazilian Marxist Leandro Konder, in his book Introduction to Fascism (1977), some of the main characteristics of fascism include: anti-communism, charismatic leadership, authoritarianism, militarism, chauvinism, massive propaganda,irrationalism, and the use of violence as a political method. 
Greek theorist Nicos Poulantzas, on the other hand, argues that the defining aspect of fascism is the existence of a politically mobilised mass base, differentiating it from other authoritarian expressions such as military dictatorships, which rely on occasional mass support, or Bonapartist dictatorships, which also depend on a charismatic leader and have a mass base but do not evolve into an organised social force. 
Even considering the most well-known definitions of fascism, it is almost impossible to separate fascism from contemporary far-right movements, as we inevitably find in their platforms and/or practices some – if not all – of the essential elements of fascism. The only significant exception today is anti-Semitism, which has become residual among fascists, largely because Israel has become one of the global capitals of the far right. 
From a political standpoint, attempting to separate the most significant elements of today’s far right from 21st-century fascism – or, as some prefer, neo-fascism – is a futile effort. The modern far right and fascism are, at best, Siamese twins, connected by the brain and the heart, both born from the same “bitch” as Brecht would put it: capitalism in its imperialist stage. 
What we are facing today, embodied in the leadership of Donald Trump, is 21st century fascism. A fascism that does not dare to speak its name, yet fascism nonetheless, as it possesses all the essential attributes of classical fascism. This will be explored in this series of three articles. 
Expecting today’s fascism to be identical in every respect to what we might call the “original” fascism reflects a schematic mindset, one that Lenin had already criticised: "The phenomenon is always richer than the law…and therefore, any law is limited, incomplete, and approximate”.
Let us turn to history to understand, in broad strokes, how this phenomenon has evolved up to the present day. 

Yesterday’s Fascism

 
The term “fascist” gained prominence in 1919 when Benito Mussolini created his armed militias, the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, a merger of two groups that had referred to themselves as "fascists" since 1915. The Fasci Italiani di Combattimento later gave rise to the National Fascist Party, which seized power in 1922. 
The word fascio (plural: fasci) means "bundle," referring to the fasces – an ancient symbol of power in the Roman Empire. This symbolism was part of Mussolini’s mythological narrative to make Italy relive the grandeur of Ancient Rome. 
Mussolini had been a socialist activist before radically changing his stance at the outbreak of the First World War. He enthusiastically supported Italy’s participation in the war and increasingly adopted a virulent anti-Marxist, chauvinist, and reactionary position. 
The “founding fathers” of fascism, Mussolini and Hitler, clearly defined the foundational purpose of fascism: the fight against communism. 
Mussolini declared that anti-communism was the soul of fascism, but he did not consider that sufficient. To mobilise the masses, he cynically argued, it was necessary to create a myth: "Denying Bolshevism is necessary, but something must be affirmed. We created our myth. A myth is a faith, it is a passion. It does not have to be a reality....our myth is the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation!"  
What was happening in Italy was closely followed in Germany by Adolf Hitler, a young man with a deeply prejudiced and conservative mentality. In 1921, he assumed the leadership of a party founded the previous year: the National Socialist German Workers' Party, abbreviated as NAZI from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische in German. 
Hitler idolised Mussolini and Fascist Italy. It was a beacon to follow. In 1925, he enthusiastically stated in his book Mein Kampf that "the struggle being waged by Fascist Italy against the three main weapons of Judaism...the banning of secret Masonic lodges, the persecution of the internationalist press, as well as the constant battle against international Marxism, on the other hand, the constant consolidation of Fascist doctrine, will enable, over the years, the Italian government to increasingly serve the interests of its people without fear of the Jewish hydra". 
In the context of the great economic crisis triggered in 1929, known as the New York Stock Market Crash or the Great Depression, the fascist movement gained momentum worldwide, and Hitler rose to power in 1933. 
Dimitrov characterised Nazism as follows: "The most reactionary form of fascism is the German type. It has the audacity to call itself National Socialism, despite having nothing in common with socialism. Hitlerian fascism is not just bourgeois nationalism; it is brutal chauvinism. It is a system of government based on political banditry, a system of provocations and torture against the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasant masses, the petty bourgeoisie, and intellectuals. It is medieval cruelty and barbarism, unbridled aggression against other peoples and countries". 
In Hitler’s case, the mobilising myth of national greatness was combined with the myth of the "Jewish conspiracy" widely spread through the first "fake news" produced on an industrial scale: the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which allegedly revealed Jewish plans for world domination. The difference between him and Mussolini was that Hitler genuinely believed in his myths. 
The Nazis' antisemitism was far more virulent than that of Fascist Italy, which only adopted anti-Jewish laws 16 years after Mussolini came to power, and even then, due to some degree of German pressure. However, aside from a few nuances (such as this one), Hitler shared almost everything with the ideology of Italian fascism: the concept of Lebensraum (spazio vitale in Italian) to justify the invasion of sovereign countries, as well as fierce anti-communism. Marxism, for Hitler, was the "weapon" of Judaism: "Over the brain and soul of decent people, the fear of Judaism, the weapon of Marxists, gradually descends like a nightmare." (Mein Kampf) 
The rebirth of Germany was only possible by eradicating Marxism: "Invincible, however, seem the millions who oppose national resurgence due to political convictions, invincible as long as their Marxist ideas are not combated, torn from their hearts and minds." (Mein Kampf) 
So why the red colour in the Nazi flag? Hitler himself responds with unusual cynicism (cynicism, by the way, is one of the timeless characteristics of fascism): "The red colour of our posters was chosen by us after precise and deep reflection, with the aim of provoking the Left, of enraging it and inducing it to attend our assemblies; all of this, if only to allow us to come into contact and speak with these people." (Mein Kampf) 
This also indirectly reveals why the word "socialism" was in the name of his party, which 
becomes clear in another passage of the same book: "Only the red colour of our posters made them flock to our meeting halls. The bourgeoisie was horrified that we had also adopted the red of the Bolsheviks, suspecting behind this some ambiguous attitude. The nationalist circles of Germany whispered among themselves the same suspicion, that deep down, we were nothing but a kind of Marxists, perhaps simply masked Marxists or, rather, socialists… How many good laughs we had at the expense of these idiots and cowards". (Mein Kampf) 
Revealing once again the genesis of his ideology, Hitler, as early as 1925, foretold the defeat of Bolshevism, saying that Germany "casts its gaze to the lands of the East": "Destiny itself seems to indicate the direction to us. By abandoning Russia to Bolshevism, fate has stripped the Russian people of the educated class that created and ensured its existence as a state. The organisation of a Russian state was not the result of the Slavic political capacity in Russia but a marvelous example of the efficiency 
of Germanic elements as state-builders within an inferior race." (Mein Kampf) 
In other words, according to Hitler, by expelling the "educated class" from power, the communists purged Russia of its "Germanic elements," making it an easy prey. 
Exactly 20 years after the publication of Mein Kampf, in April 1945, the Nazi leader, then confined in his bunker, with the Red Army of the "inferior race" occupying almost all of Berlin, confided in his followers, lamenting not having secured an alliance with England, as such an alliance would have allowed him to fully pursue "the objective of my life and the reason for the rise of National Socialism: the extermination of Bolshevism".

  imperialism without a mask
 
Another common point between Mussolini and Hitler: both rose to power with the support of massive movements and the enthusiastic backing and financing of the economic and political elites of Italy, Germany, and other parts of the world. Nazism, for example, garnered the admiration of the magnate Henry Ford, who became one of the financiers of the Nazi party and was decorated by the German government with the Order of Merit of the German Eagle on 30th July 1938. 
Regarding international politics, fascism has innovated in relation to other forms of expansionism. The Europeans sought to justify colonialism as an expedition to convert pagans to Christianity and civilise the savages. Manifest Destiny, the ideology behind US expansion across the Americas, conveyed more or less the same idea: that Americans, as legitimate Anglo-Saxons, were destined by God to civilise the continent. Fascism, on the other hand, virtually dispensed with global legitimising justifications. The invasion of territories previously belonging to free peoples was justified solely by Italy’s and 
Germany’s particular interests in securing their spazio vitale and lebensraum period. 
This is precisely how one of the most famous historians of Nazism, Joachim Fest – a conservative of the old school – defined it: “What made Hitler a new phenomenon in history was the fact that he never had any civilisational notion. The world’s conquering powers – from ancient Rome to the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleonic France, or the British Empire – always claimed, however tenuously, the promise of peace, progress, and freedom for humanity. Hitler, on the  contrary, abandoned any ornamentation in his conquest and expansion of power, considering it unnecessary even for mere theatric”. 
Recently, Donald Trump simultaneously threatened the sovereignty of three allied countries: he wants to take the Panama Canal from Panama and Greenland from Denmark. As for Canada, Trump wants the entire country. The American magnate also made no pretense, justifying annexation simply, in his own words: “We need them for our economic security”.