21st Century Fascism: Legitimate Concerns

  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”. 

Crisis? What Crisis?

Empty shelves in the supermarkets, soaring energy prices while motorists fume in queues for fuel at petrol stations struggling to remain open as supplies run out due to a shortage of drivers in the haulage industry. In other times this would be an open goal for Labour to hammer the Tories. Now the utterly useless leader of the Labour Party can barely turn away from his relentless purge of the Corbynistas to utter the usual platitudes that nobody listens to these days.

    No wonder the Tories are basking in complacency at their annual conference in Manchester. Boris Johnson struts the stage drivelling on about his “mission” to decrease geographical inequalities and defending “our history” from “cancel culture iconoclasm” in a rambling speech that made no mention of the rising cost of living or the supply chain crisis.
    But you’d think this was a second Cicero judging from the applause of his followers who laugh at his sixth-form jibes at Starmer – the “Captain Hindsight” who resembles a “seriously rattled bus conductor” and eagerly lap up talk about unleashing the potential of all Britons in the spirit of Olympians or the England football team.
    When Tory leaders talk about "Britons" and "our one-nation" they want to foster the idea that we are a united people with a common national interest. But nothing could be further from the truth. We are, in fact, a class divided society in which the interests of the exploited class – the majority of the people – are in direct conflict with the interests of the exploiters.
    In the past Labour leaders recognised class divisions and during the Attlee and Wilson eras their economists talked about “democratic socialist” solutions to end exploitation and poverty. Now that’s been reduced to Angela Rayner calling the Tories “scum” while talk of nationalising the railways or the utilities is frowned on by Starmer & Co.
    Though state intervention is essential in Keynesian economics the form it takes reflects the needs of the ruling class at the time. Keynesian reforms are designed to uphold the existing order and stave off social unrest and they are the kernel of left social democratic thinking in the capitalist world.
    But they were also embraced by Benito Mussolini, whose fascist Italy had a public sector second only to that of the Soviet Union before the Second World War. Franklin D Roosevelt tried revive the American economy after the massive slump in 1929 with a Keynesian “New Deal and Adolf Hitler did the same when the Nazis took over in Germany.
    The neo-liberal unrestricted market economy of the imperialist heartlands is clearly unable to cope with the post-Covid world and so the ruling circles in the United States are returning to the old Keynesian models. The Biden administration’s $3.5 trillion economic plan is going down the same road as FDR’s New Deal and the “Great Society” of the 1960s.
    While new bourgeois consensus has seen the old social-democratic parties return to the centre of government in Western Europe.
    But whatever form it takes capitalism will always be brutal and oppressive because that is the only way it can ensure that the rich can continue to live the lives of Roman emperors off the backs of workers and peasants. The capitalists fear and loathe organised labour because it knows that the entire wealth of the world comes from workers in the factories and peasants in the fields.

The capitalists know that eventually their insatiable greed will provoke a political reaction among those they rob and cheat. And, even though they deny it and refuse to speak about it, we know that just as inevitable as capitalist crises is the ultimate victory of socialism over capitalism.

Ducking and diving in Vichy France

By Andy Brooks

Szkolnikoff: Hitler’s Jewish smuggler: by Pierre Abramovici, Pen & Sword Books. Barnsley 2016, 223 pp, illus, £19.99. ISBN 978-1-47386-186-2 (hardback)

The popular perception of France under the German occupation is moulded by war-time propaganda that has echoed down the decades in a seemingly endless stream of films and TV dramas that portray the Germans as Nazi thugs who take anything they fancy from a helpless French population while spivs, much like Private Walker in Dad’s Army, use the consequential shortages to exploit their own people on the street. But this is only part of the story.
     That indeed was the reality for some. But for others it was more complex. Thousands of French men and women collaborated with the Germans under the reactionary Petain regime that took over after the 1940 armistice which left northern France under continued German military occupation. Some were French fascists who believed in Hitler’s ideology of hate. Others simply thought that they were playing safe on the mistaken belief that Germany was going to win the war. On the way some made a bit of money out of the Germans. Others made immense fortunes
     In June 1945 the charred body of a man was found dumped in a field near Madrid. He was Mendel Szkolnikoff. Born in Russia in 1895 he was a Karaite, a member of a small breakaway Jewish sect that was exempt from the anti-semitic laws of the Czarist empire. This worked in his favour in the 1940s because the Nazis did not consider the Karaites to be Jews either.
    Szkolnikoff started life as a petty trader in Czarist Russia before fleeing the Soviet Union in the late 1920s to run a number of small businesses from modest apartments in western Europe.
     This all changed following the fall of France in 1940. Within weeks of the armistice Szkolnikoff becomes a major player in the textile industry as a middleman between French manufacturers to supply fabrics and clothing to the SS, the Luftwaffe and the German navy. Literally from rags to riches “Michel” Szkolnikoff, as he calls himself now, is buying chateaux in France, mansions in Monte Carlo and stashing millions away in bank accounts in Monaco, Spain and Switzerland.
     How he got there and why he came to a sticky end are questions that the author, Pierre Abramovici, tries to answer in this life of what, clearly, was an extraordinary man.
     Nazi Germany, still at war with Britain and soon to be embroiled in what proved to be a fatal confrontation with the Soviet Union, wanted everything France could produce to help their war effort. As Vichy France was technically now neutral under the terms of the 1940 armistice the Germans had to pay for their imports. But the harsh economic regime that they had imposed on France, which included a colossally overvalued 20 to one exchange rate between the Vichy franc and the Reichmark meant that the French state ultimately always ended up footing the bill.
    Though the Petain regime encouraged collaboration few French manufacturers wanted to directly deal with the Germans. And this is where Szkolnikoff made his mark. He knew the power of expensive gifts that only money can provide. With a well-connected German wife and an ever expanding range of contacts within the German hierarchy and the Vichy establishment “Michel” built up a spectacular black market empire as well as a personal fortune said to be worth £377 million in today's money.
     This is a specialist book that tells us more about the methods than the man. But by shining a light on the murky world of the war-time black market it will remain essential reading for all students of the German occupation of France in the Second World War.