21st Century Fascism: Reflections for Debate

by Wevergton Brito

Wevergton Brito is vice president of the Brazilian Centre for Solidarity with Peoples and the Struggle for Peace (Cebrapaz)

In Latin America, the “Big Lie” technique, amplified by social media, has also caused great damage, and I would like to begin by commenting on some cases that occurred in Brazil. 
During the 2010 presidential campaign, then-candidate Dilma Rousseff was targeted by an underground war on social media. At the time, WhatsApp had only arrived in the country a year earlier and had not yet reached the influence it would later achieve. Even so, Dilma's candidacy was the target of an avalanche of fake news that concretely influenced a significant part of the population to either annul their vote or vote for José Serra, her main opponent, who represented the traditional right. 
My former in-laws, a retired school janitor and a maintenance worker at the same Catholic school, had always voted for Lula since 1989. To my surprise, when I visited them after the first round of the 2010 election, both (devout Catholics) had annulled their votes because they were “informed” that Dilma would force churches to perform same-sex marriages. Other bizarre fabrications that gained traction included: 

• Dilma had cancer, would die soon, and Michel Temer (her running mate) would take over. His son was supposedly a Satanist. 
• Dilma had gonorrhea. 
• She had challenged Jesus Christ himself during a rally in the state of Minas Gerais. 
• She would shut down churches and imprison priests and pastors. 

The mainstream media remained silent in the face of this abject underground smear campaign because the beneficiary was their preferred candidate who, despite all of this, was still defeated in the second round. 
In 2011, a request was made to revoke the mandate of then-federal deputy Jair Bolsonaro after he made various racist and misogynistic statements against singer and TV host Preta Gil. The most influential political columnist for the major bourgeois newspaper O Globo, Ricardo Noblat, defended the fascist. Shamelessly, Noblat concealed the real accusations and claimed that Bolsonaro was at risk of losing his mandate merely for expressing controversial opinions, such as being “against racial quotas, the anti-homophobia bill, civil unions for homosexuals, and adoption by same sex couples”. Noblat accused those who denounced Bolsonaro of being “good fascists”. 
On 12th February 2014 José Gullén Araque, a captain in the Venezuelan National Guard, gave President Nicolás Maduro a book on the rise of Nazism, declaring at the time “fascism must be defeated before it is too late”. Just over a month later, Araque was assassinated with a shot to the head by Venezuelan fascist groups led by a well-known far-right extremist named Leopoldo López, whose actions resulted in the deaths of 43 people. 
However, Aécio Neves (the traditional right-wing candidate against Dilma Rousseff in 2014) visited the criminal in prison. The corporate media, both in Venezuela and Brazil, referred to Leopoldo López as a “political prisoner”. 
During the massive rallies calling for President Dilma’s “impeachment” heavily promoted by the mainstream media in 2015 and 2016, far-right sound trucks were always present, advocating for a military coup and praising torture. Protesters wore T-shirts calling Dilma a “whore” and carried signs suggesting that she “go to Cuba to cure her cancer” among 
other vile insults. None of this seemed to bother the traditional right or the corporate media at the time, which instead praised the supposedly democratic and peaceful nature of the coup-supporting marches. 
The traditional right and mainstream media's tacit encouragement of the openly criminal methods used by their far-right allies had severe consequences: first, it normalised fascism, and by normalising it, it lent credibility to its discourse. 
The fascist far-right became a relevant actor in Latin American political struggles, infiltrating the state’s police and judicial apparatus, promoting class hatred, defamation, sabotage, coups, and coup attempts. It did not always lead these efforts, but it consistently gained visibility and accumulated political and ideological power. 

In 2014 federal police officer Danilo Mascarenhas posted an image of a caricature of President Dilma riddled with bullets. He was "punished" with a four-day suspension. 
Below is a small and incomplete list of coups and coup attempts in Latin America where fascist elements played a prominent role:

 
• 2002 in Venezuela – Chávez was kidnapped, and a coup government was briefly installed. The masses mobilized, and the coup was defeated. 
• 2008 in Bolivia – Opposition groups, led by regional governors in the Media Luna region, blocked roads, occupied state buildings, sabotaged a major gas pipeline, and organised referendums to declare regional independence. Peasants were murdered. 
• 2009 in Honduras – Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who had joined the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) the previous year, had the presidential palace invaded by the military. Zelaya was kidnapped and flown to Costa Rica. 
• 2010 in Ecuador – President Rafael Correa went to a police barracks to negotiate with striking officers. The police attacked his entourage, and Correa, injured, was taken to the Military Hospital, which was then surrounded by officers who even opened fire. The confrontation left two presidential guards, two striking police officers, and a pro-government student dead. 
• 2012 in Paraguay – Following “spontaneous” protest demonstrations, the Senate removed elected President Fernando Lugo in a process that lasted only 24 hours. 
• 2013/2014 in Venezuela – “Guarimbas” (armed gangs funded and organised by the far right) carried out attacks on public buildings, leftist parties, and police forces, causing dozens of deaths. 
• 2016 in Brazil – A coup d'état involving the hegemonic media, sectors of the judiciary, and parliament removed President Dilma Rousseff through a fraudulent impeachment process. 
• 2017 in Ecuador – Rafael Correa was forced to flee the country to escape lawfare. His vice president, Jorge Glas, remains imprisoned at the time this article is written. While in prison, Glas attempted suicide, and Correa remains in exile. 
• 2018 in Brazil – Lula, a victim of absurd judicial arbitrariness, was unjustly imprisoned and, during that year's presidential campaign, was even prevented by the courts from speaking about the elections, paving the way for the election of the fascist Jair Bolsonaro. 
• 2019 in Venezuela – The far-right coup plotter Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself the Venezuelan president. The USA and the European Union recognized him as such. Billions of dollars, gold, and state-owned Venezuelan companies were expropriated by imperialist 
or imperialism-subservient governments. 
• 2019 in Venezuela – Under the pretext of "humanitarian aid," a new coup attempt in Venezuela was orchestrated, driven by the USA and countries from the now-defunct "Lima Group." Once again, the coup was defeated. 
• 2019 in Bolivia – A coup in Bolivia forced the newly re-elected President Evo Morales to flee the country. Far-right gangs carried out assassinations and beatings. 

Since our topic is 21st-century fascism, we cannot fail to mention the coup in Ukraine in 2014, which, with the support of the USA and the European Union, brought to power a coalition of openly fascist and neo-Nazi groups. 
The new Ukrainian state power granted the title of national hero to Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera who, during the German occupation of Ukraine in the Second World War, served in Hitler's ranks, sending communist, Jewish, and antifascist resistance compatriots to concentration camps. 
The alliance between most of the centre, traditional right-wing, and commercial media with the far-right occurs in different ways. In some cases (such as Ukraine, Venezuela, and Bolivia), the far-right explicitly takes the lead in actions. In others, like Brazil until 2018, the centre and the traditional right remain in command but instrumentalise the far-right for all kinds of dirty work. When this happens, the traditional right, while publicly trying to distance itself from the most revealing fascist actions, in practice shields and supports its allies, hoping that, in the end, they will isolate the most dangerous elements and maintain hegemony. 
It is necessary to open a parenthesis here to emphasise that mistakes and shortcomings of the progressive camp facilitated the rise of the conservative and far-right wave. Regarding Latin America's progressive experiences, there is already a vast accumulation of discussion on this, but addressing this subject could divert focus from the main theme of the  article. Therefore, I will only mention two aspects among many: 

    • The illusion regarding the class nature of bourgeois society led to the belief that top-down arrangements could mitigate contradictions and conflicts, resulting in the secondary importance or even abandonment of grassroots work. 
    • We live in a historical era where the failure of collective transformation projects is propagated. Even within the left, space has been opened to weaken this notion, with individual projects often prevailing over collective ones. When this happens, it is no longer about the struggle for transformation but simply the defence of parliamentary careers or positions within the state apparatus. This miseducates the population  about the difference between leftist and rightist practices, contributing to disenchantment, depoliticisation, and the demobilisation of activists who wish to dream again of a "dream dreamed together" as Yoko Ono and Brasilian singer Raul Seixas once put it.  
 
The Rise of Fascism 

It was, indeed, a long gestation. The use of fascist ideas and practices as a political weapon by the bourgeoisie for over seven decades; the lack of viable political perspectives that offered profound solutions as an alternative to a politically and economically bankrupt system; the naturalisation and legitimisation of fascist discourse by the bourgeoisie; the 
worsening of capitalism's economic crisis since 2008; and the increasing aggressiveness of imperialism in response to the emergence of a multipolar world – all these factors created the perfect environment for Brecht’s "pregnant bitch", that I referred in the first part of this series, to finally give birth. 
In the USA, the leading imperialist power, speeches filled with the most primitive anti-communism, rooted in chauvinism, religious fundamentalism, and science denial, have been growing alongside the political discrediting of the American plutocracy and the rapid deterioration of the living conditions of large masses of US workers, who are similarly disillusioned and without advanced prospects. The inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term marks a high point in the rise of the global far right. 
Here, calling Trump crazy or a buffoon does not help at all. The same was said about Hitler and Mussolini. He must be taken seriously. Trump is advancing decisively and rapidly in destroying what little remains democratic in the American plutocracy, moving toward a de facto dictatorship, which, if successful, will be followed by a radicalisation of his counterparts worldwide. 
Trump’s lebensraum manifests itself with immense brazenness. On what legal basis, under international or humanitarian law, does Trump propose to simply expel the Palestinians and turn Gaza into a macabre American real estate venture built over the corpses of thousands of men, women, and children? None. He doesn’t even care. 
Just as Italian and German fascism discredited the League of Nations – which was dissolved in 1946 because it was ineffective in taking any action against Mussolini and Hitler’s invasions—Trump openly scorns the UN, abandons important multilateral organisations that the USA helped to create, breaks consensual agreements and alliances, and treats the UN Charter as a dead letter. The message is clear, the danger is real, and we must confront it without hesitation.

 
Calling Things by Their Name

 
Even though some of Trump’s most zealous supporters, such as Elon Musk, make the Nazi salute, Trump will not appear with a small mustache and a swastika on his arm. If someone is waiting for this to happen in order to be convinced of what we are facing, they will continue fighting windmills. One common feature in most 21st century fascist movements is precisely their denial of being fascists. Milei calls himself a "libertarian," and in a 2022 interview with Veja magazine, Bolsonaro assured us that he is a "liberal". 
However, any reader who has patiently followed this series and compared the fundamental characteristics of fascism in the past century with what we experience today has surely drawn their own conclusions. All the essential traits of fascism, according to various authors, are present in the most relevant elements of today’s far-right. To recall:

    • the contemporary far right operates in a world where socialist China threatens the hegemony of  the leading capitalist country (the Soviet threat has been replaced by the Chinese threat); where parasitic financial capital dominates the economic and political landscape of capitalist nations
    • its mobilising myths revolve around “fighting the corrupt system” and “restoring the nation’s greatness”
    • it has a socially mobilised and politically organised base; where it has the strength to do so, it is aggressively imperialist
    • it is fiercely anti-communist 
    • it depends on charismatic leadership
    •  it is chauvinistic; it is irrationalist

 ...It is fascism. 

21st Century Fascism 

A fascism shaped by globalisation, the scientific-technological revolution, and social media, which manifests one of the defining characteristics of the fascist movement: massive propaganda. In other words, it is a fascism that has been influenced by and has absorbed the marks of its time. One of the fundamental tasks of anti-fascists is to unmask, with even greater emphasis, in front of the masses, the true nature of the phenomenon unfolding. 
Like its 20th century predecessor, 21st century fascism is not uniform. It retains regional and cultural peculiarities, among others. As I have pointed out, there are differences in emphasis and even characteristics that are absent in some variants and present in others. For instance, the mobilising myth of “restoring the nation’s greatness” in the USA and Europe is closely 
linked to “defending the purity” of the nation and, therefore, to fighting against immigrants. The fight against immigrants is a largely absent element in Latin American fascism, though the racist undertones inherent in the hatred toward immigrants are a common feature of all fascisms, including Brazilian, Argentine, Chilean, and Uruguayan fascism, among others. 
The epicentre of 21st century fascism is US imperialism, which is becoming increasingly violent and corrupt. As we have seen, it was imperialism that carefully nurtured the current monster and will never cease to rely on fascists to sustain its global domination project. 
Imperialism and imperialists of all shades fully understand that, in the current stage of capitalism, the total defeat of fascism would also mean the defeat of imperialism, and the downfall of imperialism would inevitably trigger a new wave of anti-capitalist demands. 
Thus, it will be impossible to wage an effective battle against 21st century fascism without a broad, united struggle guided by a clear anti-imperialist vision. 
While it is necessary to take advantage of rifts within imperialist countries and among imperialist factions to weaken them, any idea of an alliance with “moderate” sectors of the imperialist centre is a mistake that will only create vulnerabilities for future attacks. 
The primary struggle will be against the imperialist policies emanating from 
the United States –a country governed by 21st century fascism and still the most powerful in the world, holding hegemony in economic, cultural, diplomatic, and military spheres. 
On the international scene, the Trump administration follows an inverted version of Nixon and Kissinger’s logic. While in the 1970s, Nixon and Kissinger sought to separate China from Russia (the USSR) to focus on attacking the USSR, Trump intends to weaken or undermine the strategic alliance between China and Russia in order to concentrate fire on China. 
However, it is important to highlight that much of Trump’s programme is directly tied to the evident decline of the United States. The desperate attempt to find ways to “restore lost greatness” may, on the other hand, further accelerate this decline by intensifying: 

• Internal contradictions – Even within the USA,Trump will face strong resistance. This resistance may take shape because the American bourgeoisie itself is divided on how to confront its decline. Added to this division among the ruling class is the almost inevitable sense of disillusionment that will spread among workers who placed their hopes in Trump’s promises. However, the US proletariat is equally distrustful of the Democratic Party, and all indications suggest that this distrust runs deep. This could present an opportunity for left-wing and revolutionary alternatives to gain political relevance in the USA and challenge American plutocracy from within. 
• External contradictions – External contradictions may intensify conflicts between the imperialist center and its European partners, as well as with the peoples fighting for sovereignty and development. The ongoing clash with China stands out, given that China wields significant political influence and strong global representation.
 
A Necessary Struggle

 
There will be no effective fight against fascism without popular mobilisation and without the active participation of workers and the progressive camp. However, this will not happen automatically or inevitably. It requires courage and clarity. 
And it is precisely this turbulent and uncertain global scenario, marked by crises on multiple fronts, that has the potential to spark large-scale mobilisations that once again bring to the forefront the very ideals that 21st century fascism most denies and attacks: national sovereignty, equal rights for all human beings, environmental protection, socialism, and world peace, with solidarity and fraternity among peoples. 
These ideals are like sunlight to the fascist vampire. And with unity, we must work to ensure that, better late than never, we witness the break of dawn. 

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. 
(

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”.