Re: “Are There Still Fascists in the 21st Century?”
To the Editors,
Your recent panel discussion on contemporary fascism
highlights an urgent historical and political issue. However, your
approach—using a typical taxonomy of debating definitions, checklists, and
stylistic “markers"—only obscures the phenomenon you intend to clarify.
This approach is not just insufficient; it reflects a
specific ideology. By viewing fascism as a standalone political style
disconnected from the class relations that create it, the panel replicates a
key flaw of post-war bourgeois historiography. Fascism is treated like a museum
specimen, recognised by its appearance, rather than as a tool shaped by the
ruling class during times of capitalist crisis.
Leon Trotsky, in 1931, emphasised that any thorough analysis
must begin “in a scientific and Marxian manner.” This approach involves
focusing not on morphology but on the relationships among the three key
classes: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. Trotsky
defined fascism as the mobilisation of the devastated petty bourgeoisie by finance capital, using it as a weapon against workers' organisations. He
regarded fascism as a consequence of capitalist crises, rather than a particular
political style.
Your panel’s approach isolates fascism from its social
roots. It considers it an aesthetic, a rhetorical style, or a collection of behaviours.
This isn't a neutral academic stance. Rather, it serves the ideological purpose
of historiography: to remove fascism from its political context and link it to
the capitalist system that produces it.
Contemporary fascistic politics can't be fully understood
through 1930s frameworks. As various analyses indicate, today’s far-right
groups are not grassroots mass movements but are instead shaped by top-down
conspiracy, often originating within state institutions, security sectors, and
oligarchic networks. The ruling elite has realised it can foster fascistic tendencies without relying on broad-based, spontaneous bourgeois mobilisations.
The lack of large rallies doesn't reduce the threat; rather, it transforms its
manifestation.
Your discussion equally overlooks the role of the so-called
“democratic” opposition. Recent history shows that the traditional bourgeois
democratic parties have not protected democratic rights but have contributed to
their decline. The bipartisan growth of state surveillance, militarised policing, emergency measures, and increased executive power reflects a
consistent trajectory, not an anomaly. The move toward authoritarianism stems
from the fundamental crisis of capitalism, not the personal
failings of specific leaders.
That's why the question “Are there still fascists in the
21st century?” becomes pointless when asked as your panel does. Fascism isn't
about whether current movements look like Mussolini’s rallies or copy the
NSDAP’s policies. Instead, it's defined by its role: employing
extra-parliamentary and authoritarian tactics to suppress the working class in
contexts where capitalism can no longer sustain democratic systems.
The essential question — often avoided in discussions — is:
What social forces are dismantling democratic institutions today, and what
should the working class do to fight back? Trotsky’s insights were never purely
academic; they served as a strategic call to action in the class struggle.
Combating fascism cannot be achieved by backing one bourgeois faction against
another. Instead, it demands the independent, international mobilisation of the
working class.
By framing fascism as just a definitional puzzle, your
discussion unintentionally softens public perception of the real threat. This
approach mirrors a traditional academic historiography tactic: it actually
undermines the public's understanding of the danger while seeming to analyse
it. Fascism isn't merely about classification; it's fundamentally about class
struggle.
Yours sincerely, Keith
