The ongoing struggle to identify fascism

For the better part of my adult life I have lived in a neo-fascist era. Across Europe and in my own country I have seen how fascist movements have exploded, not on the streets but in the electoral campaigns. Throughout this period I have also seen people, often to the left arguing on whatever or not a specific movement is fascist or not. In the case of the ongoing us election we can see similar tendencies with regard to Donald Trump jr, were many people are still obsessed with deciding on whether or not Trump is a fascist. 

A common argument for Trumps lack of fascism is simply this: he does not propose a party-state and he have not (yet) started to build a mass-movement that is supported by the state. Other people claims that Trump is a fascist due to his stands on women, immigrants and his contineous threats towards the media. What all of these discussions somewhat is lacking, is the understanding that fascism, in my view is not a static ideology. The most clear-cut fascist states in Europe during the 20th century was Spain and Italy, and both of them contained adaptions of fascism to their local context. We can for instance see how Mussolinis italy was largely shaped by an expansionist policy, whilst Francos Spain after the civil war. Furthermore, Mussolini himself was also an atheist and largely anti-cleric whilst Franco run Spain towards the notion of a catholic state. 

What history teach us is that fascism, much like every other ideology, does not come clear cut or is easily defined. Many people would still not hesitate to for instance label the communism of the soviet union and china as both communist ways, even though we sometimes differs between soviet- and chinese communism. What is really interesting is that once we throw fascism into the equation, all of these notions of ideology change. Instead of being able to discuss in which Trumps ideology actually aligns with fascism, we instead seek to discuss in which we he is not a proper fascist. And that is perhaps what I fear the most: societies unability to recognize fascism before it is too late.

 Nobody we seriously consider that a nazism would have come in the shape of polished black boots, brown uniforms and a annoy man with a ugly mustache. Instead we would highlight that nazism will seek new aesthetics. But in the case when fascism actually returns, using the same rhetoric and arguments we put forward that it is not aesthetically the same. And perhaps that is the greatest threat towards democracy right now.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The use of history and why historians should mind the gap

Image
 Around two decades ago we can to some extent see how a paradigm hit Swedish history science in full force. This paradigm consisted of studies on how history was used in society and often came with a theoretical luggage from the German and English tradition. After having supervised student theseses on this area I still remain somewhat doubtful as too how students, and historians, often uses these theories. Perhaps this is also due to my PhD-thesis containing a similar approach when it comes to putting the past into neat little boxes. My criticism towards this paradigm is that it have come to be utilised as a way to only package uses of history, rather than what these packages contains. Let us for instance take the form of studying uses of history as narratives or if one so wishes, tropes. The idea here is to study how certain forms are expressed as stories of trauma, grief or “from darkness to light”. What this actually is about in the more theoretical work is to study how history ...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: Efforts to Silence Sexuality in Politics

Image
Following up on last week’s post, we can ask ourselves where questions of sexuality are being challenged in politics. From a contemporary perspective, I would argue that we are currently witnessing global attempts—particularly from conservative actors—to banish issues of sexuality from public discourse. In Foucauldian theory, we can speak of several forms of the exercise of power. Foucault uses the concept of biopower to analyze social views on sex, capitalism, and power. One of the central aspects of biopower is that it often operates through the individual, who is expected to internalize social norms rather than be externally forced to accept them. Yet, in the case of sexuality, we have over the past decades witnessed rather forceful attempts to silence it, thereby making people unaware of important aspects of their own sexuality. In such cases, the effort seems to lie in banishing "unwanted" expressions from public discourse, thereby limiting the individual’s scope for a...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: a Background

Image
This is the first part in a series of three posts in which I aim to discuss contemporary sexual politics from a more theoretical and research-based perspective than in my other posts. It forms part of a broader discussion on how sexuality can—and perhaps should—be understood as constituted by a multitude of actors. Therefore, we might not be able to speak of a single contemporary politics of sexuality, but rather of a range of political positions. During the 20th century, numerous philosophers and researchers attempted to write “the history of sexuality,” but the one who has influenced me the most is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. I have actually read all three of his original works on sexuality, but I believe the first book covers the essential foundations for discussing and understanding sexuality. Broadly, this can be said to consist of two levels of particular interest to this series of posts: a) the repressive hypothesis b) the discussion on power/knowledge and the multi...
Read more