Many people today find it quite simple to accuse someone of fascism. But when everyone is a fascist, no one is.
 |
| Diagnosis of fascism |
We now take a deep breath and then repeat slowly and clearly: "Not every dissent is a symptom of fascism". Because the all-too-common and thoughtless social handling of the allegation of fascism is both unproductive and historical.
A recent example of this exaggeration, particularly in the progressive milieu, was discovered a few days ago at this point by Robert Misik, who pushed for finally calling a spade a spade under the banner " Diagnosis of Fascism ". "The F-word, the term fascism," the author claims, was avoided by opponents of right-wing radicals. However, given the danger posed by the far right, this is terrible. Because: "These rights typically influence the discourses".
Without a question, the far right is a menace to democracy. But whose educational institutions, businesses, theaters, or museums, best-sellers or streaming services, and film hits in Western democracies preach or are dominated by the right? Which media outlets broadcast "right-wing discourses?" The BBC or the ARD?
There can also be no genuine idea of the left giving a "wide berth" to the allegation of fascism. Not even from a minor. On the contrary, the accusations are many. It's the argumentative equivalent of the background Musac in the hotel elevator as the debate's music. Fascism does not exist everywhere. Thank you, God. However, the warning against him is unmistakable.
The book market is full of prophecies of the fascist threat. Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, gave her last work just this one word as the title: "Fascism". The British publicist Paul Mason recently published an influential handbook "To combat fascism" and Timothy Snyder brought out a resistance manual against the tyranny of the 20th century on the market, which, at least in the USA, is a recommended reading in every second bookstore right next to the aromatic candles can be found.
It is no different in the film: "The Handmaid's Tale", "The Man in the High Castle" or "The Plot against America" warn emphatically against fascist rule. And on social media, even Elon Musk's Twitter is delivering a daily tsunami of fascism lawsuits - as of this writing, daily against Putin, the Indian Prime Minister, the London Foreign Office, the "Nazi Pope Benedict," and pretty much every other person on the planet Earth. Including the “proto-fascist” Elon Musk.
The charge has now become an all-purpose template in most of the mainstream media. In early September, Prospect magazine published an interview with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in which he was described as a "semi-fascist." The New Yorker highlighted how critical it was to "diagnostically uncover Trump as a fascist" a week later. The Atlantic advocated for "fighting fascism before it's too late" in mid-November. And what about the New York Times? In recent years, she has accomplished the impossible accomplishment of posing the anxious question with two identical headlines: "Is Donald Trump a fascist?"
But this is not a purely US phenomenon. In Germany, a whole series of articles warned of the return of fascism in Italy in light of Giorgia Meloni's election victory. Or - like the ZEIT - that fascism never left the country. And: Does anyone remember the Stern front page with Donald Trump's Nazi salute and the title "His Fight"?
Fascism has long since made its way into politics. Joe Biden has expressed concern that Republicans' "semi-fascism" may sway 50 percent of Americans. The Green Vice Chancellor in Vienna accused opponents of the Covid vaccine mandate of fleeing after the "neo-fascists". And didn't senior German CEOs occasionally refer to the "fascist" inclinations of Corona detractors? Beyond the most extreme situations, this equation can be realized only if the evident discrepancies between fascism as a modern combat idea and historical facts are fully balanced off.
The absence of really fascist beliefs, according to advocates of the fascism label today, is the most compelling piece of evidence. "Today's fascism," adds Misik, "appears in democratic ideals and asserts that it is the voice of that people, that minority be silenced. Even liberalism and hedonistic consumerism understand how to manipulate their characters (...) Autonomy, self-determination, and self-realization may be surprisingly successfully incorporated within authoritarian movements." "Gekränkte Freiheit" is a novel by Oliver Nachtwey and Carolin Amlinger. This ostensibly "libertarian authoritarianism" was written by.
True, fascism as an ideology is difficult to comprehend. This has not altered since George Orwell's query "What is Fascism?" in 1944. And certain right-wing inclinations unquestionably hijack democratic values. However, it does not appear to occur to advocates of this view that those who invoke "autonomy, self-determination, and self-realization" might have bid goodbye to at least some of the key traits of fascism.
Evidently, to them, wickedness does not relate to behavior but rather to being. Put simply: Fascists may not always behave in a fascist manner today, but represent completely different values – for example liberal ones. But that only increases the risk. The wolf wears sheepskin. Because: “Even the historical 'fascists' were not just fascists when they had established rule. They were before." Which is of course correct on the one hand, but on the other hand seems to be the essentialist tipping point where the facts are replaced by the fetish.
In fact, the hyperinflation of the calls for fascism can hardly be reconciled with opinion research – for example with the World Value Surveys carried out worldwide . After all, they have been noticing extensive liberalization in broad sections of society, not only in Western societies, for decades. However, this suggests that the finding of fascism sometimes reveals more about the diagnosticians than about supposedly broad social currents.
Furthermore, the accusation of steam hammer fascism makes no tactical sense. It is possible that short-term mobilization gains will be obtained. However, the long-term consequences are substantial. You don't argue with Nazis, after all. However, it is feasible that these highest danger situations may make some conversations more difficult, which will benefit progressive parties in some way.
Especially when the record of demonization is far from persuasive - even if it is true. A French court determined in 2014 that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing populist organization, may be legally labeled a fascist. The delight was overwhelming. Finally, the demagogue was revealed. But hasn't the same Marine Le Pen recently lost the French presidency? And in an election that shattered the moderate left? If this is the outcome of warnings against progressive fascism, then a little more caution is in order. Can't the same be said of Donald Trump's presidency?
No: the ubiquitous label provides little analysis but a lot of moralism. The historical one becomes a hysterical comparison. It serves to demonize and deepens social rifts instead of overcoming them. And: Isn't one of the driving forces of these equations, which have been largely forgotten about history, also the flirting with the role of the resistance? After all, any positioning against postulated fascism everywhere reflects the truly heroic "No!" of the past.
But this everyday anti-fascism not only trivializes the fearless historical resistance of left-wing forces in particular, but also the monstrosity of historical fascism with its millions upon millions of victims - murdered Jews, communists, Christians, trade unionists, homosexuals, intellectuals, supposedly inferior lives. The inflationary use of the term devalues the entire category. The consequences are serious: because in the end nobody is a fascist if everyone is.
It is very probable that the allegation of fascism has now spread to the far right. In his Ukraine tragedy, Putin, according to his own declaration, is striving for the "denazification" of Kiev. George W. Bush spearheaded an anti-"Islamo-Fascism" crusade. And even Donald Trump condemns the "Leftwing Fascism" of his opponents.
But this is alarming in an era when core liberal ideals are under attack in unprecedented ways. Of course, the absence of excessive fascist discourse does not prove the absence of fascism. That is why, of course, democracy must maintain a defensive posture.
"With false news, as well as the exaggeration of elements of reality and extreme simplification, a polarization, an us-against-them, is fed, and thus fueled an anger that is expected to lead to a type of' spiritual civil war,'" argues Robert Misik. That is entirely right. And this is a major issue for democracy. However, this impact applies not only to the far right, but also to a large portion of the common allegations of fascism. Because "exaggeration" and "radical simplification" generate polarization not only on one side.
Does it ever occur to advocates of this discourse that the thoughtless use of the term fascist may be linked to the alienation of large segments of the populace from progressive forces? Because one can hardly resist the impression that the ranting about supposed fascists in some places represents nothing more than a special variety of sniffing at population groups from which left-wing parties were once elected.
When the energy supply is uncertain, tiny children are waiting for fever medication, and the economy is contracting, left-wing forces would be wise to respond politically persuasively to valid security concerns. When hope "is in a tough position when change can only be viewed as degradation," Robert Misik is precisely correct. The common allegation of fascism is ineffective here. He trivializes evil, frequently demonizes valid concerns, and exacerbates the rift he attempts to heal. Fascism diagnosed? It is past time to abandon the fetish allegation of fascism.