Problems with comparing contemporary movements with interwar fascism

      David Lammy's remarks on the Andrew Marr show on 14th April have caused a lot of discussion about the usefulness of the term 'fascist' to describe contemporary nationalist movements. Simon Wren Lewis wrote an excellent article in the New Statesman here.I think the term does have some use (I wrote something arguing that it does here) but I think there are some significant conceptual problems I wanted to flesh out, if nothing else as a way of organising my own thoughts on the topic. These should not be read as a criticism of the use of the term, so much as an outline of some of the difficulties which have to be worked around when doing so. These are as follows: 

1.    How individuals and political movements behave isn’t just a function of ideology but also the historical context in which they operate. Asking whether a political movement is ‘fascist’ is not just about the beliefs of its supporters, but what sorts of things they might do in power, and how they might attempt to achieve it. Comparisons of contemporary ethno-nationalism (be it support for Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, the AfD or Nigel Farage) have to account for this distinction. Ideologically there are obvious parallels (demonization of outsider groups, contempt for the rule of law, a reified notion of ‘the people’ which is in fact exclusionary, (in some cases) a cult of masculinity, the use of conspiracy theories, authoritarian social policies etc). The historical context, on the other hand, is quite different. Unlike the interwar period, there is no culture of street violence and no widespread use of political paramilitaries. The main contextual overlap is that both periods are economically turbulent, interwar fascists coming to power on the back of the economic slump following demobilization after the First World War and later the Great Depression, the modern far right operating now in aftermath of the financial crisis of the later 2000’s. There are however differences here too. Mass unemployment has not been a feature of the long depression of 2008 onwards in France, the UK, the USA and Germany. This is significant as interwar fascist movements could draw on large groups of young, unemployed men; this is not the case today.

2.     Interwar fascism was itself not entirely ideologically uniform. Racialised antisemitism and racial ideology was fundamental to Nazism, whereas it only became a major feature of Italian fascism following the war in Abyssinia in 1936. Anti-clericalism was a significant feature of early Italian fascism and parts of the Nazi movement, but not true of Spanish, Portugeuse or Austrian fascism. Comparisons of the contemporary far right with interwar fascism have to take into account that the latter was itself not ideologically uniform.

3.     Some important features of interwar fascism were not unique to fascists movements. Pronatalism was practised in the Soviet Union and had support in democratic countries, eugenics (though not racialised eugenics) had support from liberals such as John Maynard Keynes. To some extent, these reflect the ideas which had political currency at the time. Antisemitism was widespread in many European countries. Had this not been the case, the death toll in the holocaust would likely have been significantly smaller, as the Nazis would have found fewer collaborators in occupied countries. It remains true, however, that eliminationist antisemitism did not find political expression outside of fascism or Nazism.

4.     Many fascist ideological tropes have always found some limited political expression in modern democratic societies. I do not think I have witnessed a major election in my lifetime which did not involve some degree of demonization of an outsider group, appeal to the idea that politicians are corrupt, a claim to represent an idea of ‘the people’ which is in fact exclusive, or an appeal to the idea of strong leadership. Xenophobia played a significant role in the Conservative campaign in the 2005 general election, the appeal of getting rid of a corrupt political class in the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and Labour in 1997. Complaints about constitutionalism and the rule of law frustrating popular common sense have always featured significantly in discussions about criminal justice. Furthermore, many governments at one time or another have tried to circumvent constitutional norms in order to pursue some particular policy. This does not mean that there is no such thing as fascist ideology. What it does mean is that what we are describing is often about extent and prominence of certain ideas rather than whether they feature at all. This will often require some degree of judgment.

      This list is of course by no means exhaustive, but hopefully it has some use in terms of organising the ideas. The broad conclusion we might draw from it is that to describe a movement as fascist we are describing a family relationship of prominent trends, rather than unique or universal features. If we are merely focusing on ideology, the broader political and economic context might significantly impact what kinds of behaviours are most typical of such movements.