A Revival of Fascism?
The epithets “fascist” and “Nazi” are, in some quarters, tossed about so casually as to have lost most of their meaning. But that should not lead us to think that the behaviours they might describe are things of the past. Those of us with longer memories can still scent the whiff of fascism on the wind – and we should not hesitate to say so when we do. This might be one of those moments.
What phenomena might we expect to recognise as evidence of a revival of fascism? We do not need to ponder the question too long.
We would certainly expect to see a regime that exhibits an extreme form of nationalism. It would describe in grandiose terms the role of the country and its government – the Third Reich, for example, was to last “a thousand years”. It would proclaim its determination to enhance the “greatness” of the country, its readiness to be ruthless in pursuing its own interests, and its disregard of the interests of others. It would increase its spending on the military and express its disdain for helping others.
It would be led by a larger-than-life personality who – as with a Benito Mussolini or even, on occasion, an Adolf Hitler – was not afraid to appear ridiculous or buffoon-like if it meant staying in the headlines. The leader would surround himself with like-minded (and sycophantic) supporters, appointed to positions of power in the government on the strength of their subservience rather than their experience or ability.
The policy of the government would be presented, not as the product of careful consideration by a properly constituted legislature, but as emanating from the personal vision of the “leader” – the “Fuehrer” or “Il Duce”.
Policy would be announced in equally personal terms, directly from the lips of the leader and, as often as possible, at rallies and public events, conducted with fanfare and razzamatazz, where the leader was able to renew the tactics that had enthused his supporters in the first place. Those tactics would include the relentless repetition of slogans and catch-cries, of insults aimed at supposed enemies and non-believers, and attacks and threats against those who were seen as standing in the way.
Those supporters would be encouraged to chant their hatred of opponents of the regime and to demonstrate their enthusiasm for the leader. But they would also be encouraged to identify and express their hostility to groups within society who could be seen as different or as unwelcome minorities or as too weak to defend themselves. Fear and hatred would be seen as the proper attitudes to adopt towards those minorities.
The regime itself would use officers of the state to harass them, to “weed them out”, on the grounds that they could not properly be accepted as part of the host community. Religious, political or ethnic differences would be barely tolerated and carefully monitored.
Propaganda, not necessarily based on truth and fact, would be used constantly. It was, you may recall, Goebbels who practised and perfected the technique of the “big lie.”
Foreign affairs would be conducted on a personal basis. Foreign dignitaries would be expected to show proper subservience to the leader. Smaller and neighbouring countries would be treated with disrespect and threatened with reprisals if they did not do as they were told.
The government, which would be represented as merely an emanation of the personal power of the leader, would attack other sources of power in civil society. The courts would be under heavy pressure to interpret the law to suit the government’s interests, and appointments to the bench would be made on political grounds so as to ensure that this was done.
A free press would be seen as a threat, and would be reined in, through a mixture of threats and controls.
The power of government would be allied with, and regarded as barely to be differentiated from, the interests of big business. All major activities, especially in the economic sphere, would be directed to increasing the power of the state. It is not for nothing that “Nazi” was a contracted form of the German for “national socialism”.
Does any of this ring any bells? Does anyone feel a sense of discomfort at the apparent revival of a scourge that brought the world to the brink of destruction?
Is it really so unthinkable that a major modern democracy, one on which the future of the free world – and therefore of the world itself – is said to rest, could lead us back to a dreadful future? If not, should we not speak up before it is too late?
Bryan Gould
1 March 2017.
3 Comments
When I look back at what has happened over the last thirty five years I realise no political party has governed in the interests of its people: they have all succumbed to the economic mantra of the ‘free market’ or ‘neoliberalism’ without being aware of what those mantras actually mean. To be ‘left’ or ‘right’ these days means nothing. In fact those words which were once a form of shorthand that told everybody something now mean nothing. Unfortunately now anybody who proclaims vehemently about anything is called a ‘fascist’ or a ‘nazi’ or a ‘racist’ But surely it is actions we must look at not words. But when any Government tells its people they are ‘exceptional’ and then increases its military budget doesn’t that tell you something. When the MSM merely repeats what a leader says without any critical analysis or when it reacts hysterically without again, any critical analyysis we are in trouble. Everything has been dumbed down to an extent that we just have these emotional commentators with cotton wool between their ears, who try and pretend they know something. I don’t know if anything can be done now Bryan, I think everything will continue on to its inexorable conclusion. Whatever that may be.
We can at least try to alert people to the significance of what is happening, rather than allow it creep up on them, as happened to the Germans in the 1930s.
I bet there were many Germans in the 1930s who recognised what was happening. Remember their people had suffered horribly in WW1 too.