Thread by @docrussjackson

'In considering the question of #fascism today, one must remember it has gone through different phases. While there are no fascist regimes in Europe or the Americas today, some parties, including governing ones, could shift in a more fascist direction...'

ips-journal.eu/topics/democra…

'Previous fascists have all been nationalists who promised national rebirth – that is, to 'make the country great again'. But not all nationalists are fascists, & many politicians promise some form of regeneration...'

"What has distinguished #fascists historically has been their glorification of violent struggle and martial valour. They have also promoted strict gender, national and racial hierarchies, with races in particular assumed to be locked in permanent and deadly conflict."

Today’s far right is undoubtedly in the business of re-establishing traditional gender roles & hierarchies, deriving much of its energy from a relentless politics of exclusion: those alien to the nation must be kept out, lest they eventually come to replace the dominant in-group.

But there is also a perceived danger from within: namely, the ‘liberal elites’ & minorities who do not count as members of what far-right populists consider the ‘real people.’

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1598743793351655459?t=DHYbva_q0EcHKkkvWzV7-w&s=19

Yet what is (thankully) missing today is an all-pervasive atmosphere of violence. Yes, veterans are over-represented within the more violent cohorts of the far right, & today’s far-right leaders do bring about what philosopher Kate Manne calls ‘trickle-down aggression’, however..

Even where the far right has come to power, it has sought to demobilise citizens & make its peace with consumer capitalism.

So, should we just move on from the debate about fascism? Definitely not. That would be too hasty.

Fascism comes in different phases: damaged democracies in the 20th century were usually killed off with violent coups; 21st century democracies are more likely to fall to aspiring authoritarians who subtly manipulate laws to make their removal from office virtually impossible.

But fascism does not have to engage in violence to achieve its aims. Mussolini didn’t march on Rome. He arrived by sleeper car after Italy’s king & elites decided to hand him power, in the hope that he would sort out a political mess that nobody else appeared capable of managing.

Moreover, it is largely forgotten that Mussolini governed for years within the structures of Italy’s democracy, even including plenty of self-declared liberals in his cabinet. He practiced what today is often described as ‘autocratic legalism.’

He followed the letter of the law while violating its spirit; he enacted legislation in ways that were procedurally correct but that put the rule of men over the rule of law. There was lots of horrific violence as well, but not until 1925 did Mussolini clearly become a dictator.

Maybe it is unhelpful & a failure of political judgment to conflate today’s far right & fascism. But undeniably, many recognisably fascist elements are in place, & recognisably fascist rhetoric has been shamelessly normalised by politicians, newspapers, & 'media personalities'.

It is imperative to watch closely how the far right develops over time. A shift to fascism – represented by open commitments to authoritarianism &the glorification of violence – could happen fast, but it might also happen quite slowly.

The conduct of traditional elites is a key factor to watch. That is one of the least-understood lessons of the rise of Mussolini’s fascism.

In Britain, if we look at the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg & other ideological extremists, the warning signs have been present for some time.