Bertolt Brecht famously stated: “Those who are against fascism without being against capitalism, who lament the barbarism that breeds barbarism, are like those who want to eat their slice of beef, but do not want the beef to be slaughtered.”
In this way, the German writer made it clear that the genuine anti-fascist struggle entailed the overthrow of capitalism, which is the matrix of fascism.
There are those who have been announcing the return of fascism for decades, which is erroneous. They trivialize the concept of fascism and act irresponsibly, contribute to political confusion, and underestimate the barbarity suffered by the peoples of the Soviet Union and Europe under this form of bourgeois domination. Is it correct to call bourgeois governments that fail to adhere to a “progressive” political agenda fascist? Are bourgeois governments that fail to pursue a policy of “humanizing capitalism” fascist?
Accusing a government or certain political figures of being fascist favors the bloc of bourgeois politicians who present themselves with labels such as “progressivism” or “Keynesianism,” but who equally represent the interests of the monopolies. This approach suggests that, while fascism is unacceptable, a capitalist government with “progressive” overtones would be tolerable. Thus, Brecht’s aforementioned reflection becomes relevant once again: is it possible to combat fascism by promoting another form of capitalist government, or is the correct path to overthrow capitalism altogether?
In recent times, the word fascism has also been used to describe the repressive actions of certain governments, as if the bourgeois state were not, by nature, an apparatus of repression. It is also used to describe policies of territorial expansion and exploitation of peoples, actions inherent to imperialist dynamics and not exclusive to fascism. This term is also used loosely to associate it with racist policies, forgetting that racism has been a tool of colonial expansion for capitalist countries since the 19th century.
Distortions of the concept of fascism are also supported by the ideological movement, in which Hannah Arendt participated, which has promoted the concept of “totalitarianism” to equate fascist governments with the socialist democracy of the USSR. This trivialization, supported by anti-Soviet propaganda campaigns, has been exploited by the bourgeoisie in countries such as Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Latvia, and Slovakia to decree the illegalization of communist work. It should be noted that this does not imply the rise of fascism in these countries, as anti-communist policies are also inherent to bourgeois governments.
Another political position asserts that the suppression of parliament and (bourgeois) democracy are signs of the rise of fascism. This is also false, since a bourgeois dictatorship, without being fascist, can suppress the functioning of democracy—let’s put it bluntly, “bourgeois democracy.” It should be remembered that for orthodox Marxism, democracy does not exist in the abstract, but always has a class character, whether bourgeois or proletarian.
So, what is the essence of fascism? It is the most appropriate political expression and form to confront rising revolutionary forces, that is, as a means of repressing the internal class enemy. At the same time, fascism was used by capitalist countries to confront other opposing capitalist states, an action that required the massive alignment of popular forces with bourgeois interests.
Today, we are not facing a rise of revolutionary forces seeking to overthrow bourgeois states in order to build socialism. Therefore, for the time being, the bourgeoisie has no need to use fascism as a form of government.
Another issue to reconsider regarding fascism is how it should be confronted. The historical experience of the international communist movement has bequeathed the formula for applying the popular front tactic as a means of combating fascism, which consists of collaboration between communists and “progressive” bourgeois forces.
But the result of this collaboration did not bring communists closer to establishing socialist governments. On the contrary, this tactic led communist organizations to dilute their aspirations for radical transformation of society and shift the strategic horizon of socialist democracy in favor of preserving bourgeois democracy as the lesser evil against fascism.
Those who for decades have erroneously predicted the rise of fascism, without daring to question the wisdom or error of the anti-fascist popular front tactic, now wish to repeat history as a farce and call for revolutionary organizations seeking the overthrow of capitalism to collaborate with the “less reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie” and, therefore, to postpone the aspiration for a socialist society in favor of defending bourgeois democracy. Thus, the anti-capitalist forces that constitute the true left become trapped by submitting to capitalist governments.
Today, there is no rise of the communist movement that the bourgeoisie seeks to suppress using fascism. Is it serious to call the governments of Trump, Bolsonaro, Milei, or similar fascists? And even more so, is it right for those who wish to overthrow capitalism to support a progressive bourgeois government against Bolsonaro, or to side with Biden to confront Trump?
According to Brecht, submitting or postponing the program of revolutionary transformation of society in favor of maintaining a type of government, and thinking that revolutionaries have bourgeois forces as their main allies in the anti-fascist struggle, is a mistake and absurd, since it is the same as saying that one should fight fascism without fighting capitalism.
Originally published in La Jornada
