Fascism: 1933 and Today
In 1933 Benito Mussolini wrote a text named the doctrine of Fascism in which he laid down in a confused, contradictory, and megalomaniacal way his idea of Fascism. Even in such poor writing it's almost undeniable some parallels with the contemporary right-wing discourse. There is some controversy if this text was really penned by the Italian dictator or was written by Giovanni Gentili, one of the major fascist ideologues.
From a historical materialist point of view fascism is a reactionary political and ideological movement that thrives from the cyclical crises of capitalism in order to reinforce the capitalist order through violence and authoritarian systems of government. There is a lot to be said about this, but that's not the aim of this short piece.
Some ideas laid down in Mussolini's text can be clearly connected to the perspective of the contemporary extreme right that is ascending to power all over the world. My point is to draw the parallel between that time and today. This doesn't mean that we are living a repetition of the past, but that systemic deep crisis can generate similar societal responses.
Here is a brief list of the similarities that came to mind while I was reading the 1933 text:
The rise of the forgotten.
Mussolini declares that fascism is a movement of ex-soldiers, forgotten by their governments. This idea is very important because the extreme-right feeds on the internal discontentment of a nation. The main contradiction here is that fascism is not a structural criticism of capitalism, but points to individual issues like, immigration, internationalism, moral decay, democracy, and the left as causes of the pain generated by inequality. But never to inequality itself. The same characteristic can be seen reflected in the discourse of the extreme-right today in Europe and the US.
Non-traditional politics and societal traditions.
Mussolini claimed that Fascists were not a party (despite organizing as one) but a movement to change politics. Similarly, today’s far-right engages in traditional politics to subvert it. They participate in democracy to undermine it, proclaim freedom of speech while silencing opponents, and speak of justice while constructing ideological judicial systems. The list goes on and on…
As Umberto Eco observed, every fascist movement relies, in one way or another, on the idea of a return to a mythical past. This is a classic reactionary strategy, fueled by fear of change and progress. Sexuality has always been at the forefront of their examples of societal transformations that must be reversed — a trend that continues to this day.
Politics as war
The 1930s text argues that politics and war are inseparable, portraying war as an honorable endeavor. However, we must be cautious here, as there are differences between historical and contemporary forms of fascism. While Mussolini openly glorified physical war as a means to achieve his movement’s goals, the rhetoric of today’s far-right is less explicit. Many right-wing parties — and even figures like Donald Trump — declare themselves peacemakers. Even if we take them at their word (which I do not), their politics remain deeply warlike. This is evident in their aggressive nationalism, economic protectionism, and violence toward minorities and foreigners.
The hero
The idea of individual heroism is central to fascism, manifesting in two distinct ways. First, there is the cult of the great leader, who embodies the movement and is seen as the sole figure capable of guiding the nation back to its supposedly glorious past. Second, there is the expectation of heroism from ordinary citizens. As Umberto Eco noted, this includes a longing for the opportunity to sacrifice one’s life for the cause.
Disdain for democracy and liberal values
Liberalism and democracy are seen both by Mussolini and by contemporary extreme-right as a failed path that must be reformed. The solutions are nationalism and strong authoritarian leadership.
Extreme nationalism
This point is almost self-evident. To unify society under a single banner, fascism relies on what Umberto Eco called the "lowest form of identity": national identity. In multicultural and complex societies, fascists promote a false unity rooted in their own moral values. While nations like the US, France, and Germany have never been truly homogeneous, fascist movements invoke a mythological past in which such uniformity supposedly existed.
Autocracy
Dictatorships or bonapartist regimes are seen by Mussolini and contemporary politicians as a form of government that embodies the will of the nations avoiding the “unnecessary” “red tape” imposed by democratic institutions. Why adhere to dissent when the path backwards is the obvious way forward?
Anti-communism
Communism has long been a common enemy of fascists, both past and present. While this antagonism made more sense in the 1930s, it persists today in the rhetoric of the far-right. Within contemporary right-wing discourse, even moderate conservatives, liberal centrists, and minority groups are often absurdly framed through the lens of a modern-day "red scare."
Imperialism
For any left or historical materialist analysis this is a central point. The great desire of the original fascist era was to catch up with the traditional powers in their ability to exploit the global south. When Italy, Germany and Japan started their fascist endeavours, the annexation of new territories was a main issue. In this case, Trump's rhetoric towards Canada, Greenland, Panamá and Gaza is a more then obvious link with Mussolini's discourse.
Racism
Racism is not exclusive to fascism. As discussed by many authors, such as Domenico Losurdo, Anibal Quijano and others, modernity and capitalism were built over the racialization of entire populations from the global south. The open use of race as a political path towards supremacy represents nothing more than a radicalization of modern societal practices.
Anti-intellectualism
Any complexity, nuanced theory, or deeper truth is dismissed as an enemy of “common sense.” But what is common sense if not the status quo of the day? This aversion to education, critique, and rigorous analysis leads to simplistic — and often incorrect — perspectives on the complex world we live in.
To conclude this text — which ended up longer than I anticipated — I must reiterate that we are not living in the 1930s. The similarities in discourse are, in my view, indicators of a period of systemic crisis. It is also important to emphasize that no single far-right movement embodies all the characteristics outlined above. These movements are diverse and often shaped by specific national histories and contexts.