By A. Magun

International conference ‘Fascism: a known enemy or a new threat?’ was held in Moscow 9-10 February organized by the working group ‘Chto delat?’ (What is to be done?) and the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (IGSM) supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

The conference was aimed at the reflection over modern close to fascism phenomena in Russia and in the rest of the world as well as over the usage and definition of the term ‘fascism’.
The rise of neofascist, nationalistic and religious fundamentalists’ tendencies is indeed more and more frequently mentioned lately. More frequent acts of violence toward migrants, youth militarized movements, radical right drift of the part of the intellectual environment (popularity of the conservative and fascist ideologists, irrationalism, aestheticization of violence, popularity of conspirology and mysticism) – all these facts are the evidence of such tendencies.

Meanwhile, Russian official power plays ambiguous propagandistic games indirectly stimulating nationalistic and imperial rhetoric. At the same time it tries to represent itself as the only defender from the fascist threat, thus, legitimizing its authoritarian course and claiming as ‘fascist’ any form of protest and disobedience (similar processes occur also in international political context when the notion of fascism is applied to Milosevic and Ben Laden). Political populism of the opposition and ambiguous position of the power both lead to the devaluation and dissolution of the terms ‘fascism’ and ‘antifascism’.

Although, the situation in other world countries is not always as critical as Russian one, but it’s also characterized there by the rise of radical right movements’ popularity. Such global political trend is undoubtedly connected with the crisis of the left ideology and with the advance of neoliberalism as well as with the intensification of politico-economic inequality between the centre and periphery (with ideological and moral hegemony of the ‘centre’ – the West).

Thus, it is very important in such situation to define the essence of the term ‘fascism’ in order to evade its usage as a label and clearly to realize the essence of such phenomena as aestheticized authoritarianism and ethnical violence that we have to face.

The conference was held with the participation of sociologists, politologists and philosophers from Russia, Germany, Austria and India:
Wolfgang Wipperman (Germany), Alexander Galkin (Russia, Moscow), Sarozh Giri (India), German Dvorak (Austria), Boris Kagarlitsky (Russia, Moscow), Christina Kaindl (Germany), Illia Kukulin (Russia, Moscow), Artiom Magun (Russia, St. Petersburg), Vladimir Malakhov (Russia, Moscow), Mihail Neizhmakov (Russia Moscow), Anna Ochkina (Russia, Penza), Alexei Penzin (Russia, Moscow), Pavel Studnikov (Russia, Moscow), Oxana Timofeyeva (Russia, Moscow), Andreas Umland (Germany), Igor Chubarov (Russia, Moscow), Keti Chukhrov (Russia, Moscow).

The participants tried to answer the following questions:
-    Do we face a new fascism or a phenomenon of another kind?
-    What are the roots of modern fascism?
-    What are the reasons of popularity of the radical right ideology in Russia and other countries?
-    What kind of the left strategy is possible in the struggle against fascism?

As to the issue concerning the rightfulness of calling modern right movements ‘fascist’, the majority of participants agreed that modern right-wing movements are close to fascism as to the indirect historical continuity as well as by analogy, despite the fact that modern situation is quite different from that of 20-30-s. Hot discussion began rather on the next question: whether modern radical rights are fascists in the strict sense of the notion (W. Wipperman, A. Umland) or just only ‘fascizoid’ (V.Malakhov). Wipperman proposed in his report a triple scheme where classic fascism is only one element of three. The scheme includes also ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘bonapartism’. According to his opinion the last two forms of regimes can drift toward fascism as it happens in case of Iran. A.Umland guided by theory of fascism as a palingenetic nationalism (R. Griffin) defined many Russian parties and ideologies (including LDPR) as fascist. Such evaluations provoked hot debates. V. Malakhov and B. Kagarlitsky pointed at relatively liberal civic society in Iran. Then A.Umland paid attention to the fact that parties like LDPR, unlike fascist ones, do not rely upon social mobilization while being rather virtual projects of polittechnology. I. Chubarov appealed for maximum generalization of the term ‘fascism’ relying, however, on another point of view. He considers fascism as any authoritarian sadistic violence, though Nazism, with its aesthetic paraphernalia and monstrous crimes against Jews, has set a kind of screen, thus, making an illusion of being a unique historical phenomenon essentially connected with anti-Semitism. A.Magun in his speeches (supported by A. Chubarov and V. Malakhov) pointed at structural character of ‘fascism’ that is not an essential quality of any movement or regime but is being formed ‘between’ hegemon stigmatizing a movement as ‘fascist’ and this movement that could in response, ‘to spite’ form its program as a reflected denial of hegemonous ideology (mostly liberalism). In the process of subsequent discussion some clashes occurred confirming the importance of the problem. A.Umland claimed not only about belonging of the large direction in modern philosophy (e.g. Frankfurt school) to the fascist forerunners but also used to stress that Russian colleagues (if they have no access to the modern proper literature) should conduct empiric researches. A.Magun and I.Chubarov noticed in their turn that such arrogant position is typical for some liberal ideologists and it just constitute fascism from the hegemon’s side as well as potentially from the side of the subordinated subject that is stigmatized by hegemon.

The most part of reports was devoted to the explanation of the modern popularity of fascist or fascizoid movements in Russia and in the world as well.

In the report of Christine Kaindl the rise of the radical right parties in Europe was interpreted as a lower wing of neoliberalism that gained popularity as a result of the prosperity state bankruptcy and as a result of the left parties’ inability to reorganize appropriately their programs as well. According to the Kaindl’s theory, new fascism is generated out of the ‘gap of representation’ as a result of the lefts’ inability to articulate interests (not views) of their traditional electorate.

Boris Kagarlitsky supported the speaker and turned the attention on the inability of the modern lefts to work with social lower classes as well as on the lefts’ inadequate ethnical policy (he characterized it as a ‘ultraliberalism’ in ethnical issue plus social demands). Alexei Penzin paid attention at the role of aesthetics and creative art in modern post-fordist society based on ‘non-material labor’. According to his opinion, aestheticization of labor, while the labor remains non-free and alienated, can make modern workers a ready material for fascist ‘aestheticization of politics’.

Some other reasons, more general for capitalism, were proposed by A.Magun. In his report based on the theory of Reich and some interviews with the rights in Russia, he pointed at contradiction between value collectivism inherited from the USSR and individualism of market economy. Radical rights ‘resolve’ this contradiction in the form of collective egotism that is nationalism.

As to the issue concerning the strategy of the struggle against fascism, most participants agreed that the only prospective strategy is the creation of mass, liberation left movement with clear slogans. In addition to the social and liberal slogans there should be also democratic slogans as well as slogans of the real (founded in labor and consumption) international solidarity.
I. Kukulin noticed that in aesthetic sphere an adequate answer to the radical right literature (popular in Russia) would be the art of writing that practically destroys identitary sense forms. He noticed some modern Russian writers as a pattern.

There were also some reports indirectly devoted to the abovementioned issues.

Some interesting reports (S.Giri, M.Neizhmakov, G.Dvorak) presented phenomenology of radical right movements over the world. Neizhmakov and Dvorak pointed that radical right movements in Europe and CIS are closely connected (despite their nationalism that one would think prevent from such cooperation). S.Giri told about a very peculiar Indian fascism that is as a matter of fact an institute of civic society formed by a symbiosis of the elites and the protest of lower classes.

Other reports (K.Chukhrov, O.Timofeyeva) had a philosophical character trying to define the notion of ‘fascism’ proceeding from philosophical tradition. K.Chukhrov tried to find the essence of fascism in the appropriation of transgression while O.Timofeyeva derived it from the human domination over animals.

P.Studnikov gave a historical reference about the notion of ‘totalitarism’ stating that this term could be ‘saved’ by the addition of the factor of regime popularity in the masses. A.Umland and A.Magun both agreed that the report ignores an important discussion on this issue in modern political thought.

The conference as a whole was vivid and intensive. It allowed to make clear definition of the roots of fascism and to reveal fundamental disagreements in this issue.
Further development of the issue should touch upon tactics of antifascist struggle.

The reports will be soon published in the magazine ‘Left Policy’ and newspaper ‘Chto Delat’. The spreading of considered, emancipatory oriented conception of fascism would be our slight contribution into the struggle against it.