 | ||
Since the emergence of fascism in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, the term fascist has frequently been used as a pejorative epithet against a wide range of individuals, political movements, governments, and public institutions, including those that would not usually be classified as fascist in mainstream political science. It usually serves as an emotionally loaded substitute for authoritarian.
Contents
Soviet Union
The Bolshevik movement and later the Soviet Union made frequent use of the "fascist" epithet coming from its conflict with the early German and Italian fascist movements. It was widely used in press and political language to describe either direct competition (such as the White movement) or even internal fractions of the socialist movement, for example social democracy which was called social fascism. Also the Nazi movement in Germany was described as "fascist" until 1939, when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed, after which Nazi–Soviet relations started to be presented positively in Soviet propaganda.
In 1944 British writer George Orwell commented that due to the widespread use in the European press, "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless" due to its non-specific use detached from its original political associations.
After 1941 "fascist" was used in the Soviet Union to describe virtually any anti-Soviet activity or opinion. According to Marxism–Leninism, fascism was the "final phase of crisis of bourgeoisie", which "in fascism sought refuge" from "inherent contradictions of capitalism". As result of this approach, it was almost every Western capitalist country that was "fascist", with the Third Reich being just the "most reactionary" one. As result, after 1941 "fascist" was used in Soviet Union to describe virtually any anti-Soviet activity: for example, the international investigation on Katyn massacre was described as "fascist libel"., the Warsaw Uprising as "illegal and organised by fascists". Communist Służba Bezpieczeństwa described trotskyism, titoism and imperialism as "variants of fascism".
Western politics
In the 1980s, the term was used by leftist critics to describe the Reagan administration, critics in the 2000s to describe the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and currently to describe the expectations of the impending Trump administration. In her 1970 book Beyond Mere Obedience, radical activist and theologian Dorothee Sölle coined the term Christofascist to describe fundamentalist Christians.
In 2004, Samantha Power (lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University) reflected Orwell's words from 60 years prior when she stated, "Fascism – unlike communism, socialism, capitalism, or conservatism – is a smear word more often used to brand one's foes than it is a descriptor used to shed light on them."
The term is also used as an insult to imply that the ruling party is too heavy-handed in certain actions. For instance, it was used to describe Margaret Thatcher's use of police to quell public disruptions during the miners' strike.
In 2006, the European Court of Human Rights found contrary to the Article 10 (freedom of expression) of ECHR fining a journalist for calling a right-wing journalist "local neo-fascist", regarding the statement as a value-judgment acceptable in the circumstances.
In 2014, with the outbreak of the war in Donbass, the Russian nationalists and media returned to the "fascist" rhetoric, frequently describing the Ukrainian government after Euromaidan as "fascist", "Nazi" etc., at the same time accusing them of "Jewish influence" or spreading "gay propaganda".
In response to multiple authors claiming that the then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump was a "fascist", a 2016 article for Vox cited several historians who study fascism—including Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism—who stated that Trump does not hold (and is even opposed to) several political viewpoints that are integral to fascism, including viewing violence as an inherent good (Trump claimed that he was originally against the 2003 Iraq War) and an inherent rejection or opposition to a democratic system; rather, the article concluded that Trump should be viewed as a "much more common, and much more dangerous" far-right populist in the vein of Marine Le Pen.
Possible explanations for casual uses
Following the end of the Second World War, no group wanted to affiliate with the term "fascist" and both the propaganda systems of the USSR and Western World branded fascism as an irrational ideology because it stood in opposition to those of the Allies. The term subsequently lost all significant meaning. Marxist theorists such as Trotskyists, which harbor an economic and materialist view of history, examined fascism strictly from an economic point of view. This led them to conclude that fascism was merely a form of extreme reactionary state capitalism, since fascist states adopted corporatism, promoted class collaboration, protected private property and wanted to eradicate all forms of socialism.
While attracting criticisms for imprecision and for downplaying the extremity of actual fascism, the use of fascist as an epithet for authoritarian and intolerant power-holders has a distinct analytical basis, suggesting that fascism is a continuum or a social relation, rather than simply a political system, and that acts of repression are in some way homologous with fascist ideology. Specifically, it seems that the imputation is an interest in authoritarianism strong enough to deny interest in the legitimacy of that authority.
They employ massive overkill strategy, uh there are 30, 20 to 30 marshals daily inside the courtroom, uh, it has the atmosphere of an arms camp, uh, the law against us is rigged … and uh, our claims that this law violates our constitutional rights and it’s the same way that we claim that Mayor Daley didn’t have the right to deny us a permit to march or to assemble in the park…. I think it points a direction in the future which is that the government embarked on a course of fascism.
Theories such as Félix Guattari's concept of microfascism and Wilhelm Reich's theory of fascism as repressive-desire provide an analytical basis for interpreting intolerance, chauvinism, and authoritarianism as "fascist". The idea of authoritarian personalities prone to fascist attachments may be one reason why fascism is used as an epithet for the same kind of people who might be called "anal-retentive". On An(Archy) and Schizoanalysis by Rolando Perez uses the word fascist in an analytically informed way that is similar to the usage of epithet, showing that such usage is not necessarily ill-informed or unsystematic. One basic point of these perspectives is that a libertarian or emancipatory outlook requires openness of social space, tolerance or celebration of difference, and opposition to arbitrary authority; an absence of such an outlook contributes to social closure and exclusion, thus producing social effects similar to a fascist regime (e.g., oppression of minorities and lack of basic liberties).
Several Marxist theories back up particular uses of fascism beyond its usual remit. For instance, Poulantzas's theory of state monopoly capitalism could be associated with the idea of a military-industrial complex to suggest that 1960s America had a fascist social structure; this kind of Maoist or Guevarist analysis often underpinned the rhetorical depiction of Cold War authoritarians as fascists.
Some Marxist groups – such as the Indian section of the USFI and the Hekmatist groups in Iran and Iraq – have provided analytical accounts as to why the term fascist should be applied to groups such as the Hindutva movement, the 1979 Islamic Iranian regime, or the Islamist sections of the Iraqi insurgency. Other scholars contend that the traditional meaning of the term fascism does not apply to Hindutva groups, and may hinder an analysis of their activities.