Neoliberalism and fascism: enemies?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I know the regular point of view here is that fascism and capitalism are close together. Mine pretty much too, but hear me out though.

Are Neoliberalism and Fascism inherently enemies?

I got this question from the 4th and 5th of may in Holland (4th is a commemoration for the fallen of WW2 and the 5th is a celebration of our so called freedom).

Since neoliberalism is so clearly an extension of capitalism, how would neoliberalism be fighting fascism?
Not saying they actively fight fascists (clearly they don't), but why is neoliberalism the way to go now, in stead of fascism?

Could it be both are competing subtendencies within capitalism?
That would be logical.

How can we be sure then, that capitalism will fall into fascism if left untouched (like some have argued)?

And why would neoliberalism not be fighting the competing system more active since it poses a direct threat, like "the left" does?

Leaving pieces of it (as the marginalised extreme-right is) could mean it would rear it's ugly head again and once again (try to) conquer the world.

What has neoliberalism to gain by fascisms excistence?

[jake williams]

Different factions of capital (within nation states, and between states) have different political interests, and they struggle against each other politically. Their shared commitment to capitalism doesn't mean they don't have different interests, or fight against each other for control, for the same reason monarchs competing against each other aren't necessarily opposed to monarchy.

[Rafiq]

The excesses of globalised capitalism has in turn generated several forces of reaction, as it did two hundred years ago, among them Fascists, Islamists and mutated Stalinists (Third worldists, Maoists, Organisations like the KPRF). This is not simply a result of neoliberalism in itself, but the geopolitical and cultural implications of capitalisms further expansion. Is it not worrying to some that countries like Cuba had to CATCH UP to the west in terms of gay rights, is it not worrying that already bourgeois ideology has rendered sexual relations more 'free' and 'progressive' than the 20th century Communists who, in solidarity with the church condemned them as decedent, as social conservatives do? There is much more to delve upon, but there is a reason why there is this unconscious solidarity between the new reactionary Left and Fascists. The task of communists today is to reclaim the political and economic power of the proletariat within PRESENT circumstances and combat forces of reaction wherever they reside. We must not be outside of capitalism, we must be the very force that is intregally a part of capitalism that in the process destroys it. We will not let our legacy be so casually ceded to the degenerate bastards of Communisms failure.

Thus, we will strike the reactionaries wherever they reside, even if the forces of the bourgeois state support us. But circumstances are changing. The bourgeois state itself mutates slowly into its own enemy, with liberal democracy more and more being threatened by (or mutating into) European technocracy and the legitimization of fascists, from Hungary to the United Kingdom. If we are to be revived, we will face a war on all fronts.

[Comrade Thomas]

I personally have a slightly, different unconventional view. Neoliberalism is an unprincipled economic and ideological system, that exists in post Keynesian, post-industrial economies/states. Really in a way, it is capitalism at its 'best' (if you could call it that anyway)-as in it serves capitalism definition best.

Fascism, as I'm sure we can all concur is a reaction against revolutionary socialism and leftism in general. Usually, while it is backed and endorsed by capitalism and the capitalists the actual fascists do have principle. (Mussolini and Roman empire, for example). They are entirely driven by nationalism, while economics is a secondary effect of their desire. So often, when nationalism and economics (as in capitalism) clash it does cause fundamental friction.

So while they may not be intrinsically enemies; it is wrong to entirely doubt such claim on Fascism, as it is nationalism with a secondary effect of economics, meanwhile neoliberalism is just economics, economics, economics.

[Rurkel]

Neoliberalism is still a variant of liberalism, and follows its usual relation to fascism. If neoliberals decide that they can no longer exercise their rule by their usual methods, they as a whole will stop viewing fascists as threats to law and order, and start viewing them more as a useful tool to repress their opposition.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, in fact I would question the notion that neoliberalism is a distinct movement, as opposed to simple liberalism whose popularity has surged in the last few decades as the decline in the rate of profit means that the social peace bought by social-democratic parties during the postwar boom has become onerous for the bourgeoisie.

[jake williams]

Yeah, in fact I would question the notion that neoliberalism is a distinct movement, as opposed to simple liberalism whose popularity has surged in the last few decades as the decline in the rate of profit means that the social peace bought by social-democratic parties during the postwar boom has become onerous for the bourgeoisie.
"Neo-liberalism" isn't an ideology as such, it's a sarcastic epithet originally leveled at vulgar reactionaries trying to portray themselves as liberals (notably Pinochet's economic advisors, and the term as it's now used basically originated amongst the Latin American left).

Its generalized usage refers to a historical phase of capitalist political development in which a critical mass of bourgeois politicians adopted a certain kind of liberalism, especially former non-liberals.

[Rafiq]

Neoliberalism was never a mockery of the self identification of these economists as liberals. Instead, it was used to distinguish them as a new, more aggressive liberal force. The American usage of the term liberal has nothing to do with its implications everywhere else in the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know the regular point of view here is that fascism and capitalism are close together. Mine pretty much too, but hear me out though.

Are Neoliberalism and Fascism inherently enemies?
Like others have said, I think this is sort of an apples and oranges comparison. Capitalism is a system and there are various ideologies and political currents that can develop within it from various groups in society.

The policies of fascist groups in the 1920s and 30s developed out of specific situations of that time and many of these may have parallels today, but we are also opperating in a different context. Even in that era of fascism, groups labeled as fascist had a lot of variety and differnet views on policies. For example, some were based out of defence of monarchy or the church as the "golden age" whereas Itialian fascism took classical Rome as their idealized society and Hitler had a mish-mash of german folk-myths as the basis. What they had in common though was a reactionary responce to the rapid modernization of Germany, Italy and so on. This produced worker's parties and insurrections in Germany and Italy and Spain, it disrupted the old regimes and old orders and old customs: "classical" fascism developed their specific ideas in that context.

Today it would probably be much different in terms of specific policy recommendations, but the added pressures of increased market-dominance over privite life for people could also help motivate fascism as a desire to "create" or "re-establish" a more organic kind of community. In that sense I think it could be that a new wave of fascism could use the social instability and precariousness of neoliberalism to make a case for itself. But I also don't think that means that fascists couldn't also have neoliberal policies themselves. In the US, this would be likely since the social base of fascism is also the social base of the Tea Party and Minutemen and US Libertarianism: small owners, professionals, local elietes.

I think the key thing about facism isn't a set of policies: the tea-party is incoherent in terms of policies (like "no big-government except on the border and in policing and prisons for black people") and NAZI groups tend to be similarly ideologically inconsistant. Fascism as a popular force is easier to identify in terms of the social dynamic: an alternative to the inability of the capitalist parties and normal political establishments/institutions to maintain "order" on the one hand, and resistance to the capitalist system by workers or the oppressed (which the fascists see as part of the national "disorder" that the capitalist politicians can't "deal with"). If the state is squashing protests, then fascism is "redundant" and "extreeme" in the eyes of the rulers and most of the population - if militant protests and strikes are suceeding or growing, then society becomes more polarized and so some reactionaries will conclude that normal liberal democracy isn't working and so some group needs to straighten things out and put things back in order.


Not saying they actively fight fascists (clearly they don't), but why is neoliberalism the way to go now, in stead of fascism?I think the tendency for the captialists is always to want to rule through hegemony rather than direct force whenever possible. Fascism is disruptive even for the capitalists to an extent, because it could provoke popular backlash and revolt from the oppressed, violence on the streets isn't that conducive to commerce and trade, etc. So capitalists usually only begin backing fascism enthusiastically when society is already disrupeted, workers or the oppressed are already fighting back, etc.

Neoliberalism is favored by countries today not as an alternative to fascism, but as an alternative to keynsianism and state-capitalism. There are many benifits for the capitalists in that more of daily life is brought into the market (think less public spaces in our generation, less recourse from welfare or so on for the poor and so people are willing to work for less because it's better than nothing, more fluidity of investment and increases in global trade also allow capitalists to play workers against eachother on a global scale, and because neoliberalism tends to mask coersion and state power (which becomes an easy target... when the economic and state bosses are the same, it's easier to fight in some ways). But I think neoliberalism also relies on a state of defeat for workers. If the US and UK hadn't been able to put down working class and labor movement resistance (or co-opt in terms of the labor and social-dem movements), then I don't think neoliberalism would have been able to take root as much due to continued resistance. So neoliberalism followed the defeat of social and labor movements in the US, the massive repression of worker and oppressed movements in Latin America, the co-option and turn away from working class politics in South Africa, etc.


How can we be sure then, that capitalism will fall into fascism if left untouched (like some have argued)?I don't think that's the case. I think it's always an option in the abstract with capitalism however, because capitalism always creates crisis and some degree of fight-back and fascism comes into play in a major way to an "solution" to both of these aspects of capitalism.

[Red Economist]

No. They are not automatically enemies as their is considerable overlap. Intellectually, neo-liberals believe in the primacy of economics over politics, in free markets as being more important than democratic process (this is something that actually appears to be borrowed for Marxists and Socialists). Hence, some neo-liberals support dictatorial systems of government as a way of defending private property from Communists and Socialists.
(Some examples Yeltsin's use of Dictatorial measures in the former USSR against the resurgence of the Communist Party whilst introducing Shock Therapy and the 'Chicago Boys' in Chile under Pinocet are examples that come to mind, but these are only things I know about anecdotally).
I would therefore say that they represent competiting tendencies in the capitalist class. 'fascism' is a really complicated combination of elites and reactionary popular forces, but are certainly convenient for the capitalist class to use in periods of crises.

In addition, Neo-liberals also support making the market 'safe for business' through state intervention and this can involve a range of authoritarian political and social policies (such as strong restrictions of Trade Unions and heavy handed 'law and order' policies to protect property) which put corporate interests first based on the assumption that what is good for business, will prove to be good for everyone else in the long-run by 'trickle down' economic growth.

However, I suspect you will find libertarians who support widespread economic liberalization as a way of securing political freedom and will fight fascism (as well as communism and socialism) to achieve it. How far this is the case in general is dependent on the extent to which neo-liberalism is deployed as a cynical ideological cover for the interests of corporate interests and a false consciousness fostered by the mass media.
The latter is the key to determining whether Capitalist class goes fascist 'naturally' in the course of it's development or whether fascism is a response to a particular crisis. On the score, I don't really know.

Personally, whilst the term 'neoliberalism' is not Marxist and doesn't really fit into a marxian analyisis, but I think it could be useful to refer to a new form of 'state monopoly capitalism' since Reagan/Thatcher as the relationship between state and capital is arguably stronger now than during the Keynsian and reformist/social democratic period. Whilst they preach small government, in practice really it's been small government for the people in terms of social security, public services etc and big government for the corporations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Neo-liberalism" isn't an ideology as such, it's a sarcastic epithet originally leveled at vulgar reactionaries trying to portray themselves as liberals (notably Pinochet's economic advisors, and the term as it's now used basically originated amongst the Latin American left).

Its generalized usage refers to a historical phase of capitalist political development in which a critical mass of bourgeois politicians adopted a certain kind of liberalism, especially former non-liberals.


Neoliberalism was never a mockery of the self identification of these economists as liberals. Instead, it was used to distinguish them as a new, more aggressive liberal force. The American usage of the term liberal has nothing to do with its implications everywhere else in the world.

I beg to differ, comrades. Neither the American usage of the term liberal nor today's neoliberals have much in common with classical liberals, except for their dedication to capitalist production.

Classical liberals fought against economic rent, something that cannot be said about post-WWII progressivism (American "liberals") or social democracy. Today's "neoliberals," corporatists all the same, have paved a new road to serfdom by embracing the very thing that classical liberals were hostile to. Their embrace of the surveillance society is mere icing to the corporatist cake.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

As a practical matter, neoliberalism is fascism. It is bent on destroying the rights of workers and people generally, keeping them poor, ignorant, and beholding to the ultra-rich ruling class. The only thing it is missing is a charismatic leader.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Neoliberalism," "social democracy" after WWI, and fascism are all forms of corporatism.

[Sea]

"Neoliberalism," "social democracy" after WWI, and fascism are all forms of corporatism.No, they're all capitalism. They are not even distinct 'forms' because the mode of production and all its inherit qualities remain the same throughout. They are merely differing methods used to justify the same thing after the fact. All of them are incorrect, and this is the secret of their interchangeability. When there is no need for the correct conclusions to be drawn, it is very easy to produce a new falsity that is in fact the same except for its presentation. Likewise, corporatism is a made-up term with no basis of its own. It does not describe anything different than the term 'capitalism'.

[ComradeOm]

As a practical matter, neoliberalism is fascism. It is bent on destroying the rights of workers and people generally, keeping them poor, ignorant, and beholding to the ultra-rich ruling class. The only thing it is missing is a charismatic leader.Therefore we can say that "as a practical matter" neoliberalism is fascism, slave-owning, feudalism, liberalism, social-democracy and every form of class-rule known to man. Nuanced.

I get the desire of people to emphasise the commonalities of these regimes and to puff up the current dominant ideology but these ideological phrases/labels exist for a reason. Boiling them down to the single most common dominator (we get it, they exploit people) is just hopelessly reductionist.

To take this example, arguing that there is no significant difference (barring a "charismatic leader") between a liberal market democracy bent on breaking down global capital barriers and a brutal police state pursuing autarky is just silly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, they're all capitalism. They are not even distinct 'forms' because the mode of production and all its inherit qualities remain the same throughout. They are merely differing methods used to justify the same thing after the fact. All of them are incorrect, and this is the secret of their interchangeability. When there is no need for the correct conclusions to be drawn, it is very easy to produce a new falsity that is in fact the same except for its presentation. Likewise, corporatism is a made-up term with no basis of its own. It does not describe anything different than the term 'capitalism'.

Sea, corporatism refers to what the proto-fascists advocated for since the very early 20th century. It doesn't refer to the power of today's multinational corporations. However, it can be argued that those same corporations themselves are adopting quite a bit of corporatist ideology in their attempts to look beyond the "bottom line."

"They're all capitalism" is correct only if all these corporatist shades (fascism, post-WWI "social democracy," and "neoliberalism") are bunched together, then compared and contrasted with classical liberalism on the one hand and state-capitalist developmentalism on the other. Both classical liberalism and state-capitalist developmentalism are consistently hostile to the private capture of economic rent (ground rent, intellectual property rent, monopoly rent, etc.).

Note: Classical liberalism is itself a broad spectrum, and can include both Georgism and actual Bourgeois Socialism based on Ricardian political economy. It differs from state-capitalist developmentalism on foreign trade.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I think Corporatism is the embodiement of Neoliberalism.

But, looking at your replies to my somewhat ranting text (with way to many questions), we all seem to agree on neolib and fascism being competetors.

So again i'll ask my most important question: What has neoliberalism to gain by fascisms excistence?

[exeexe]

Fascist use violence to get control of the state and to beat their enemies
Neoliberalism use economic pressure to get control of the state and to beat their enemies (privatizing the welfare state)

Fascism is based on nationalism
Neoliberalism is based on internationalism or globalism

Fascism is "kind" to its own people both poor and rich like if it was a family
Neoliberalism is devoid of humanity

etc..

[Revolver]

Inherently enemies? I don't think so. But they are often strange bedfellows, and the interests that they represent are not always harmonized. Fascism is not, to my mind, a coherent system; it is a product of underlying tensions within a given capitalist framework. So Italian fascism was quite different from German fascism and we can expect the American variants to be even more divergent from European examples.

Using the United States as an example, you have something like this "Tea Party" movement that is a mix of the extreme states' rightists, Christian fundamentalists and the astroturfing element (including the billionaire brothers but not limited to them, as it includes other members of the ruling class that are more aligned with the conservative establishment in DC and Wall Street). Now they all oppose "socialism" in word and deed (by which they usually mean welfare state capitalism), but they lack any kind of coherent analytical framework. They certainly do not have class consciousness, but they may have "racial consciousness" that pushes them to embrace urban surveillance and the prison-industrial complex. At the same time, that racism will also manifest itself in opposition to immigration or (less often) the "free trade" agreements negotiated in Washington. That is not in line with the demand for cheap, easily exploitable labor. And so you have the Koch brothers (and others) providing the ephemeral Tea Party with financing while pressing for a relaxed immigration policy for tactical (general election) and strategic (cheap labor) reasons. This balancing act has parallels in the history of reactionary movements, including fascists.

Today, the social extremism of our modern day fascists is not easily harmonized with neoliberalism. Embracing extreme nativism, misogyny and homophobia would not only be a tactical error, it would threaten the actually existing capitalist economy (at least in the context of Europe and the Americas). At the same time, limiting the parameters of democratic debate is perfectly in line with neoliberalism, as is the racialized discourse on the social welfare state and the surveillance apparatus. Those trends could easily produce a frightening form of modern totalitarianism.

When there are signs that fascist tendencies threaten the ruling class, or at least elements within it, there's usually a push against the fascists. Right now, they are not particularly enamored with Dave Brat, the conservative politician who is responsible for unseating the Republican Party majority leader. Not because Brat per se represents a threat to their interests, but because he does touch on the anxieties even conservatives have in response to the current state of the American economy. But at right now his form of "populism" is little more than a minor nuisance. If it became something more I'd expect to see more resistance from the business establishment.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think there's a pretty easy way to solve this question. Every capitalist ideology has certain ways of thinking about the market. If they are "allied", presumably they would have compatible or at least mutually coherent views of what a "good" market should look like.

If we look at fascism, we see that there is a belief in social and economic nationalism which entails protectionist policies commanded by a central authority in the form of the party in alliance with the armed forces and the police. Capital is not free but is bound to the corporatist state through a mix of force and incentive. The market is thus used as a tool to implement the interests and programs in accordance with the "national interest" as determined by the party. A person's right to private property is contingent to their place within the ideology and interests of the ruling party. After all, fascism emerged out of a Europe with decaying nations weakened by war and under threat from leftwing radicals. Fascism gave nation the ability to preserve their power through unity imposed by these central political authorities.

Neoliberalism on the other hand believes in the supremacy and absolute freedom of Capital, and the weakening of the state and other institutions to allow the free flow of investment and trade between nations. Protectionism is dismantled in favor of global free trade. Neoliberalism also tends to believe in the institution of private property as something absolute and inviolable, and not something which should be stripped away from an individual for political reasons. Neoliberalism mainly came on the world stage as a response to the declining rate of profit in the 60s and 70s, and neoliberals wanted to free actors in the market to help make businesses dynamic.

In this sense, neoliberalism and fascism are generally not aligned with one another, and will generally be opposed. This is why the French Socialists are not eager to jump in bed with the FN, and why Golden Dawn has received such a poor reception from the mainstream parties who are more than happy to disregard the interests of the common man.

There are historical eras where the two movements were aligned, albeit for brief periods of time. One example is the aforementioned case of Pinochet's Chile. I think these are interesting counter-examples, although these governments at heart were fundamentally pragmatic, and did not adopt policies based on a singular coherent ideology but based on the needs of certain military and economic elites. They were also regimes under threat from Communists ruling underdeveloped countries in need of foreign capital. In other words, they are natural opponents of one another as their ideals on a functioning market economy are radically different, but there is nothing to stop fascists and neoliberals from working together when they see a mutual "greater enemy" which threatens to undermine them both.

[Revolver]

I think there's a pretty easy way to solve this question. Every capitalist ideology has certain ways of thinking about the market. If they are "allied", presumably they would have compatible or at least mutually coherent views of what a "good" market should look like.

If we look at fascism, we see that there is a belief in social and economic nationalism which entails protectionist policies commanded by a central authority in the form of the party in alliance with the armed forces and the police. Capital is not free but is bound to the corporatist state through a mix of force and incentive. The market is thus used as a tool to implement the interests and programs in accordance with the "national interest" as determined by the party. A person's right to private property is contingent to their place within the ideology and interests of the ruling party. After all, fascism emerged out of a Europe with decaying nations weakened by war and under threat from leftwing radicals. Fascism gave nation the ability to preserve their power through unity imposed by these central political authorities.

Neoliberalism on the other hand believes in the supremacy and absolute freedom of Capital, and the weakening of the state and other institutions to allow the free flow of investment and trade between nations. Protectionism is dismantled in favor of global free trade. Neoliberalism also tends to believe in the institution of private property as something absolute and inviolable, and not something which should be stripped away from an individual for political reasons. Neoliberalism mainly came on the world stage as a response to the declining rate of profit in the 60s and 70s, and neoliberals wanted to free actors in the market to help make businesses dynamic.

In this sense, neoliberalism and fascism are generally not aligned with one another, and will generally be opposed. This is why the French Socialists are not eager to jump in bed with the FN, and why Golden Dawn has received such a poor reception from the mainstream parties who are more than happy to disregard the interests of the common man.

There are historical eras where the two movements were aligned, albeit for brief periods of time. One example is the aforementioned case of Pinochet's Chile. I think these are interesting counter-examples, although these governments at heart were fundamentally pragmatic, and did not adopt policies based on a singular coherent ideology but based on the needs of certain military and economic elites. They were also regimes under threat from Communists ruling underdeveloped countries in need of foreign capital. In other words, they are natural opponents of one another as their ideals on a functioning market economy are radically different, but there is nothing to stop fascists and neoliberals from working together when they see a mutual "greater enemy" which threatens to undermine them both.

Very helpful! And yes I agree that the historic versions of fascism (as well as FN and GD in the French and Greek modern currents and a wide range of European fascist variants) are incompatible with neoliberalism. But for a second I will remove the label fascist (too European) and simply describe the underlying thrust of the movement that receives this label in Europe and other labels elsewhere. And that thrust, as opposed to the movement itself, is more or less coherent: extreme nationalism, traditionalism, reactionary nostalgia, and obsession with "national decline."

In the European context, that movement is going to be Eurosceptic, usually in the extreme. And by extension, since neoliberals favor a single market and prefer a pan-European race to the bottom, the European neo-fascists are going to oppose the policy aims of neoliberals. In the United States, this dynamic is entirely different. First, the reactionaries are appealing to an anti-monarchist and republican past. They do not have feudal remnants as their guiding model. Second, their racial categories are very different; in America, it is the black question, and increasingly the Hispanic question, not the Jewish question and the Arab/Muslim question. That alone might not be very dissimilar from their European counterparts, but they also have linguistic unity across the several states as well as more common cultural ground, and a racial identity (white or "real American") that is the functional equivalent of national identity for European fascists in most respects. Third, they are absolutely seeking something quite similar to Euroscepticism: the radical downsizing of the federal government.

In the American context, then, I think that the dynamic is different when looking at American reactionaries and their relationship to neoliberalism. American neoliberals already have a common market that is not rooted in treaty but bolstered by a federal constitution. American reactionaries either have no real hope of overturning this, so they are seeking effective preferences for whites, particularly white men. This has a federal and state policy component, but the fastest and most discernable policy programs are implemented at the state level. So for example you have anti-immigrant policies adopted in the Southwest, while other areas are trying to roll back affirmative action and restrict voting rights (which has a disparate impact on the disproportionately poor minority groups). But one thing that you find to be relatively consistent is the attack on the social welfare state, which is an area where the American radical right and the neoliberals are in alignment.

So turning back to the dynamic between the two, I think that the European and American circumstances are distinct. The percentage of the population in sympathy with extreme reactionary politics is pretty close to the same in the US and any given European country (say, France), but for pragmatic reasons that same segment of the American population has to direct their political energy into the party that will be most receptive to adopting reactionary policies. In the past that was the Democratic Party, and today it is the Republican Party. And here I am being more expansive than official party membership, including the affiliated networks that provide support to the elected representatives of those parties. In the past the equivalent of neoliberals were rooted in the Republican Party and today they largely remain there, while the reformist left is in the Democratic Party which also houses Keynesian and neoliberal elements with some advantage to the former in the current environment. Since the Democratic Party also houses almost all racial, religious and sexual minority voters and a majority of female voters , that's just not a viable option for the reactionary impulse, so they have to work with the neoliberals. I think the jury is out on whether or not those elements will have anything more than sporadic confrontations over policy differences; to date the significant ones have been the debt ceiling confrontations and immigration. While there are signs that some reactionary elements are not happy with other neoliberal strategies, there's not much open dissent on those points.