The Commodification of Anti-Fascism

In a 2015 article, the Atlantic Council, an influential think tank dedicated to promoting the policies of Atlanticism and to, in their own words, “galvanizing US leadership and engagement in the world,” ran an article on their website with the rather on-the-nose title “Is Putin’s Russia Fascist?”. Published in a time immediately following the previous year’s US-backed coup d’etat in Ukraine and the subsequent revolutionary response in Donetsk and Luhansk, the Atlanticist propaganda machine was working overtime.

The Atlantic Council, in a move that would prove to set a new trend in Western geopolitical policy, mentioned that the term ‘fascism’ had been growing in popularity amongst Russia watchers to designate the Russian Federation under the presidency of Vladimir Putin. As if wanting to negate criticism that would surely follow, the think tank immediately claimed that the term was definitely not used “casually or as a form of opprobrium”, but as a very truthful expression of deep concern.

Many readers are likely familiar with the concept of Godwin’s Law: the internet adage that rules that the longer an online discussion drags on, regardless of topic, the chances of someone dragging an analogy to Nazism or fascism into the mix become nearly inevitable. In a more scientific term, the concept is known as reductio ad Hitlerum, the attempt to invalidate an opponent’s opinion by claiming that a similar position was once held by Adolf Hitler himself or the NSDAP in general. While initially coined as a way to call out ridiculous and far-fetched associations made by commenters on the internet, the concept has also been used as a preventive argument by actual neo-fascist organizations in order to discredit their critics and thus obfuscate very real fascist policies and opinions these groups actually hold dear.

One would think that the relatively common knowledge of this adage would make analysts and pundits think twice about reaching for the fascism allegations. However, the opposite seems to be true.

In the same year as the Atlantic Council’s report alone, New York University professor Mikhail Iampolski wrote for Newsweek with the bombastic title “Putin's Russia is in the Grip of Fascism”. Commentator Yevgeny Ikhlov, in an article published by the website of infamous pro-Western activist Garry Kasparov and further elaborated by The Interpreter, accused Putin of “restoring the Left Fascism of the late Soviet period”. In a bizarre conjuration of words, Ikhlov argues that what he calls Putinism is “left because it is anti-market and quasi-collectivist, but it is fascism because it is a form of a militant and most primitive philistinism and cultivated the most conservative trends in art and science.”

Similar examples of rhetorical showmanship were performed by Andrei Zubov, former employee of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, who claimed that contemporary Russia is typified by “a corporate state of a fascist type packaged in Soviet ideology, the ideology of Stalinism”. Apparently, being able to form a coherent sentence without absolute contradictions is not a job requirement for becoming a polemicist for Atlanticism.

“But are the analysts right?”, the Atlantic Council asks itself innocently, only to immediately kick into next gear and explain how Russia is indeed the great fascist monster in the east. Because, the text continues, Moscow fits the bill of representing a “hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines, and imperialist projects.” Interestingly, one may be forgiven for at first thinking this checklist is referring to the United States.

The irony of an organization dedicated to galvanizing US leadership in the world not only using these concepts as a definition of fascism, but having the audacity to accuse another country of fitting the bill, is absolutely palpable.

In 2017, the aptly named website The American Interest made a similar claim in an article titled “Putin’s Russia: A Moderate Fascist State” (note the possessive form that serves to convince the reader that the largest country in the world is somehow the personal possession of a big bad leader, in this case Vladimir Putin).

“By standard scholarly definition, Russia today is not an illiberal democracy: It is an early-stage fascist state,” is the explosive header the article starts off with. The author, named Vladislav Inozemtsev, immediately tries to ward off any criticism by hiding behind this so-called “scholarly definition of fascism.” Surely, this article must be as unbiased as they come, as the writer shares the opinion of these scholars describing fascism as “a particular regime type as regards three key relationships: the structure of the political economy; the idealized relationship between society, the state, and moral authority; and the posture of the state in regard to other states.”

Much of the article is dedicated to lamenting Russia’s increasing role of government in the economy, animosity towards the Western powers and an ever-present feeling of the threat of victimhood and decline. In typical fashion, of course there is no mention of the very material facts that Russia did in fact experience a horrifyingly traumatizing period of victimhood and decline in the 1990s. Of course, the reference to the increased strength of Russia’s military and security forces in the past years needs to be brought up, again ironically so coming from the perspective of the United States, the single most militarized society on the face of the earth.

One major issue naturally vexes those accusing Moscow of fascism: the near total lack of institutional racism in Russia. Russia is not even a nation-state by the traditional Western definitions (but rather what has come to be known as civilization-state), and has never claimed to be a state for “Russian race” exclusively. On the contrary, the extensive influence of thinkers such as Lev Gumilev, the founder of the concept of ethnogenesis and fervent defender of the Tatar aspect of Russian identity, and the Eurasian schools of thought, is diametrically opposed to the racial concepts that were so prevalent amongst most 20th-century fascists.

Even Inozemtsev has to admit this, but tries to spin it in favor of his narrative.

“Russia is therefore a unique case of a fascist regime essentially free from the racialist elements of Nazism, and this fact perplexes many who try to reflect on its political nature. That is why, despite the huge attention to the idea of the “Russian world,” noted above, this is not racialist but cultural. It is about language, not blood. (...) So it’s not racial purity, but the reverse, that defines what Russians are supposedly about genetically. For Putin and many Russians, the concept of “Russianness” is an open and inclusive one.”

Seemingly, we have arrived at the establishment of a “open and inclusive” form of Russian fascism. And, if that doesn’t yet sound like a complete rewriting of the the term means just for the sake of having a buzzword to throw at Russia, the author makes it abundantly clear just a few sentences later that this is exactly what he is aiming to achieve.

“So obviously, if Western scholars define this combination a priori as being incompatible with their definition of fascism, then Russia cannot be fascist. The problem here is with their definition.”

And there it is, a surprisingly clear admission of what this is all about. If Russia doesn’t meet the requirements to be defined as fascist, then we simply must redefine what it means to be fascist. Anything is allowed, as long as it gives Western press a scary word to put on the next scare campaign aimed at the Kremlin.

The bizarre and often contradictory wording found in most of these analyses are a clear showcase of one constant factor reappearing in Western propaganda: the basic fact that they have no idea how to define fascism.

The term fascism has become somewhat of a buzzword in western geopolitical discourse, a scary term to throw around at will whenever politics is being discussed. Most notably, anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda often gets stuck with the label of being a fascist.

There is no real content to the term anymore. No longer does it describe a political ideology determined by economic corporatism, extreme nationalism, militarism and anticommunism. Nowadays, any firm of socially conservative positions can qualify someone for the moniker, especially if one questions liberal sanctities such as sexual libertinism, the neoliberal free market system or the complete absence of religion in the public sphere.

In other words: the liberal tendency of simply twisting, redefining or simply emptying the meaning of words stretches out to the terminology of ideologies such as fascism. An empty word, to be used as propagandist ammunition whenever it suits the needs of the powers that be. In an atmosphere such as this, a country like Russia, with its patriotic pride, a often devoutly religious population and a strong state, is the ideal target for being accused of fascism.

A smear campaign has spread across political lines in many Western states, with countries such as Russia and China being in the crosshairs. Rather than using factual information to explain their warmongering against Russia, which would be impossible since there is no rational justification for such a war, mainstream media focuses on a two-pronged strategy: accusing Russia of being the resurgence of fascism on one hand, and accusations of "Russian collusion", espionage and widespread behind-the-scenes Russian influence on other countries on the other hand.

The two tactics go hand in hand. The spread of far-right movements and rise of populist leaders across Europe and North America, from Fidesz in Hungary over Marine Le Pen in France to Donald Trump himself, is all too often blamed on the Russians. Starting from the idea that "this is not who we are", the clean-cut liberal pundits are more than eager to shift the blame to the Kremlin. Because it's unthinkable, of course, that widespread popular anger exists in a place like France, that racism is a widespread phenomenon in the civilized West, or that the ever-present feeling of an inevitable looming collapse of the liberal world order lives in the minds and hearts of a growing number of people. For sure, it must be Putin and his supporters who are behind everything that goes wrong in the West.

This line of thinking serves another goal as well, namely obfuscating the fact that fascism as an ideology was very much an exponent of typical Western, capitalist and yes indeed, liberal ideology. As anti-individualistic as fascism claims to be, the fundamental principles that it borrowed from were unmistakably rooted in the traditions of Anglo-Saxon liberalism. The race theories that Hitler and his supporters promoted were far from new, but were openly inspired by British colonialism and American institutional racism.

The Nazi ideas of a pyramid of superior and lesser races were nearly carbon copies of the Anglo-Saxon supremacy that lay at the foundation of the United States of America. Let us not forget that, aside from the Masonic and pagan symbolism that has been part and parcel of US heraldry from the beginning, the original design of the Great Seal of the United States featured a blatant reference to "the Countries from which these States have been peopled". These countries and people that were considered the only true citizens of the new “free republic” were represented by their heraldry on the suggested coat of arms: England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Holland and Germany. In other words, every single place being a territory ruled over by Anglo-Saxon rulers and culturally assimilated into the Germanic cultural world (with Ireland and Scotland at this point in history being de facto firmly controlled by Anglo-Saxon rulers in London).

This fact is most inconvenient however to the liberal elites of contemporary Europe and North America, as it directly threatens the lofty liberal hagiography that describes a constant progress of society from the Enlightenment onwards, typified only by scientific advances, rationalism, freedom and democracy. Anything that contradicts this interpretation of history, such as the development of imperialism and the murder of countless millions in the Global South at the hands of colonial powers, is put down as either an aberration or quite simply ignored. Enter the current era, in which illiberal states across the Global South start rising up and demanding their rightful place on the world stage, and you can see a perfect reason for Western propaganda to dust off the old yellow journalism and fear mongering.

It is difficult, however, to explain to the public just why they are supposed to hate Russia, Iran or China. Especially when the West would need to explain the historical background behind feelings of animosity towards the imperial core. The Opium War, the 1953 Iran Coup or the imperialist invasions of Russia in 1918 are hard to explain to even the most supremacy-minded Westerner. However, fill their heads with the idea that fascist hordes of Oriental invaders are massing at the gates, and getting the public opinion to support war becomes a whole lot easier. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of mental strategy used by Nazis and fascists to call for war against the Soviet Union. Not only do the liberal-capitalist elites call for war and the subjugation of the resurgent East and Global South, but in a particularly cynical twist of rhetoric, they do do under the guise of “fighting fascism”.

There is one more reason why “blame it on the Russians” is such a popular trick nowadays. The resurgent right-wing populist movement, whether they be involved in the truck drivers’ protests in Canada or the supporters of Marine Le Pen in France, generally consists of two groups of people. On the one hand, there are the proponents of legitimate popular anger that get swept up in a movement that demands change. People that often have very little political background, but are motivated by very real concerns that affect their everyday life: poverty, repressions, rising cost of living, rampant crime, dilapidated public services, etcetera. On the other hand, there are those, often the ones in charge, who fundamentally serve the same economic and geopolitical interests as the liberal and conservative elites that they are purportedly rallying against. These are often charismatic leader figures who understand that, rather than openly looking down upon the masses, they can try to use and guide the popular anger away from the actual causes of their suffering, and towards groups within society that they shift the blame to.

It is for this reason that, unfortunately, the rise of justified popular anger towards the exploitation at the hands of the liberal-neocon cabal ruling the West, is often combined with blatant islamophobia and white supremacism. Much of the West has developed into a political deadlock between two, both generally destructive, forces. On the one hand, there is the traditional elite, promoting neoliberal economics, free trade, unbridled capitalism, liberal ethical values and, since recently, a co-opting of the so-called “woke” movement. On the other hand, there is the right-wing populist trend, often even alt-right, characterized by moral conservatism, racist tendencies, strong government intervention and harsher judicial policies.

The rise of the so-called alt-right movement across Europe and North America has become an undeniable fact of life in contemporary politics. The traditional liberal and neoconservative elite of the Western world has shown itself to be wholly incapable of stemming this tide, and that is assuming they even seek to stop it in the first place. But of course, the more rabidly racist, islamophobic and ethnocentrist voices that have entered the mainstream debate as a result are difficult to rhyme with the official propaganda of the Western state as a peaceful and tolerant society. Hence, the need to shift the blame away from internal causes, such as the rapidly rising levels of poverty, wealth inequality and homelessness and the seemingly unstoppable breakdown of the moral fabric of society, and towards made-up external threats such as Russia.

Portraying Russia as the bogeyman behind the rise of fascism fulfills the goals of the leaders of the West perfectly. Rather than focus on the very real and deep-rooted economic, social, moral and ethical problems of the West, including the fundamental contradictions that have been plaguing the liberal heartland for centuries already, the powers in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels have opted for the age-old propaganda strategy of blaming it on “the Other”. It is up to the people of the West now to see through this campaign of lies.

Source