“All fascism is objectionable, but not everything objectionable is fascism.”
The expression translates the view that, despite its widespread use in meanings, not all that appears is fascism, nor is fascism “just a synonym of dictatorship or dictatorial tendencies”, despite the fact that in “everyday language”, in the “confrontation political and social activism” the word has this arbitrary usage “as a form of moral condemnation”.
The “political phenomenon (…) of unique characteristics (…), despite the similarities,” is different, explains Carlos Martins, PhD in Comparative Politics at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Lisbon, from “other anti-democratic ideologies that are usually placed on the far right of the political spectrum”.
To “understand the specifics of a phenomenon,” the book’s researcher and author explains: Fascism Beyond Hitler and Mussoliniwhich “marked an era in recent history and which still exists today, it is necessary to use the concept rigorously and accurately”.
This focus allows us to have a “clear idea of the concrete dangers fascism represents”, especially at a time when “new political actors [a direita radical populista, por exemplo]with questionable proposals”, try to legitimize themselves by saying that they “deviate from historical fascism”.
Not even, warns the researcher, “granting them legitimacy” due to the fact that, for example in the case of both Franco and Salazar, “none of the parties or regimes in question” should be “included in the universe of fascism”.
“The Estado Novo cannot be classified as fascist. It was not about that radical project, which claimed to be revolutionary, of creating a new world, with activism, with violent street methods, the cult of violence, with the mobilization of all we had was a regime that was conservative, and which, at a time when conservatism allowed itself to be influenced by fascism, clearly adopted fascist elements and integrated in the middle of it which, not enough to change the regime, made it a fascist giving character is not the same as being a fascist,” explains Carlos Martins.
Salazar’s personality was “important” in this differentiation, but “not only”. “The regime is not only its leader. Salazar was a conservative leader whom Mussolini admired on the part of the corporate regime, on the side of the fight against communism, but he was historically so elitist, so conservative that he “I hated everything that was popular mobilization, any ideology. Popular mobilization carried the risk of losing control. And that was dangerous for the regime.”
And then, “of course”, “the very social classes that supported the regime, the elites, the bourgeoisie that supported the regime, were not happy with this kind of popular mobilization”.
In fact, adds Carlos Martins, “pure fascism has had no lasting impact in Portugal, which does not mean that there was no phase of the Estado Novo regime that had no approach. This happened in the second half of the 1930s. . . , when Salazar banned Francisco Rolão Preto’s National-Syndicalism movement, clearly and openly fascist”.
Salazar, who began the “construction of his dictatorial space”, saw National Unionism as an “ideological adversary” and Rolão Preto “as a personal adversary”. But he wasn’t alone. The fascist leader, who already claimed to “have an army” and criticized Salazar for “knowing only about Finance” and ignoring the “Portuguese soul that vibrates”, created “fear” among the “ruling classes”, who “preferred to” the foundations of traditional institutions such as the church and the military.
From censorship to banning the fascist movement was one step. Not before the regime had passed legislation “formally creating a corporatist system based in part on Italian fascism and Catholic corporatism”. which weakened the power of “seduction” of Rolão Preto’s “propaganda”.
National syndicalism was banned, but left its mark. Salazar “opened the possibility for a wing to integrate the regime, for some national trade unionists to integrate the regime”, the “more moderate”, who left the “cult of Rolão Preto”.
“Of the fascists who chose to enter the regime, many even tried to give the regime a more fascist stamp, they made this attempt. It was with the establishment of Mocidade Portuguesa and Legião Portuguesa, in 1936, that the regime clearly closer to the fascist model… Even if it never fully achieved it, because it is a conservative regime, it would never be able to fully reproduce a fascist regime,” explains the researcher.
Pure fascism had no lasting impact in Portugal, which is not to say that there was no phase of the Estado Novo regime that did not have an approach. This happened in the second half of the 1930s, when Salazar banned Francisco Rolão Preto’s National Syndicalism movement (…)
It was in practice a summary of Carlos Martins, a ‘conservative regime of fascism’. Fernando Rosas says one can speak of “a character of conservative fascism that wanes after the Second World War”. Jaime Nogueira Pinto argues that there are “many differences between fascism and the Estado Novo. So much so that to say Salazarism was fascism would be like calling socialist leaders communes after April 25”.
And today, where is fascism? In Portugal, the researcher considers: “I would say that the biggest fascist is Mário Machado, with everything we know about him, with all the crimes he committed. The organizations he was in are fascist organizations. He certainly won’t be the only one are the PNR, but incapable of replicating fascism is doomed to be a post-fascism, which will never actually become fascism, though they probably wanted to”.
“And then,” he adds, “we have Chega who is not completely fascist, who can be supported by fascists, who can have fascist wings within the party and fascists declared to support her because they see Chega as the closest to their ideology But ultimately I don’t see Chega as a fascist party”.
There are also cases of the Golden Dawn, in Greece, and the Falangists, in Spain, but no, thankfully they are not the majority of this new radical right, although this new right is sometimes supported by fascists or has fascist elements. “.
“Fascism is not necessarily synonymous with the far right. There are other far-right ideologies that are not necessarily fascism, although of course they are close. One of the main differences is the radicalism, the violence, the activism that confronts fascism’s hypothesis of creating a new world, as if the nation has been reborn from the ashes Fascists use very radical methods, they strive to change the way society is structured, its elites, its social classes, the way society is organized in relation to their leaders Fascists want to transform everyday reality into a constant ritual of worship of the leader,” explains Carlos Martins.
And countries? The “most obvious” case, according to Carlos Martins, is “Putin’s regime in Russia, which is not structurally a fascist regime, but is close, very close to the fascist regimes. [Alemanha e Itália] from between wars. It is a fascist conversational regime that harbors fascist principles. It is perhaps the only one that can be classified that way today. There’s a fascinating part to it that I haven’t seen in a few decades. Putin’s regime accommodates fascist principles. The idea of the Z symbol, for example, and it is just one example, scattered everywhere, underlines this idea of the importance of symbols, rituals, a typical element of fascism.”
And who were the fascist regimes to this day? Carlos Martins’ response is immediate. “The only ones who can say without reservation ‘this was fascism’ were Italy and Nazi Germany.”
Mussolini, “who was even a socialist, belonged to the Socialist Party”, founded on March 23, 1919 in Milan, in San Sepolcro square, “the first organization that can be considered fascism. Nazism and Italian fascism are two aspects of And on the limit fascism was the predominance of Nazi Germany, because Mussolini was forced to make many reconciliations with the conservative classes and conservative organizations.The economic crisis is extremely important, and in the German case it was very important.Hitler began to win votes when the Great Depression hit in earnest. In the Italian case, this is not so clear. It was not the economic crisis that motivated fascism. The economic crisis motivated socialist, communist movements, who tried to occupy factories, properties, etc. . It was the reaction against this left-wing movement that made fascism grow”.
Everything that remained unresolved or unresolved after the First World War: the economic crisis, the Treaty of Versailles, expansionist beliefs, dismay at liberal monarchies and regimes, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, the communist revolution… for a doctrine that, in that historical context, a significant portion of the population made sense”.
And are there still fascist countries today? The “most obvious” case, according to Carlos Martins, is “Putin’s regime in Russia, which is not structurally a fascist regime, but is close, very close to the fascist regimes. [Alemanha e Itália] between wars”.
Its roots are to be found “in a certain reactionary right, whether in France or in Italy, ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, which sought to curtail individual freedoms to create what they called an integral nation, in which the nation overlapped the individual. There were also a few drops of people who came from the left, like Mussolini, who left the left, but kept the idea of the uprising of the mobilization”.
And even “some British feminists, suffragettes, who joined the British fascist movement. Women who had fought for the right to vote, who then joined and thought it was best for British women.”
Over 300 pages, Carlos Martins analyzes the central concepts of fascism, its similarities with other ideologies, the contradictions of ideology, the cases of Italy and Germany, the failures of British fascism, the Spanish Falange, the Brazilian, French and Romanian and , of course the Portuguese case. And the long list of “fascist organizations” between wars.
And it makes sense slogan “April 25 always, never again fascism?”.
“I don’t care if the PCP or any other party uses it slogans. You can see why and I agree with the intent behind it. Now I hope there is maturity and clarity to discuss these issues. Some in the PCP won’t like it very much, maybe there will be more openness on the part of the BE, but they are in their right. Also because there is another side, that of those who want to reduce the concept of fascism in order to legitimize the Salazar regime,” the researcher replies.
Source: DN
