What is New in Neo-fascism?
Sudip Dutta
THE use of the term neo-fascism by CPI(M) referring to the current regime in India has ignited a serious debate within the Left as well as other sections of our country. Certainly, the political nature of any regime should be analysed primarily on the basis of its class composition, contradictions and political-economic content, and not the degree of repression unleashed by the State. The action of the State may vary in different junctures of history, in different countries and the bourgeois democratic parliamentary system may be mutilated by many of the authoritarian rulers. All of them can’t be described as fascist as fascism has a specific historical socio-economic context.
So, in this text, we will try to focus on some of the specific characteristics of the ruling dispensation in India and will try to locate how they lead to a ‘neo’ prefix before the fascism of old form. Certainly, it is also essential to analyse and understand the economic base of neo-fascism and its structural differences from its older forms to frame and formulate concrete tactics to combat it. The political-ideological manifestation of this order can be dealt with in a separate piece.
The economic crisis of 1920s and ’30s which reigned over the war ridden Europe, was the breeding ground for the rise of fascism. The 1929 Wall Street crash further heavily impacted the financially devastated Germany. Unemployment rose to 33 per cent and industrial production shrunk to 50 per cent. Banks collapsed like houses of cards and people were losing faith over the existing liberal democratic institutions. The specter of Soviet Russia was haunting Western capitalism and fascism emerged as its savior.
The core economic interventions of fascism can be classified as follows: a) Regulating finance and taking control of capital from all big banks, along with personal savings kept in them, obviously for a certain period b) Diverting finance to State sponsored and profit guaranteed private heavy industries – especially metal and armaments c) Massive State investments in public infrastructure and creation of temporary jobs d) Issuance of treasury bonds and delivery bills in exchange for money forcefully taken from individual savings in the banks; the promissory notes were replaced with longer term bonds after reaching the maturity dates of the initial one, thereby pushing the crisis towards the future!
Fascism ensured a higher rate of profit for big industrial corporations by waiving corporate tax burden, restraining competition between capital and dismantling labour resistances. It also created free labour by enslaving the hapless Jewish community.
However, as the rate of return on capital was insufficient to fulfill its promises, fascism had to attack other countries to accumulate capital through looting and plundering. This was also necessary to sustain the permanent military industry. In spite of all these attempts, ultimately fascism couldn't survive, as it was defeated by the great Red Army!
Now, we will point out the differences between today’s situation and the crisis of last century?
Firstly, finance had national centers at that time, so there was some scope for regulation of finance by a nation-State. Today, International Finance Capital is stronger than any nation-State, making it nearly impossible for any State to regulate International Finance. Neoliberal-globalization has structurally changed the foundation of modern day fascism.
Secondly, the economic dominance is shifting from productive capitalism to rentier capitalism. Now the top companies extract rent through monopoly rights over natural resources and State assets. Some collect rent for their digital platforms. And others invest in financial markets.
Today’s gigantic rentier corporations want to loot labour of all spheres, even those engaged in petty production and self-employment also. So, the neo-fascist forces will further tighten the squeeze, not only of the sphere of production, but also that of reproduction; leave alone their lust for natural resources.
Thirdly, old fascist states attempted to postpone the crisis by issuing futuristic bonds. Strikingly, in the neoliberal era, the dominant financial instruments are various forms of short, middle and long term future bonds and derivative trading. Even risk itself has been commodified as speculative bonds.
Today, the market has become so powerful that a fully fascist state may not be necessary to push public savings towards futuristic speculative investment. Until the market crashes or sovereign default appears, the fascist state may not need to assume its full avatar.
Fourth factor is the creation of a new group of consumers belonging to the upper sections of the middle class who benefited from neoliberalism. They are the most prolific buyers of high-priced, short-duration commodities. A section of them socially and ideologically legitimise all neoliberal mechanisms. With the massive use of social media, they are the dominant opinion makers in society now. With strong social presence of this group, there may be no urgent need for the destruction of current bourgeois-parliamentary setup as a whole.
Strikingly, these ideological supporters of neoliberal-communalism are now hit by the crisis and all bourgeois Pundits are worried about their falling purchasing power. Their jobs are becoming increasingly vulnerable. This phenomenon may introduce a positive departure from their pro-neoliberal class consciousness.
We already have mentioned that the International Finance Capital is larger than any nation, making regulation difficult. However, the US case is exceptional; the US controls around 60 per cent of global stock market value. Therefore, if the US attempts to impose some financial regulation, it may succeed.
Trump, for instance, may pursue a strategic devaluation of the dollar - reducing its exchange rate to boost US exports, reduce trade deficits (especially with China) and ease debt burdens (since a weaker dollar reduces the burden of foreign-held US debt). This would not be a case of price deflation (which would require tight monetary policy) but rather exchange rate manipulation.
The US Treasury and Federal Reserve may sell US dollars in foreign exchange markets while buying euros, yen, and yuan, thereby increasing the supply of US dollars. A historical precedent for this is the 1985 Plaza Accord, in which the US, Japan, and Germany agreed to weaken the dollar – a move that was successful but led to Japan’s economic bubble.
Trade war is another mechanism for regulating finance that has already been heavily resorted to by the Trump administration. All of these measures would have a significant impact on global production value chains, particularly in the global South. Thus, Trump’s actions will be important for understanding the new form of fascism.
Certainly, the crisis of neoliberalism is the origin of neo-fascism and the economic policy of neo-fascism in any country like India will eventually be subservient to neoliberalism. However, fascistic forces will emerge again and again within neoliberal order to divert public reaction, mostly using religious or racial jingoism. BJP-RSS came into power by deceitfully claiming to offer an alternative to the existing neoliberal regime. But in reality, it has ensured an unprecedented degree of monopolization to its favoured cronies. It has enforced authoritarianism in society and politics to dismantle all resistance.
Neoliberalism in India will never allow its neo-fascist forces in power to either increase the fiscal deficit, or tax the rich. With every seven-eight years of cycle, the crisis will deepen further. In the interim period, if any liberal government comes, it will follow the same neoliberal dictate and there will always be a chance of the revival of the neo-fascist forces.
Recall that, before neoliberalism, the capital was majorly stuck within the national boundaries. Then the capitalist world order entered into a deep crisis and it was temporarily resolved by globalising finance. Now after four decades of neoliberalism, there is no further scope for capital to be free.
So, neo-fascism will be a new, different and long-standing phenomenon in our world and in India also, simultaneously existing with neoliberalism.
The primary task in this situation is to mount ideological, political, social and cultural fights against neo-fascist RSS-Hindutva forces of our country. And it should be premised on providing holistic concrete alternatives to the ongoing exploitative order. A radical reactionary ideology can only be fought by a more radical and progressive ideology. And so, the call for popularising socialist alternatives is not based on any hypothetical situation but an essential imperative in the objective condition of the systemic crisis.
The core of our resistance tactics should be to mount militant popular movement against the privatisation of public assets, plundering of natural resources, informalisation of employment relations including the massive introduction of trainees and apprentices, erosion of labour rights, coercion of petty production and the labour engaged therein, curtailment of subsidies for subsistence and attacks on democratic actions.
We have to prioritise the strategic sectors like electricity, coal, petroleum, transport, railway, finance. Workers of these sectors can cripple any State, how authoritarian it may be.
We have to plan coordinated strikes especially against the preferred monopolies of the neo-fascist order. The anti-privatisation struggle should be the spearhead of this. So, it must be elevated to the political ideological sphere of class struggle.
As neo-fascism cannot resolve the problem of unemployment, a long-planned, well-coordinated struggle for stable and regular employment should be made a priority task.
or reload the browser
