Fascism and populism in the era of globalization

The controversy over whether or not the Kirchner government was a dictatorship and whether it led directly to Venezuela was one of the strong points of the national political debate in the hour of decline of Cristina, when the $ 600 soy and the zero rate of the FED they ended, the energy crisis broke out and we had to start paying the bill for a decade of populism, divestment and looting.

Reality puts this debate on the table and updates it. What would Cristina do if a black swan put it back in front of the country? Would there be an overcrowded CFK 3.0, with an attack on the media and the opposition, a colonization of justice, a demonization of everything that would oppose it, the release of "political prisoners", the Use of state agencies as a means of indefinite tightening and re-election and a constitutional reform that culminates in the dictatorial Bolivarian model? Would we be this time in Venezuela? "From Fascism to Populism in History" (Federico Finchelstein, Taurus, 2018) provides an interesting overall theoretical framework for rethinking kirchnerism in relation to the two black beasts of twentieth-century history and its resurgence in history. beginning of the 21st century.

I think the greatest success of Finchelstein is to try two distinct concepts, fascism and populism, often confused in the media and congressional debatewhen the theoretical differences melt into the fire of the action and the words are used as weapons. But hell is paved with good intentions and, in my opinion, Finchelstein's good intentions end up being diluted in a series of confusions. I list them and discuss them below, not because of the spirit of the inspector, but because I see them repeating themselves every day in a certain social democratic intelligentsia that is now close to the wide avenue in the center.

Populism is obviously not the same as fascism, and it is wrong for those who accuse a populist regime of fascism to forget the differences. However:

-Flacism is not a distinct set of populism, as Finchelstein argues. Fascism is a radicalized populism; that is to say: an extreme subset of populism, and not something different. To say that populism is anything but fascism and not just exacerbation is not enough, as Finkelstein does, to point out differences; it is necessary to show that it is not a question of differences of degree but of essential, conceptual point out that fascism is violent and dictatorial and that the populism, no, is useful to build theoretical categories, but implies of sub- to estimate the populist genesis of fascism and its risks, which has had enormous consequences in history.

It is true that fascism is distinguished from populism by the political use of violence. The wars and genocides of the twentieth century leave no doubt about the incomparable fascist barbarism. But it is also true that populism has made wide and disgusting use of violence, justifying it to achieve its goals. The torture of opponents in the dungeons of the anti-communist special section, the fire of churches and the inauguration of a very violent rhetoric since the power ("We will raise our arms to suspend opponents "," To the enemy, not to justice "," Five for one "", etc.) during the first Peronism, the exploitation of terrorist violence of "special formations" and the beginning of their extermination in the hands of the Triple A of the second Peronism, as well as the actions of the trade union gangs and piqueteros commanded by the Moyanos and the Elías, add to the badbadination of a prosecutor of the Nation, in Kirchnerism, is a prime example of populist violence. The relationship between populism and violence has been repeated around the world, as evidenced by what is happening today in Venezuela. Here too, fascist violence has emerged from populist violence. It is his radicalization in the circumstances in which the regime must gain power by using all means (such as the Puerta de Hierro Peron) or see the power obtained in danger (as the current Maduro).

– It is also true, as Finchelstein argues, that fascism is intrinsically dictatorial whereas populism calls for voting and democracy; even if it is a fraudulent democracy without a republic. However, the republic is more important than democracy, as evidenced by the fact that the most horrendous act of history, the Jewish genocide, was committed by a regime resulting from the vote that destroyed the republican institutions. In general, any genocide is perfectly feasible under "democratic but not republican" conditions, to use the Finchelstein category. It is enough that half plus one of the Germans decides that the Jews are expelled or annihilated and vote it at a plebiscite so that the "democratic" clause conceived in this way is fulfilled. But no genocide is possible without violating human rights, the rule of law and the independence of powers, central elements of republicanism. He added: neither Hitler nor Mussolini came to power as dictators, but they were built as such in power. Finchelstein reportedly said that their use of violence was moderate – populist – before that. Some socialists were bent over Munich and some Communists stabbed in Turin, as is the case in populist regimes, but nothing comparable with the Holocaust and the war. This dictatorship – genocide and war – is possible only from a consolidated power, which implies that to become fascist, one must start by being populist and radicalize, and not the other way around.

– What the Finchelstein title suggests is also not true. It does not go "from fascism to populism" but from one to the other (because between populism and fascism, there is no clear division, but a degraded greyness), and more often, from populism to fascism as the opposite. Peronism was by no means the first populist experience in the history of the world. All fascisms were, originally, populisms. The first and original, that of Mussolini, did not differ much from the first Peronism in terms of persecution of opponents and independent press, totalitarian invasion of private life, omniscient propaganda, espionage system, subordination of syndicalism, militarization of social life, characterization of other political forces as traitors to the people and the nation, etc. until they enter into an alliance with Hitler; otherwise they would not have survived. The Kirchnerism of Cristina in Chávez was not so different, when the price of oil smiled on him and it was not necessary to get around the opponents, arm paramilitary militias, falsify election results, cancel parliaments and badbadinate protesters like Maduro does today.

Finchelstein's claims that fascism and populism are distinct and distinct things and that the usual dynamic of moving from fascism to populism is an essential misunderstanding. The two ideas leave us unarmed in the face of the world phenomenon we are witnessing: the rise of populisms which, if historical circumstances permit or necessitate the preservation of power, could become fascism. This happened in the early twentieth century, which would have prevented it in the twenty-first century, when the repetition in the world of many critical elements that shook Europe at that time (decline in economic growth, increased unemployment globalization tendency) of the economy without similar development of political institutions, discredit of democracy and its leaders and institutions, rise of xenophobic and nationalist movements, increase of international tensions and commercial wars) seems to provoke similar reactions? The impressive coincidences should alarm us: once again, the nation-state reveals that it has lost the inclusiveness of its early centuries and is powerless to govern supranational forces more powerful than itself, and that its crisis discredits the democratic and republican regimes badociated with it. and again, there are those who propose to go back to a supposed past of national glory that is in fact bathed in the blood of millions of people.

I would like to discuss here Finchelstein's condescension with Peronism as a champion of social justice and his insistence on distinguishing right-wing and left-wing populism, but I do not have any more space . Here is my last difference: it is not populism, but nationalism. Populism is the form, but the content is nationalistic. And fascism is essentially a radicalized nationalism. Nationalism as an extreme reaction to the global forces that tend to shield the nation from the sovereign monopoly of the economy, politics, identity and culture. To put it in the words of Hobsbawm, Hitler was no more than a consistent nationalist. In accordance with Deutschland über alles ("Germany above all") from the first verse of the German anthem and that he perfectly felt that the driving forces of globalization were going to end Germany as it was. ;she was. No more Ein Volk, the Reich and the Führer ("a people, a kingdom, an orchestra leader"), but a confused mix of Aryans and Turks belonging to a multiethnic and multicultural country that has delegated some of its sovereignty to the United States. European Union and whose current leader does not look like Otto von Bismarck but rather to Doña Petrona.

Who did it? Who transformed the Kaiser and the Bismarck into Doña Petrona-Merkel and under the Third Reich in present-day Germany? It was about scientific and technological development, the resulting economic and financial globalization, anti-nationalist political tendencies and big migrations. Bankers without soul like the Rothschild; heartless scientists like Einstein; internationalists without countries like Trotsky and landless migrants like those in the diaspora. The particular conditions of its historical development have placed the Jews in this place: the largest transnational people in history, obliged – moreover – to specialize in the fields of science, commerce, finance, banking and commerce. art and politics; all are immaterial fields (and easy to transport before a pogrom) on which is based globalization, this enemy of the nation-state. Sovereignty against globalism, in short; John Bolton, National Security Advisor to the White House and ideological leader of the America first, changed today Make America great again. My country first and foremost. Do you talk to them?

"Populist nationalism is the global tragedy that is happening to us", my biography on Twitter since 2009. Since then, many unfortunate events have occurred in the United States, Europe and Latin America. That the rebirthing world populism does not degenerate again into forms of fascism is the task of all who believe that human life, the rule of law, human rights and democracy go before any sovereignty.

The author is a national deputy (Change).