What is fascism and what it is not? The class character of fascism

Labour Party, Turkey

There once was more than enough debate on fascism. Although it has reached a certain level of clarification, it has not yet ended. At present, various approaches to fascism co-exist, i.e. as much as it is considered as a symptom of lunacy, it is also seen as repression of thoughts and demands that are not liked; this coexists with the adoption, advocation and glorification of notions, axes and tendencies such as “a nation with one voice “, “a strong state”, “a superior individual”, the cult of the leader, chauvinism, xenophobia, etc. Social reformism and Trotskyism compete in severing or veiling the link between fascism, which they present as a general evil beyond classes or as the dominance of extra-class elements or leaders, with the monopolies and finance capital.

Especially under the conditions when the stagnation of capitalism is becoming clearer, when the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the monopolies and imperialism and the peoples, and between the imperialists themselves are sharpening, there is no doubt that the importance of the treatment of the question of fascism and of the fight against it increases with the need to clarify its class character and influence.

Especially in times of crisis, it is a fact that an increasing number of workers see that capitalism cannot give them anything, and tend to break away from the traditional bourgeois parties on the right and left of the “centre“, which they blame for the neoliberal policies and the governments that follow them. Moreover, although they do not blame capitalism directly, but only its negative consequences and the parties that they consider responsible for these consequences, the working masses are not only moving away from the traditional parties of the bourgeois system, but also from the sphere of influence of parliamentarism, which is the system that involves the change of government between parties that are not very different from each other.

Parliamentarism is the general form of today’s highly ossified bourgeois democracy, and the masses are actually detaching themselves from this form of hegemony of the bourgeoisie. This is evidenced by the falling percentage of votes for the traditional parties and of the electoral turnout in almost all countries. What appears again is that newly formed parties and new individuals, who not only criticise but also blame the old bourgeois parties and the usual old system of “democratic” hegemony, can even have “a boom in votes”. France is an example: While the centre right and left, the Republicans and the Socialist Party, suffered serious declines, the – non-party votes for Macron rose; however, the one who lost in last year’s local elections with a 40% turnout was he and his lately-founded party, La République En Marche!

On this ground, fuelled by the 2001 and 2008 crises, the fascist movement gained strength by blaming and exploiting the parliamentary system and the existing bourgeois parties of the right and left, which were exposed for not responding positively to the demands of the masses, and by exploiting these demands, claiming that their fulfilment was hindered by foreigners and internal and external enemies. In addition to traditional parliamentary deception and the parties of the bourgeois system to meet the demands of the masses with endless promises, xenophobia, incitement of nationalism and chauvinism are the main pillars of fascist movements to gain strength.

The practice of the class struggle has plenty of evidence in this regard. The fascist coup in Bolivia, which was subsequently overturned, and the fact that a fascist dictatorship is being built in Turkey, are examples of this; the advent of the presidency of Bolsanaro in Brazil – who does not hide his fascism, Orban in Hungary, Modi in India, and Trump in the US – calling for the attack on the Capitol on January 6, though he left it in suspense later – have all contributed to the debate on fascism being brought back on the agenda. Moreover, in addition to the neo-fascist movements, the far right reactionary fascist movements with a mass base in many countries and the development of the right populist movements are increasing the importance of having a correct approach and attitude on the subject.

I. Fascism likened to Bonapartism

In the past, the social democrats claimed that fascism was a Bonapartist power. This claim still has its defenders today. It is based on the illusion that does not lead to political blindness, and in fact stems from the state of being hand in glove with the bourgeoisie that fascism is not associated with it. The blindness raised to the level of theory assumes that the class character of fascism, which came to power by attracting the middle classes devastated by the crisis of capitalism in search of a way out, and seduced by nationalism, and even the backward sections of the workers, especially the declassed elements, is based on these sectors that it drags along.

In his article “On Fascism”, A. Thalheimer, a leading figure in the right wing of the SPD in the 1920s, stated the following about the rule of fascism in Italy:

“It has essential features in common with the Bonapartist form of dictatorship: once again there is ‘the independence of the executive power’, the political subjugation of all the masses, including the bourgeoisie itself, beneath the fascist state power, along with the social domination of the big bourgeoisie and large landlords… The fascist party is a counterpart to Louis Bonaparte’s “December gang”… As with Bonapartism, there was an unsuccessful revolt of the proletariat, a consequent disappointment among the working class, and an exhausted, confused and prostrated bourgeoisie looking for a saviour who would reinforce their social power.” ^[1]

Otto Bauer, the left-wing social democrat and the founder of Austrian Marxism was of a similar opinion: “… just as in the 19th century Bonapartism was formed in a temporary equilibrium of forces between the bourgeoisie and the nobility on the one hand, and the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on the other, this new, fascist absolutism was also formed as a result of a temporary state of equilibrium, where neither the bourgeoisie could control the proletariat nor the proletariat could escape from the yoke of the bourgeoisie, and thus, both classes were subjected to the dictatorship of a band of thugs which was used by the capitalist class as a tool against the proletariat at the outset.”^[2]

Strongman charismatic leaders at the head of the organized crowds and of aggressive terrorist militia, take advantage of the inability of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to defeat one another and take these two classes under their diktat! The exaggeration of the relative autonomy of politics from economics and the state from the ruling class: The bourgeoisie is economically and socially dominant, but politically it is kept under the fascist dictatorship, “the fascist diktat also abolishes capitalist organizations, or at least puts them under its tutelage”! ^[3]

To sum up: the fascist dictatorship is not, at least politically, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or its form of state – this is the poor formula that social democrats have come up with to separate the struggle against fascism from the struggle against the monopolies and the hegemony of finance capital, and some still support this!

Today, there is no lack of right-wing populist “leaders” prone to fascism. One can even say that they have become fashionable in order to exploit the workers and their reactions, to get them to tail behind them at a time when the ordinary right and left parties of the bourgeois system have difficulty keeping the working masses under their control, and when there is a growing reaction against the existing order, reflected in the indifference to and non-participation in parliament and in elections, but it is not directed against capitalism in an organized way. However, if one puts aside appearance, they do not even emulate Bonaparte and, successfully hiding their faces, they clearly defend the interests of finance capital and the monopolies.

II. Fascism is particular to the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions

It is finance capital and the monopoly bourgeoisie that dominate under monopoly capitalism. As a current of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, fascism is the most reactionary, aggressive and terrorist current of the monopoly bourgeoisie; the fascist dictatorship as a form of the bourgeois state is the most reactionary, distinguished by its blood-thirsty, terrorist character from a series of reactionary state forms which are characterized by the monopolies representing reaction.

As Lenin said, monopoly, as the name implies, as a tendency to monopolize and control everything, has stood beside but above competition, which is the dynamic of capitalist development; it had the opportunity to select and determine the investment, the amount of production and the markets in accordance with the aim of achieving the highest profit.

“…imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction.” ^[4] This is because “Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field.” ^[5]

“… the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition” ^[6] and “imperialism contradicts all political democracy in general”.^[7]

“Everything hinges on economic monopoly. The political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism), is the change from democracy to political reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition. Political reaction corresponds to monopoly… Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably the ‘negation’ of democracy in general, of all democracy, and not just of one of its demands, national self-determination… it seeks to violate democracy.” ^[8]

Fascism is the concentrated expression of the domination of finance capital and the tendency of monopolies to violate democracy and establish reaction; the fascist dictatorship, for its part, is the most reactionary form of the political superstructure and of the bourgeois state organization. Undoubtedly, it cannot be argued that the fascist dictatorship is an automatic and necessary consequence of the reactionary tendency of finance capital; whether this tendency leads to a fascist state form depends on the concrete objective conditions and the balance of power between the classes as well as the needs of the monopolies.

The fascist dictatorship is characterized not by the class affiliation of the masses that are swept along by the fascist movement or by the class origins of their leaders, but by the economically dominant finance capital and monopolies and by the reaction of objective class interests.

2. Fascism is an international phenomenon

Fascism, as a phenomenon of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions with a distinct international character, is not particular to individual nations; it cannot be explained by the local and isolated reality of individual countries.

Fascism, which emerged in certain countries as a form of current, movement, and state, is national in form with its chauvinistic nationalism, even racism, which it exalts and concentrates, and national values are among the most abused, and fascism in each country has different national characteristics with its establishment and formation.

However, it only exploits national values; for imperialist countries and their monopoly bourgeoisies, fascism does not only have an international trend, which is the dominant trend of advanced capitalism, but it also does maximum justice to this tendency with its use of monopolist aggression, plunder, brute force and war, by involving primarily the export of capital, and the division of the world economically and territorially.

The same international orientation is also functional for countries dependent on imperialism and their monopolies; those countries which have attained a certain level of development, scale and power try to export capital – although they import many times over – and participate in regional economic and territorial divisions in accordance with their power, and this also serves to exalt nationalism both on behalf of their monopolies and as subcontractors of the imperialists, waving their national flags outside the country and getting their people tailing along. As the scale of the country grows and the level of capitalist development increases –a factor that promotes fascism – the persecutions outside the country heighten. The only difference is that while adopting disrespect, expansionism and coercion against oppressed nations and weak neighbouring peoples, they have difficulty even defending their subcontractor interests in the face of imperialists, and they try to make room for themselves by taking inter-imperialist contradictions as the basis of their manoeuvres.

3. Fascism is associated with the crisis of capitalism

At the beginning of the 20th century, the fascist movement emerged in the atmosphere of the destruction of the imperialist war and the crisis of capitalism aggravated by the rise of the proletariat to power in Russia in an attempt to establish an alternative world system and by the disintegration of the capitalist market. With the strength it acquired due to the destruction of the war and the 1922-23 crisis in Italy, and in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis in Germany, it grew quickly and came to power.

The crises of capitalism that increased unemployment and poverty, when combined with the general crisis of capitalism, which sharpens and aggravates its major contradictions and their consequences, increasing to the extent that it strains the conditions of exploitation and its continuation, adversely affect the bourgeoisie and monopolies. The same factors, with the deepening of unemployment and poverty, grind down the working masses. On the one hand, the monopoly bourgeoisie tends to use the conditions of crisis to prepare for a new breakthrough benefiting from the bankruptcy of companies and getting hold of their assets cheaply, but on the other hand, it is straining against the rising discontent of the workers and the people who begin to express it and put it into action. In this framework, when the domination of capital and the continuation of exploitation within the old political forms become difficult in terms of internal and external conditions, fascism comes to the agenda as the pursuit of monopolies to “ensure the future of and the consolidation of capitalism and its domination”.

Aside from its deceptive anti-capitalist agitation, which it uses to win over the working people and the middle classes who are beginning to break with the existing order and are seeking new activities, and in order to manipulate their demands, fascism is the forceful organization of the direct need of the monopolies, of capitalism to stabilize – including the capture of new markets – domestically and abroad.

Any direct and mechanical relationship between fascism and every crisis of capitalism should be avoided; as we know in practice that capitalism can overcome its usual crises with more or less usual methods. For fascism, other conditions must come together and the crises in question must have the severity and the effect of leading to political crises. Spanish fascism, for example, was linked to the notorious 1929 crisis, in the aftermath of which the Republic was established in 1931 and the “Popular Front” won the 1936 elections, but the generals revolted and pulled in the fascist movement. Similarly, in Chile, we see the 1973 crisis, which was intertwined with the food and energy crisis as well as the collapse of the international monetary system in 1971, when the USA unilaterally lifted the dollar’s convertibility to gold. While crises on an international scale have conditioned strong fascist waves, the effects of less influential or regional and national crises are more limited. Recently, there was an increase in fascist movements in connection with the 2001 and 2008 crises, with the measures for and consequences of the former being carried over to the latter.

4. Revolution and the prospect of a potential revolution led the monopolies to fascism

The experience of class struggles in the last century shows that fascist dictatorships often appear when revolutionary situations occur and the rise of the workers’ and labourers’ movements raise the question of power or when the tension between the struggling classes almost approaches this level.

Monopoly capitalism, which is “the highest stage of capitalism“, was defined by Lenin as “capitalism in transition, more precisely a moribund capitalism“. This means, in terms of finance capital and its dominance, that the emergence of the question of power is a life and death problem. The ruling monopoly bourgeoisie definitely tested this with the October Revolution of 1917, and afterwards, whenever faced with the problem of power, even a possibility of that, it did not hesitate to take the harshest measures and implement the most reactionary policies. Fascism and fascist dictatorship are the counter-revolutionary response of the monopolies under conditions where the revolution is rising or the prospect of revolution arises and therefore their rule is put into question. This response to the revolution and its foundations appears as the concentration of the reactionary tendency of the monopolies in the context of the question of power.

This was the case in Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria and Greece, then Chile and other Latin American countries such as Brazil, Uruguay and Guatemala. And it is natural in the sense that in the age of social revolutions, it is entirely understandable that the monopoly bourgeoisie, which has the hegemony and a network that spreads to all sections of society, is trying to reorganize the bourgeois dictatorship in the most reactionary form in order to maintain its rule when its power is in danger.

5. Fascism is the product of the conflict between the big monopolies and the working class and people

Undoubtedly, in terms of fascism becoming a necessity for the rulers, one cannot ignore the role of the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions beyond the usual level. This is reflected in the quest of the imperialist monopolies, which did not fulfil their hopes in the old division, demanding a new redivision of the world, for the consolidation of the “rear of the front“, and in their orientation towards the war economy and militarism. However, although the inter-imperialist contradictions and the contradictions among the reactionary forces play a certain role in the establishment as well as the collapse of fascism and the fascist dictatorship, what is decisive mainly and primarily is the contradiction between imperialism and reaction on the one hand and the workers and the labouring people on the other, and the struggle within this scope. Fascism, apart from its international needs and orientations, is not a phenomenon derived as a solution to the struggle between the rulers, but it comes to the fore as the product of the need of finance capital and the monopolies to control the workers and labourers and to eliminate the threat of their struggle, when they have difficulty maintaining their domination with the old methods.

6. The abolition of bourgeois democracy

As well as being the concentrated expression of the reactionary tendency of monopolies, fascism and fascist dictatorship are also a concrete form to be resorted to in times of crises, especially national political crises when the monopolies “search for ways” to “violate democracy”, or in connection with the possibility of a social revolution.

Bourgeois democracy, or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under democratic form, is structured in the shape of the parliamentary system in accordance with free competition. When the bourgeoisie is unable to rule due to internal conflicts as well as its shortcomings in repressing the opposition of the workers and labourers and overcoming the economic and political crisis of capitalism, changing the form of the dictatorship comes onto the agenda as well as the elimination of democratic rights and freedoms. There comes a stage of development in which the bourgeoisie cannot rule by the old parliamentary methods that include the availability of democratic rights. As the source of reaction, finance capital and the monopolies, which tend to violate democracy, abandon the bourgeois parliament as well as democratic rights and electoral principles that have turned into obstacles to their rule. Parliament, which is not the place where state affairs are decided anyway, makes it difficult to rule by prolonging the decision-making process; thus it cannot meet the need of the monopolies to rapidly centralize decisions or impositions and become unnecessary. Democratic rights make the realization of the interests of monopolies difficult, even impossible when used strongly and fully; moreover, they help the proletariat to complete its socialist education by using them in its intervention in politics. Therefore, what is necessary is neither these rights nor long and inconclusive discussions, but imposition, prohibition, brute force and terror.

7. Fascism is a political monopoly

The anti-worker and anti-people decisions, which are not far from reflecting the interests of the monopolies through rapid and democratic interventions, require a political centralization in line with the centralization of monopoly in the economy: political monopoly. Fascism is a political monopoly.

What would guarantee swift decisions that fully meet the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie is the transformation of the form of the bourgeois state by organising it as a fascist dictatorship, taking centralization as far as the decisions to be made by the leader, election to be replaced by appointment, the generalization of the diktat and imposition, and the repression of the opposition by brute force. The appointment of the directors of fascist state organizations and institutions by the leader is an integral part of fascism. The “will of the people“, the principle of universal suffrage and election are thrown away as phenomena belonging to the old democratic form of state.

8. Fascist dictatorship is the exclusion of the masses from politics

Feudalism requires and is based on extra-economic coercion: the relations of dependence on the person and on the land are the fundamental relations of feudal society. Capitalism, on the other hand, does not recognize extra-economic coercion, with exceptions. Even if the choice is limited to whether or not to die of starvation, the worker is free to hire himself and bargain for his labour power. Capital is the dominant force economically above all. As long as the economic domination of capital continues, this fact remains unchanged regardless of the character of the political regime, the confiscation of a part of the workforce continues with the economic hegemony of capital. Therefore, until the advent of monopoly capitalism, bourgeois democracy has been the usual superstructure of capitalism.

However, although bourgeois democracy is one form of bourgeois dictatorship and is the organization of tyranny over the working class and labourers, the working class not only enjoys democratic rights through its struggle under the conditions of bourgeois democracy, but it also becomes the guarantor of these rights by striving to use them, advancing its socialist education and establishing and organizing trade unions and political organizations of the masses. The possibility of social revolution as a result of crises and the danger of its realization in practice leads the bourgeoisie to destroy its own democracy in order to secure its hegemony, and the primary motive here is to make the extra-economic force, i.e. the political force, the basis of capitalism.

The fascist dictatorship involves 1) the exclusion of the exploited masses from politics through their disintegration and disorganization, in order to get them to accept the impositions in the economic and social sphere; 2) the consolidation of economic force by combining it with political force: economic force involves the workers and labourers who are (politically) forced to accept working for extremely low wages, as well as prisoners of war and, for example, in Germany (and in the countries they occupied) the Jews being forced into forced labour in the form of “slave labour“^[9]. Thus, fascism is, in fact, the negation of capitalism itself, which is based on economic force, and this appears as an orientation towards the realization of appropriation based on political force once again. Another element and example of fascism’s reliance on political force as a form of capitalist rule is mass slaughter, which was a common practice against the Soviet people, especially in the occupied zones, as well as in the gas chambers.^[10]

9. Fascist dictatorship is the open form of the terrorist state of the bourgeoisie

It must be made clear that the fascist dictatorship is neither the hegemony of the petty bourgeoisie, whose demands are manipulated by the monopolies, nor the hegemony of extra-class elements, who are blown around by war and crisis, nor the hegemony of “leaders” of the Bonaparte type, who are handed power by the monopoly bourgeoisie to rule on their behalf at a time when they have lost strength to the extent that they are unable to rule in the face of the working class which also is not strong enough to seize power. Fascist dictatorship is a bourgeois dictatorship and, in the era of monopoly capitalism, is a form of the bourgeois state which is the instrument of the rule of finance capital by excluding the non-monopoly bourgeois strata, transforming it into its oligarchic rule. It is its most reactionary, overtly bloodthirsty, terrorist form unrestricted by any rule of law. It expresses the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie, it is the instrument of its hegemony, and it creates and guarantees the external conditions of monopoly exploitation and plunder. It follows the policies that it needs, and its practices are aimed at meeting those needs. The fascist dictatorship is the instrument of the rule of finance capital, the tyranny of the monopoly bourgeoisie and the organization of its overt terror.

It is said that in the Comintern and especially in the 7th Congress Report, Dimitrov described fascist dictatorship not as the dictatorship of finance capital and monopolies, but as the narrowed down dictatorship of their “most reactionary“, “most aggressive“, etc. sectors or groups by excluding the others. This is not true. Dimitrov previously stated that “Fascism is the system of class domination of capitalist bourgeoisie and its dictatorship in the epoch of imperialism and social revolution“^[11]. In the report he said that “The fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a ferocious power, but an unstable one“^[12], and added: “Fascism has proclaimed itself the sole representative of all classes and strata of the population… It pretends to defend the interests of all these strata, the interests of the nation. But since it is a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, fascism must inevitably come into conflict with its mass social basis…”^[13] In his long report of the Central Committee to the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Bulgaria in 1948, Dimitrov stated that “… fascism is but the cruel, terrorist dictatorship of big business”.^[14]

On the other hand, the fact that fascist dictatorship is a state form also means that the rise of fascism to power and the change between bourgeois state forms is not simply a change of government: “The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie – bourgeois democracy – by another form – open terrorist dictatorship.” ^[15] Therefore, every government that takes measures that are simply reactionary, fascistic, and generally paving the way for fascism should not be labelled as “fascist”.^[16]

FASCIST DICTATORSHIP AND THE MONOPOLIES

On the other hand, Dimitrov’s characterisation of German fascism as “fascism in power” and fascist dictatorships generally as the “dictatorship of the most imperialist, the most hostile sections of finance capital” is not without reason. Just as the fact that fascist dictatorship is a means to rule for the monopolies, and the most reactionary and openly terrorist form of bourgeois state, does not mean that the monopolies and groups of finance capital will maintain the same distance from fascism in the course of its entire reactionary adventure, nor does it necessitate it.

The practice of the processes of orientation towards fascism, on the contrary, shows clearly the differences in the approach and preferences of the monopolies and finance capital towards fascism, which is completely natural. It is not only normal but inevitable for groups of finance capital and the monopolies, despite generally uniting in their own interest against working class and toiling people, to have different interests and for their individual interests not to clash; and for them to have different interests due to monopoly competition as well as their concentration in varying sectors with the different positions that they have with regard to different investments, production, resources, markets, credit, etc. These differences of interest are reflected in varying approaches by individuals and groups of monopolies during the formative stages and the development of fascism.

How and in what respects, individual and groups of monopolies differentiate from each other is another matter; however, for instance, as is often done, the counterposing of the “industrial monopolies” against the banks or the “financial monopolies,” or the “light industry monopolies” against “heavy industry monopolies”, could be accounted for by a lack of awareness about the development and the character of finance capital as formed by the coalescing of monopolies and industrial capital with banking capital. However, this is clear both according to Lenin and in capitalist practice. Lenin says “…the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of this concept.”^[17] and does not just leave it at the generalisation of “coalescence”: “Some three to five of the biggest banks in each of the foremost capitalist countries have achieved the ‘personal link-up’ between industrial and bank capital, and have concentrated in their hands the control of thousands upon thousands of millions which form the greater part of the capital and income of entire countries.”^[18]

The practice of capitalist countries is the same. Financial institutions such as banks, insurance and investment funds, etc. are the heart of finance capital and, just as capitalist societies, the economic life of the world is controlled by a group of finance capitalists with a handful of banks at the core. As much as the monopoly capitalist economy organised under the rule of groups of finance capitalists, the capitalist states too – competing among each other, agreeing with each other on some matters and falling out at others – represent the political rule of the same groups. Despite being somewhat cohesive due to the advanced scale of internationalisation, the differences of interest and competition, generally presenting significant differences and spread over the long term and paving the way for conflict in almost all areas, is in between finance capitalist groups (such as USA, China, Russia and Germany, etc. of today) which are concentrated on “nationally” differentiated markets. On a lower level and smaller in scope, these differences of interest and confrontations are inevitable and are observed among groups of finance capital and monopolies of U.S. origin (and undoubtedly other countries too) such as Rockefeller, Morgan, DuPont, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Differences of priority sectors in which the investments of the groups take place also play a role in these differences of interest; however, groups of finance capital, through investments and operation not only in one or a few but in many sectors at once, differ from the individual factory owners and tradesmen of the free competition era.

It is due to these differences of interests and the consequent difference in tendencies that groups of finance capital and monopolies display different attitudes towards fascism.

In the beginning of the 1920s in Germany, the fascist movement received financial support and help from the monopoly companies to attack insurgent workers and to disperse their class enemy. Unemployment increased during 1927 and a crisis erupted in 1929; production was cut in half, conditions worsened and the financial crisis led to another workers’ insurgency, a broader portion of the monopolies came closer to fascism as their need and support for the fascist gangs increased. Hitler and his party began to receive a substantial support from monopolies, including primarily E. Kirdorf, the owner of the Gelsenkirchen Metallurgy Consortium; the head of Thyssen; H. Stinnes, media, shipping, coal -mining and bank magnate; locomotive producer Börsig, which later merged with AEG in 1931 and started producing military supplies; electro-chemical monopoly IG Farben and the banks. After 1930 he received the support of Krupp and others that initially withheld their support.

There were a significant number of monopolies, including AEG and others known for their investments in chemical-medicine and food sectors, that withheld their support; however, fascism, with the gradually increased support and finally coming to power, united the monopolies around its own programme.

The conclusion is that the establishment of fascism and of the fascist dictatorship, while being preferred and supported by some monopolies, may also not be preferred by some other monopolies with an undeniable reactionary approach. Taking a step further, it is known that the monopolies grouped around the programme of fascism in Italy and Germany, while those of countries such as England, France and the US opted against fascism in the conditions of the same period.

Initially, those groups of finance capital and the monopolies that cannot make do with old forms under concrete conditions and feel the greater need for terrorist means, which acted as a battering ram, can and do tend towards fascism. This situation is reflected in the formulation of “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital”^[19] made at the 13^th session of the Comintern in 1934 and its 7^th Congress in 1935 with the emphasis on the “ruling fascism” targeted at German fascism.

Furthermore, besides the differences of interests among the monopolies, there exist conflicts of interests among individual monopolies and between the monopoly capitalist economy and the specific and general interests of the bourgeois state, which is in a position of its executive committee, with politics relatively autonomous of economics. But the differences derived from these two, as can be seen from examples of the big fines imposed on the monopolies that fall foul of the anti-monopoly laws in the US and Europe, or in the case of Koç Holding in Turkey, which prevented them from taking part in state tenders, are not exclusive to conditions of fascist dictatorships. In connection with competition and contradiction between monopolies, the fact that the fascist dictatorship is more suitable to and meets the interests of certain monopolies, does not mean that it is not the most reactionary form of the bourgeois state ruled by the monopolies but a Bonapartist dictatorship of “fascists” and “fascist leaders” nor the “half” or “petit-bourgeois” dictatorships of the type where certain monopolies are no longer its rulers.

The contradictions among monopolies and the relationship of autonomy between economics and politics, under the conditions of the fascist dictatorship in Germany, led to bloody confrontations between generals and fascist leaders; the dismissal of some SA and SS units and the rest being attached directly to government; to the execution of SA chief Roehm and others; and to numerous assassinations, the last attempt of which was against Hitler (20 July 1944) and led to the assassination of many generals, bourgeois and land owners.

FASCISM FROM BELOW AND ABOVE, AND THE FASCISIZATION OF THE STATE

“The development of fascism and fascist dictatorship as such, takes different forms in different countries depending on historical, social and economic conditions, and the specific conditions and the international situation of the country in question.”^[20] There are parallels in history but no repeats. Nevertheless, within the variety of its forms, in terms of the characteristics of its development, notwithstanding its underlying secondary differences, fascism can be divided into two main groups: fascism “from below” and “from above”. The first is fascism that develops through militant organisation and becomes a mass movement extending to power; while the other is its organisation from above, through a fascist organisation/party (or those in the process of becoming fascists) that holds a certain position in the government, utilisation of state resources or those directly relying on them, primarily the military (and other armed forces of the state). But at a certain point of all those developed “from below”, usually the capture of the government is followed by turning it into a fascist one (establishment of fascism) in all cases and the two processes of development often merge.

Italy and Germany are examples of the development “from below” experienced in the 1920s and 1930s.

With the military coup of 11 September 1973 in Chile and of 12 September 1980 in Turkey, fascism had been “built” from above, having depended on the government taken over and on the state institutions like the army, police and special units.

It must be asserted that the diversity of the processes of becoming fascist and the building of the fascist dictatorship, as well as the intertwining of its forms from above and below, also incorporates the relationship between fascism and bourgeois parliamentarism. Whether building of fascism will unite with bourgeois parliamentarism, whether fascism will make use of the parliament or for how long the parliament will be used, completely depends on the given relations of class power. What determines this and whether or not the building of fascism will be accomplished is;

1) Whether the discontent and movement of working and exploited masses and their organisations is suppressed and the extent to which it is controlled,

2) the extent to which the middle classes can be won over, and

3) how divided or united is the bourgeoisie, with its conflicts of interest.

In 1920s Italy, based on the relative weakness of the social base of fascism, the parliament remained open for a long period, while in Turkey of 1971 it never closed; in Greece in 1967, Chile in 1973, Hitler’s Germany and Turkey in 1980, the parliament was closed. Today, in Brazil, led by the undoubtedly fascist Bolsonaro, as well as in Turkey, whether fascism can be established will be determined, once again, by the concrete configuration of the relations of class power.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

It is no solution to adopt a perspective of turning to different forms of rule of the monopolies (parliamentarianism, etc.) in order to do away with fascist rule of the monopolies, which is the openly terrorist form of the bourgeois state.

Fascism has blossomed and developed in the cradle of parliamentarism; both fascism and parliamentarism are forms of the rule of the monopolies and the same bourgeois state. Hence, it is impossible to undertake a consistent struggle against and do away with fascism and the fascist dictatorship without targeting finance capital and the monopolies, their class rule and the bourgeois state that is the means of this rule.

Produced not by the contradiction and conflict between the rulers but by the contradiction and fight between the monopolies and the working class and labouring masses, the alternative to the fascist dictatorship, which monopolies resort to as the solution to suppress the opposition of the workers and the masses and to reinforce their own rule, can only be looked for outside and beyond the different forms of monopoly rule. Outside and beyond the highest stage of capitalism, monopoly capitalism, is socialism without any intermediary stage of the kind of “social capitalism”.

Hence, the alternative to the fascist dictatorship must unarguably be a proletarian dictatorship or a “people’s front government”, and the example of the people’s democracies could be transitional forms to this.

However, the anti-fascist struggle should aim for people’s power rather than the restoration of parliament; but this cannot be grounds for obliviousness in the face of fascist attempts to trample on democratic rights and freedoms and to render parliament dysfunctional and abolish it. On the contrary, winning political freedoms is among the objectives of the struggle and this struggle against fascist attacks can also develop with the defence of parliament as a bourgeois democratic institution.

Furthermore, just as in its establishment, the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship and transition to democracy can also take varying forms.

It is undeniable that, to the extent that the establishment of fascist dictatorship is a question of counter-revolution, its overthrow is also a revolutionary question (of power) and that the anti-fascist struggle must be conducted with this perspective to achieve a firm victory. But this does not mean that liberal, social-democrat and anti-fascist reformist assumptions that do not target the monopolies and their rule, that are inconsistent and do not involve a confrontation with fascism, will not be present nor that the struggle against fascism should be carried out in isolation from these tendencies.

Having the perspective of revolutionary struggle that aims for socialism, against fascism and the rule of monopolies, and the unification of the people with this perspective as the basis, does not rule out, but on the contrary assumes, the long- or short-term unity of action and forces and alliances with those that propose “struggle” on platforms within the system; provided they serve the unity of the people against fascism.

On the other hand, the fact that the overthrow of fascism is a question of revolution and that the need for the struggle against fascism is carried out as a revolutionary one that aims to overthrow the rule of monopolies, one cannot deduce from this that fascism cannot be overthrown without a revolution or, for example, that it can be replaced by a certain form of a democratic state.

• Even if the anti-fascist revolutionary struggle, also targeting the rule of finance capital, is not strong enough to cause a change in power, and/or with the addition of other factors outside itself – such as the national and international needs of the bourgeoisie – it could lead, as a by-product, to the overthrow of fascism. This is what happened in France, Italy and Greece towards the end of World War II.
• On the other hand, the spontaneous insurgence of people could also lead to a similar result. As a matter of fact, this is what happened in Egypt.
• Again, under the right conditions, it is not completely outside the realm of possibility for the anti-fascist struggle of the non-monopolised bourgeoisie, the middle and petty-bourgeoisie within-system to reach a certain level of success.
• And finally, another form of elimination of the fascist dictatorship, which has been seen as possible, is the kind of “getting out of the way”, that has been observed in the examples of the dictatorships of 12 September in Turkey, of Pinochet in Chile, etc leaving its power to a deficient democracy. The ever-increasing struggle of the workers and people leads to holes in the perimeter of the fascist dictatorships and the dictatorship becoming unable to function. Meanwhile, as democratic rights begin to be used initially de facto and later also legally, coupled with the breakdown of the unity among the bourgeois cliques – despite the continuing strong appearance of the military and its other supporters – that make the use of fascist methods harder can lead to a “peaceful” transition to bourgeois parliamentarism, which is supported by the constitution and laws that are a product of fascism. The only measure that will determine the form in which fascism will be swept away and driven from the stage is the relations of class power.

There is no recipe; but the revolutionary party of the working class has a clear and indispensable approach: the struggle against fascism as a component of the proletarian revolution cannot be separated from the struggle against imperialism and the rule of the monopolies.

————————-

1. Thalheimer, A., On Fascism (https://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/fascism.htm); Bauer, O.; Tasca, A. (1999) Faşizm ve Kapitalizm, İstanbul, p. 54-55 ↑
2. Ibid, p. 105 ↑
3. Ibid, p. 105 ↑
4. Lenin, V.I. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter 7 ↑
5. Lenin, ibid, Chapter 9 ↑
6. Lenin, ibid, Chapter 9 ↑
7. Lenin, V.İ. A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism ↑
8. Lenin, ibid. ↑
9. “The Krupps… are directly responsible for employing enslaved labour and forcing prisoners of war to make weapons and ammunition to be used against their own countries… Records seized show that 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war were employed in the Krupp trust in September 1944.” (Official Documents (1947) Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Nuremberg 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946, Nurnberg, Germany) ↑
10. Apart from those who were killed in battles, at least 20 million Soviet citizens were killed in order “not to leave behind a living soul” to “secure the rear of the front“. ↑
11. Dimitrov, G. (1989) Faşizme Karşı Birleşik Cephe (On the Unity of the workers and Communist Movement in the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism) ↑
12. Dimitrov, G. (1938) The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War, L&W, London, p. 15 ↑
13. Dimitrov, ibid, p. 35 ↑
14. Dimitrov, Faşizme Karşı Birleşik Cephe ↑
15. Dimitrov, The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War, p. 4 ↑
16. Wilhelm Pieck, in his ECCI Report submitted to the 7th Congress of the Comintern, stated that the German CP at the time had fallen into this error: “In Germany, communists were of the opinion that the social democratic Hermann Müller government implemented fascisisation, and that the Brüning government was already a fascist dictatorial government.” (3. Enternasyonal’de Faşizm Üzerine Tartışmalar Belgeler-II (1992) İstanbul) ↑
17. Lenin, V.İ., Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter III. ↑
18. Lenin, ibid., Chapter X. ↑
19. Dimitrov, The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War ↑
20. Dimitrov, ibid. ↑