Dealing with the term fascism in political discussions and analyzes is a bit tricky. There are several reasons for this, but the main one stems from its, so to speak, dual function: it is used to refer to the so-called historical fascism, i.e. the political movement and form of government in the interwar period, but it also serves as an abstract political category whose goal to encompass the range of political phenomena to the right of the centre-right. The first variant serves the extreme right, which contains certain fascist elements in its policies, to avoid the accusation of fascism: we are not fascists because we do not call ourselves the same as the fascists did in the 30s. Or in situations where they become the target of anti-fascist organizations: what is the purpose of the existence of anti-fascists when there are no more fascists?
And while the extreme right tries to successfully maneuver between historical reference and abstract categories, the political formation clumsily called the liberal left deals too extensively with the abstract category. A whole series of phenomena is labeled fascism, and thus the term loses its precision, but also its political meaning. Namely, attaching that label necessarily implies the request to remove those to whom it was attached from political life, because the democratic consensus requires it. The right, of course, uses this absence of more nuanced political action to prove that fascism is simply a superfluous term, an unfounded tool for their defamation. Along with that aspect of defense, anti-communism is also very useful for them. With this, they buy a license to enter the democratic bloc from the confused liberals, the official representatives of democracy as such.
The problems are therefore complex and there is no unambiguous solution in the political lexicon that would stabilize the term fascism in its meaning and sharpen it in a political sense. The first step in the direction of a more effective and meaningful use of the term is a more coherent and generous explanation of the emergence of fascism in the interwar period, which would then serve as a basis for future political distinctions, nuances, and attacks. But it seems that we don't have time to go back in time again. The war in Ukraine has brought with it a new set of problems that will make the use of the term fascism even more difficult and will bring the fascist and non-fascist right even wider room for maneuver and even deeper legitimation resources. Putin's aggression temporarily silenced his yesterday's allies on the Western European extreme right, but its long-term effects could very easily be in its favor.
There are two factors at play. The first is Vladimir Putin himself. He and his associates use the term "denazification" as a justification for the attack on Ukraine. Given that it is obvious that Ukraine is not a Nazi state and that Putin's current status automatically ridicules any "difficult" terms he uses, the political consequences of such rhetoric are clear. At the same time, it should be noted here that in today's usage, Nazism and fascism mostly function as synonyms, with the fact that the Nazi label is more often given to those who refer to XNUMXth-century models without hesitation. So, the matter is quite simple: Putin's use of "denazification" seriously limited the political reputation of all later, unlike his, more authentic political ambitions in that direction. And not only was it limiting: the brutal aggression justified by "denazification" denazified only the image of real Nazis. And here we come to another factor that is on the rival side. And that is the notorious Azov battalion, which is mainly made up of domestic and foreign extreme right-wingers who do not really hide their political inspiration from Nazism. However, their participation in the defense of Ukraine contributes to the normalization of their political views. This normalization has its own clear media path: first, instead of the label of extreme right, they are given the label of controversy, and then stories about heroes are "sneaked in". Participation in a defensive war, the story is well known to us from our context, turns dangerous and unacceptable political attitudes into the status of exotic musical taste, and the war epic itself into an authentic political attitude.
Putin's senseless and aggression-tainted use of terms and the normalization of Azov's political background will represent an additional obstacle to anti-fascist action in the future. Namely, any proclaimed anti-fascist intervention will be met with discredit based on Putin's ridiculing of basic concepts and the consequent "denazification" of Azov itself. Of course, the anti-fascist movement also encountered more challenging problems in its activities, but updating is necessary for an effective response.
Bonus video:
