Response to a reader’s comment: Does Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk have a definition of fascism? He does.

Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.

LZ reader Gerd Stefan really did want to know. In his reader’s comment on the review of Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk’s new book *Fascism Is Not an Opinion*, he wrote: “I’d also be interested to know the definition of fascism that underlies the book’s title, especially as the author, it seems, was aiming to launch a sweeping political attack. So is his stance on the subject of fascism now clear, or is he just rambling on? I haven’t read the book, mind you, but if it doesn’t contain a definition of fascism, then there’s no point in reading it.”

A pity. Perhaps he’ll still get round to it. Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk’s books are thought-provoking. They make you think about what’s currently going off the rails in our society. This also has to do with false – or simply lacking – ideas about what fascism actually is and the damage it has already caused in Europe.

Kowalczuk goes into this in great detail in his book because he assumes – quite rightly, I suppose – that many people have no idea (anymore) about specific German history. And that is why they all too easily fall for the false promises of politicians who are once again selling authoritarian models of rule to their voters as a panacea.

So is fascism just a label, then? Or even a trigger intended to provoke certain people?

No. Behind it lie very specific practices of rule.

And the great thing is: Kowalczuk has laid it all out clearly for his readers in a chapter of his book with the telling title ‘Fascists do fascist things’.

So we can simply quote him:

‘Fascism is not an opinion! But what is fascism? There is no universally accepted definition, because fascism has taken many different forms over the past hundred years. National Socialism was its most extreme manifestation. Fascism strives for anti-democratic, extremely authoritarian state structures centred on leader figures; it seeks to homogenise society and mould it into a community, a ‘people’s community’; it aims to eradicate ‘enemies of the people’ and suppress all opposition; suspends the principles of the rule of law, regards war as a legitimate means of asserting and expanding its power, rages with extreme violence, rejects universal human rights as well as pluralism of opinion, is nationalistic, racist and anti-liberal, suggests that it represents the majority of the people, relies on emotions rather than facts, mobilises the masses and directs them in the spirit of a mass movement.”

And that is not all.

For the staged role of victim also forms part of its repertoire.

“Fascism harbours totalitarian aspirations and, until it has fully exercised its rule, aggressively propagates the notion that it is in the minority against everyone else: ‘them’ versus ‘us’. Fascism relies on ancestor worship, radically rejects modernity – even though it makes extremely efficient use of it – is highly irrational, regards deviations as treason, constructs enemies who invade from outside, appeals to the frustrated and their base instincts, and spreads conspiracy theories.”

The definition goes even further. But at this point, one can already sense where terms such as ‘remigration’, ‘lying press’ and ‘cartel parties’ come from.

Kowalczuk: “Fascism employs its own radical language whilst at the same time presenting itself as populist. Fascism is extremely sexist and an enemy of any non-binary gender classifications. Fascism is directed against facts, is hostile to science, and is hostile to humanity.”

So one certainly cannot complain about a lack of definition of fascism in Kowalczuk’s book. He is a historian. He knows what he is writing about. He has good reasons to issue a warning. Perhaps one should read the book after all – from cover to cover. And if it triggers you, there may well be reasons for that too.