d
Alain Rouquié said that the term Fascist said more about who used it than what it meant. And the productive emergence of Latin American social sciences, during the 1970s, had as one of its central axes the analysis of processes that were considered fascistic. Much of the intellectual energies were focused on deciphering a set of high-intensity political phenomena: military dictatorships. For this, qualifiers such as “dependent”, “creole” or “underdevelopment” were used. In the theorizing of the moment, it was key to link the notion of capital accumulation with the violent and repressive barrage of different governments. This sought to understand extreme phenomena such as those led by Duvalier, Somoza and Trujillo, but also the modernized and implacable ones in Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.
The plethora of characters who participated in that debate were impressive: Vania Bambirra, Theotonio dos Santos, Hugo Zemelman, Helio Jaguaribe, Darcy Ribeiro, Marcos Kaplan, Agustín Cueva, Juan Bosch, Alvaro Briones, René Zavaleta, Gerard Pierre-Charles, Suzy Castor, Ruy Mauro Marini, Clodomiro Almeyra, Cayetano Llobet, Eduardo Galeano and Pedro Vuskovic, as well as the communists Rodney Arismendi and Luis Corvalán. Given the number of authors and the diversity of cases, it was difficult to achieve a minimum consensus. However, some elements were outlined as essential to speak for or against the use of this category. Regarding this, it is striking that in his late fascismAlberto Toscano promises to review the discussions of that decade, but completely avoids the Latin American perspective, despite its productivity.
The central axis of the reflections of that group of personalities dealt with the mass movement character of historical fascism, especially the impact of the presence of the so-called “petty bourgeoisie”; This was one of the elements on which there was less agreement, since except for the Chilean case, there was no considerable social mobilization among the experiences analyzed. Secondly, the focus was on the specific operation of these governments, whose axis was the extreme use of terrorist and illegal violence; On this topic, agreement was undoubted. Finally, the third element had to do with the subordinate insertion of these governments into the global economy, in such a way that the “fascistizing” forms of the region had a substantial difference with those of the 1930s, as they were not expansionist or ultranationalist, but rather products of dependency.
The multiplicity of propositions was accompanied by a political perspective that split between those who imagined the revolution as the only response to right-wing processes and those who supported the need for a popular front process, such as large alliances that would restore the minimum democratic agreements. It is paradoxical that although it was in Mexico where some of these discussions took place, the authors of our country, especially those on the left, used the category little.
In this context, the magazine is striking New Policywhose sixth number was titled: “Fascism in Latin America.” Paradoxes of political time, while the use given to it by Latin American authors led them to the dichotomy “reform or revolution”, in Mexico this was not equivalent. Some of those who participated in that publication had not long ago expressed their political sympathy for the then candidate Luis Echeverría, under the slogan “Echeverría or fascism.” Thus, in the 1970 election, the PRI had resorted to the fascist file as a resource to close ranks, as Enrique Semo critically explained a few years later. Although the Marxist historian recognized the existence of fascist groups in society, he saw neither mass influence nor sympathy from the oligarchies: “By raising the specter of fascism in Mexico, the PRI spokesmen take advantage of some pressure from imperialism and its local associates, to give new life to the right-wing monster,” he warned.
Returning to those discussions is significant, since it allows us to draw the lines of demarcation regarding our present. Today, right-wing experiences appear diverse, with little homogeneity in their economic program, appealing to sectors that exceed the large financiers and the “middle sectors.” However, what is most striking about them is the absence of a future project, since their activation is the result of nihilism, the same of which they are also victims. Thus, today’s rights appeal to the past as destructive nostalgia, exercise power without a clear guiding axis and use irrational violence in their role as opponents. However, as the intellectuals of the 1970s did, it is necessary to go deeper beyond the general views and fully enter into the local contradictions, since the right is not exempt from the national imprint that contemporary times evoke, becoming heirs and participants in a history that they did not choose, but that also determines them.
UAM researcher, author of At noon of the revolution
