Fascist Storytelling and the Search for a Progressive Narrative
Both in Europe where it started and the world at large to which it spread, fascism is alive and well. Today, on 25 April, Italy — a beautiful place that must unfortunately always carry the stigma of being the birthplace of fascism — celebrates Liberation Day or la festa della Liberazione, marking the end of both the Nazi German occupation and the final remnants of the home-grown fascist regime on the same date in 1945. This liberation has, however, proved very short-lived, as less than 100 years later, fascist, neo-fascist, and crypto-fascist parties and politicians hold frightening amounts of power in Italy and elsewhere. The most common name for the modern political heirs of the Axis powers (and their followers and sympathizers abroad) is “far-right populists.” Some examples of parties and politicians that are “slightly rough on the ears” right-wing populists at best and apartheid-endorsing neo-fascists at worst are Jair Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil; the Italian Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy — whose (unsuccessful) candidate the Duce’s grandson Caio Mussolini was in the EU parliament election of 2018; India’s prime minister Narendra Modi and the BJP; Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (at least some of) his Likud party; and many, many others all over the world.
Volumes on volumes have been written on fascism and anti-fascism, both historically and in more recent years, as well as on far-right populists, the politico-philosophical heirs of fascism. Just adding to the theory is not the point here; instead, we need to collect the lessons learned about these reactionary forces and apply them into practical solutions. And the goal cannot stop at anti-fascism and mere opposition — necessary though they are — but rather we as progressives must show genuine alternatives. The cold, cynical world of marketing has realized the importance of “storytelling,” and progressives have something to learn from this: Pure statistics and data on their own evidently do little to change hearts and minds; they must instead be used as the base or frame for a compelling story. This is what the far right does when they cherry-pick and twist the numbers to construct a narrative of a once-proud civilization (whether it’s Italy, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil …) being brought low by internal “traitors” (i.e., political dissidents and independent women), “sexual deviants” (i.e., sexual minorities), other “undesirables” (such as Roma and Jews), and “invading” immigrants. It’s a cliche that bears repeating that this message is exactly what more classical fascists before and during World War II also spouted.
In a 2005 paper, Swedish sociologist Jens Rydgren put forward a new model for analyzing the growing successes of far-right and right-wing populists (in Europe) beginning towards the end of the 20th century; he speaks of a shared “master frame,” common in its general tenets to all such parties, consisting of the following three key elements: ethnonationalist xenophobia, the doctrine of “ethnopluralism,” and anti-political-establishment populism, whereof “ethnonationalism” is the idea that the human race consists of ethnically delineated nations and “ethnopluralism” the idea that the plurality of these nations should be conserved by keeping them apart. After World War II, the ideology family responsible for the Holocaust and the war itself was understandably unpopular. Modern ethnonationalist and ethnopluralist rhetoric has been able to overcome this unpopularity by shifting, at least on the surface, the focus from the argument “they’re worse than us” to “they just don’t belong here” and focusing more on “culture” than “race.” The trifecta is completed by accusing, in many cases justifiably, the political establishment of failing to serve the interests of the public instead of their private benefactors.
Due to their improved social and political palatability and polish and therefore acceptability, far-right or right-wing populist parties flirting with (neo-)fascist ideals are perhaps even more dangerous than their more ideologically brazen predecessors and contemporaries. All over the world, voters justifiably tired with politics that do not serve their interests and politicians that peddle false promises are increasingly willing to listen to demagogues appealing to their lowest base instincts. Despite what we might try to tell ourselves, we as a species are driven by emotion much more than reason — and that can get dangerous when an adept manipulator manages to turn our emotions into hatred, blaming women, minorities, and civil society actors for all the problems of the world.
The traditional leftist narrative is considered by many to be a relic of a bygone age, often linked to blood-spattered memories of the Soviet Union. Words like “comrade,” “class solidarity,” and “class war” just no longer have the kind of currency they once did. Lacking vision and a more attractive narrative, both established and progressive parties and actors have, instead of providing voters and the general public with actual alternatives, locked themselves into the subservient position of playing catch-up with the far right, and the results speak for themselves: Authoritarianism and conservatism are strengthening their positions, causing suffering to numerous social groups, and hard-won workers’ rights are being handed away in the name of the “free market,” much to the glee of the global capitalist class.
What is this new narrative, then? It cannot be based solely on class or opposition to something (such as capital or fascism) and especially not on infantilizing the masses, nor can it be linked solely to a gender or a minority group — but it does have to explicitly take into account the various social segments suffering from systemic persecution. It cannot be all about green ideals, but environmentalism must play a key role. We need a just green transition with a job guarantee, a world where the already-abundant wealth we as a species have is shared more equally, and a society where we can face each other as individuals instead of representatives of various groups.
An important tool for helping this narrative, this truth reach the public is something called “deep canvassing,” a method for focused and personal one-to-one conversations. It’s not easy, and it’s not fast, but it is proven to work — making it a viable option for the path forward. The idea is to reach out to individuals about their reservations towards a contemporary and, often, locally relevant progressive cause and have a genuine conversation about it, where the point is positively not to change their mind and batter them with arguments, but listen and find common ground. Needless to say, this approach requires a partner that is willing to at least begin a conversation, but the methodology shows definite promise.
In closing, storytelling is an important tool that we as progressives must harness much more efficiently than we have thus far. There is hope, but we must understand the far right and especially what drives voters to them and, even more importantly, what could drive them in a better direction. So while all of Italy might chant Bella Ciao till their throats are raw today, liberation is not something that was given to us decades ago; liberation requires continuous work. But it is also important to take breathers and celebrate past successes, and with that: happy Liberation Day.
