“In June 1914, It Was Also Very Peaceful”

Do we in Central and Eastern Europe have a particular predilection for fascism?

I wouldn’t essentialize. To explain why Eastern Europe has a particularly nasty version of capitalist society, we need to get rid of the idea that it has anything to do with “totalitarian” habits of local minds or “reactionary” tendencies rooted in “typical” Eastern authoritarianism or servility. Apart from economic dissatisfaction, social and regional inequalities, and the pathetic state of social services, the causes of this state of affairs are pretty specific.

So why are “strong” and charismatic leaders so popular? Why so much racism? In the latter respect, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary lead the European rankings in racism and xenophobia.

Regardless of what liberals and the left like to think, today, the primary political identity in Central Europe is the white, “Aryan,” heterosexual male. The class identity has been erased here as an unifying option. The only thing that connects them with the West is “race.” Today, the last battle is being fought — between universalistic reasons for rebellion and particularistic ones. The only great historical competitor of nationalism and racism was class, in this respect, the historical heir of Christianity. Concealing its existence and meaning has always been central to the establishment’s ideology. Until recently, this was done through a civic nation. It was supposed to transcend classes and bind loyalty to the king and state institutions, primarily the army and the church. Now, it is replaced by ethnic, racial, and linguistic affiliations. Underlining these issues is the oldest tactic of the bourgeoisie. In America, the right says “unemployed” but thinks “black.” Welfare recipients are “criminals” and “migrants.” “Single mothers” are “sluts.” But today, even local underclass members accept the destruction of, social sphere when it affects the “others”, even when it is profitable for them.

So what, the race won? Maybe we are dealing with emerging fascism?

It’s not that easy. Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest are full of rich “non-whites.” Tourists and business people settle here with no problems. They are not attacked as “racially inferior.” The rich do not count as “the other” — Muslims, blacks, migrants. However, for the local poor, refugees are competition in the labour market. They are considered “social rivals,” resulting in social and moral panic. This hysteria is not entirely without reason. These are poor countries. A massive influx of new people would burden the social welfare system considerably. People know perfectly well that their countries are in bad shape. When the system can no longer care for the local population, can you imagine what would happen then? And there is also a competition. It is in the vital interest of the region’s countries not to allow refugees into the EU. Eastern European countries would not survive without the emigration of excess labour to the West. Millions of people went there — mainly young qualified workers and university graduates, including doctors and nurses. If they had competition in the form of refugees in the West, it would be an economic disaster in the East. With collapsing healthcare and pension systems, this ageing region would not survive without remittances from migrants in the West. The economy here is a sad joke. How can people show solidarity in a system that is built upon pure selfishness?

However, this story doesn’t shine through. Who do people blame for this?

The real problem here is the weakness of the welfare state, lack of social solidarity, and harsh anti-people class politics. Yet the conservative intelligentsia explains the world in cultural or openly racist terms. It’s enough to scare. There is danger everywhere. From “bottom” — the “coloured” minorities. From the “top” —  international finance and the American empire. Migrants from the “outside.” LGBTQ from the “inside.” And Muslim jihadism, which, to weaken and enslave Europe, sends us the “New York-Tel Aviv axis.” So let’s fight together, rich and poor, in the name of preserving the “Christian heritage” and “saving Europe” from “cultural suicide.” Unfortunately, many people believe this—even those who lose financially.

Why do we have only this choice?

“Behind every fascism, there is a failed revolution.” Many politicians in Europe today, especially far-right ones, promise a welfare state, but only for “hard-working,” native-born, “respectable,” white people. The traditional working class has changed. 90 percent of Austrian industrial workers voted for Norbert Hofer. They are a pretty privileged group that defends its position against competitors in the labour market — refugees, the unemployed, migrants, and women who would work for less. They blame these groups instead of demanding inclusion in the higher wage system. Additionally, the state supports them with small transfers and sports events. In many places, they have become a reactionary force serving the interests of tyrants. The proletariat played the same role in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. So we may end up in an even worse society. Racism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia mobilize various groups that become the pillars of the repressive state—those in power in the East present every emancipation project as a threat. People are being suggested that “elites” — the remnants of the left and liberals — are ignoring the needs of “common people.” As a result, “equality” is becoming an “elite” idea for the first time in history.

Why is this happening?

With the collapse of the USSR, the idea of communism, and perhaps more broadly, universalism, was supplanted. Friedrich August von Hayek may have been many things, but he was certainly not a Nazi. He was an emigrant who had to flee the country because of fascism. Conservative and reactionary, he was, yes, but not a fascist. I have a little respect for him because he was honest. And he said something like this: we in Western societies owe a debt of gratitude to Adolf Hitler. He saved Europe from communism. In Europe, the most crucial battlefield has always been Germany. So thought Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, the Kaiser, and Ludendorff. And so it was. And so it continues to be. More broadly we are talking about Central Europe, but especially Germany. Heidegger said the same thing in his famous letter to Marcuse. Marcuse was his student and friend before World War II. And after the war, he wrote a letter to Heidegger — “What the fuck? Are you crazy? Why? I don’t want to argue with you, but I have a polite request. Would you kindly explain to me what happened to you?” He didn’t expect an answer. Yet, surprisingly, Heidegger responded. “I understand that you are surprised, everyone would be, but I saw this situation at that time as a question — who can save us from communism?” And it turned out that it was only Hitler. Significantly, such different people as Hayek and Heidegger, who had so much contempt for each other, Hayek for the empty words of this philosopher, and Heidegger for the liberal, mechanistic, soulless system Hayek preached, both said practically word for word the same thing. And that’s the truth. Western communism was defeated, and Stalin knew it too. The West has learned so much from Hitler. The British and then the Americans simply would not allow the communists to take over the Seine.

So, we have a situation again when capital prefers fascism to a universalist project?

A small detail. I was reading the Viennese newspaper “Der Standard.” There were local elections in Styria, one of the federal provinces of Austria. Previously, there were two communist councillors there. Now they have three. In only one place in Austria, in small provincial elections in Graz. Three communist councils instead of two, when the conservatives have hundreds of them. This event was enough for all newspapers in Austria to start publishing satirical articles about communists when they usually do not even mention them.

Do you think that liberals will eventually realize that by destroying any leftist option, they are making room for fascists?

You know Ferenc Gyurcsány. His MSZP party is the strongest opposition party in Hungary today. It’s still only 13–14 percent, but the entire opposition would have about 40 percent. And they voted against the resolution to rescue refugees in the Mediterranean. They voted like Orbán’s supporters but against their social democratic group. Of course, right-wing newspapers didn’t write a word about it. They did not want to make Gyurcsányany popular among their voters. And, of course, leftist intellectuals attacked this decision. But Gyurcsány is a very efficient politician. He didn’t answer them. It was an advertisement for him. And that’s how it looks all the time. This situation is not simply an alliance between fascists and liberals. Of course, the upper middle class and part of the academic intelligentsia know, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, that the main threat is communism. It seems even more so on the periphery of the EU. The economy here is based on deep exploitation. Any leftist thought undermines the gains of the local bourgeoisie, which is a thin, faint layer. But even a tiny crack can set a bad example. And which governments are the most anti-communist and, more broadly, anti-leftist in Europe? Polish. Hungarian. Romanian.

Is it different in Western Europe in this matter?

Currently, the system is entangled in many contradictions. Liberal democracy is unlikely to survive. Paradoxically, what it lacks today is socialism. There is no balancing force in it. The workers’ movement was a necessary condition for the existence of liberal democracy. It was a compromise. In exchange for internal peace and stability, social democracy abandoned its revolutionary demands and became part of the bourgeois state. However, today’s ruling classes are no longer threatened from within. They therefore can do what even fascists would not dare to do. They reduce wages, destroy the pension and social welfare systems, public education, health care, and public transport, and liquidate social housing.

Well, there is no such authoritarian tendency as in the East.

Capitalism grew organically in the West. It didn’t wholly devastate the village life there. Aristocratic and Christian ideas and practices of honour and love remained, alongside some respect for institutions. Several old moral standards have been retained. And in Western countries, and I know England best, there are still remnants of Christian socialist thinking operating in society. I don’t mean religion in the strict sense. What I’m talking about is the social heritage of Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity. Let’s look at Corbyn. He is an instantly recognizable type for me. I’m Transylvanian, and it’s a Protestant region. Corbyn is a vegetarian and has his own garden. He’s very puritanical in that being poor and generous are virtues. What is essential here is self-control and not indulging in pleasures. Let’s add to this the traditions of the workers’ movement. Interestingly, today, Sanders and Corbyn are said to be left-wing extremists. In 1910, they would instead represent the “right-wing deviation” in the left-wing movement. If they would even have been considered left-wing at all! They would be described as liberals, not even compared to Lenin or Luxemburg, but towards the idealist Bebel. Zero planned economy? No bank nationalization? What kind of social democracy would it be at that time? The state’s central role then meant that it had complete control over banking, energy, and infrastructure. And that was the absolute minimum then. Today, it is considered unthinkable in mainstream radicalism. The classic features of fascism — totalitarian terror and mass violence — are virtually absent in Europe today. Fascists know and have always known that their primary task was to prevent European socialism — especially German and Italian socialism. And they ultimately succeeded, even though they lost the war themselves.

So, do you think that the leftist ideas of emancipation and egalitarianism are already dead? That the current wave of popularity of the extreme right is a symptom that we are reconstructing, step by step, a hierarchical society? We’re back to the feudal ladder...

We are ageing as a society. We need migrants, and we welcome them. But on the other hand, we stick to neoliberalism and do not want to expand the social sphere. What remains? Citizen racism. They’re not from here. They are not entitled to the protections of the labour law, pensions, benefits, or health care. We push them away, and they fall back into religiosity and ethnicity, even if they came here to escape from them. Citizenship becomes a privilege. It is a gift of a good state given to some but not to others. Under Boris Johnson, emigrants had to present papers proving their professional qualifications and a bank account statement. The more specialist they are and the more money they have, the easier it will be for them to enter the UK. It is a return to the 19th century, where voting rights depended on property census.

Where does this regression come from?

The dangerous distinction between citizen and non-citizen is, of course, not a fascist invention. The phrase “We the People” did not include enslaved Black people and Native Americans. Ethnic, regional, class, and religious definitions of “nation” led to genocide both in the colonies and in Europe and Asia. However, the idea of universal citizenship is the basis of the concept of progress shared by liberals, social democrats, and all other heirs of the Enlightenment. Once citizenship was thus equated with human dignity, its extension to all classes, professions, sexes, races, creeds, and locations was only a matter of time. In 1914, this process was reversed by exploiting the inherent contradiction of this idea — the fact that citizenship is simultaneously “universal” and yet limited to the nation-state. Today, a double standard is emerging: a state of law for the populations of the capitalist centre and a state of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who constitute the rest. So, the problem is not that countries are becoming more and more authoritarian but instead that they are democracies for the few. And this, even without concentration camps, leads in a clear, fascist direction: detention, deportation, camps, barbed wire.

So what is it if it’s not fascism?

Fascism was not conservative, even if it was counter-revolutionary. Despite the somewhat romantic-reactionary nature of this rebellion, it did not restore hereditary aristocracy or monarchy. However, hostility to universal citizenship is, in my opinion, the main feature of fascism. Yet rejecting universalism is precisely what we repeat today in democratic circumstances. I coined the term post-fascism to describe the set of policies, practices, and ideologies that can be seen virtually everywhere in the modern world. They are not totalitarian or revolutionary. They are not based on mass movements or irrational philosophies. They also do not play the anti-capitalism card, even fake one. I also don’t want to say that the SS is persecuting Europe again! But may the goals of the right-wing totalitarian machine of the pre-war period, let’s call it “fascism,” now be achieved through parliamentary and democratic processes? Post-fascism does not need stormtroopers and dictators. It is entirely consistent with neoliberalism, which rehabilitates citizenship as a favour from the sovereign rather than a universal human right.

Why is this happening?

Tens of millions of hungry people are knocking on the EU’s door. Meanwhile, rich countries are inventing increasingly sophisticated padlocks. The reluctance is growing. This situation leads to drawing more and more generously from the “treasury” of Nazi and fascist ideology.

And can’t they, as the far right says, “stay at home?”

Class struggles, whether violent or peaceful, are no longer possible there. Nobody exploits them anymore. There is no additional profit or surplus value to appropriate from them. They are not exploited but abandoned. The poorest have no choice but to leave these inhumane conditions. The so-called capitalist centre, in response, establishes tight barriers on the borders of rich countries, and the so-called “humanitarian wars” are fought to prevent masses of refugees from flooding the EU’s social welfare systems, which are already overloaded. Citizenship in the Eurozone is the only safe option in the modern world. However, this is the privilege of a few. The flow is one-way. Capital can change its locus, but labour — especially unskilled labour from poor peripheral countries — cannot. If someone is stuck in the periphery, they are condemned to work in local sweatshops. Post-fascism does not need to pack foreigners into freight trains to kill them. Just prevent newcomers from boarding the trains that could take them to a brave new world. Post-fascist movements everywhere, but especially in Europe, are anti-immigration movements. They do not simply protect race and class privileges in the nation-state but universal citizenship in the wealthy nation-state against virtual universal citizenship for all, regardless of geography, language, race, religion, and customs.

It seems that things are not very happy inside when it comes to the migration of the poorest people, like, for example, the Roma...

Yeah. The Roma are the European homo sacer. Their history is full of detention, deportation, and passportization. Many of their communities are affected by this all the time. Both policemen and neighbours persecute them, and Roma people try to escape to the “free West.” Meanwhile, the response is to impose visa restrictions on their countries of origin to stop the influx and to lecture Eastern European countries to respect human rights. A framework is created that makes racism invisible. The public school system in some areas is only for “coloured people.” State-supported church schools have the right not to accept children from the neighbourhood and to make selections at their own will. In some regions, more than half of the children are Roma, but Catholic schools are totally “white.” It’s not directly implemented racism, but it works the same way. Or the Roma people are simply neglected. There are villages where no one else lives except the Roma. So, instead of benefits, forced labour campaigns are created for them, which provide a very modest source of income, barely enough to survive on. These Roma cannot leave because these “benefits” are their only form of security, and it is maybe 100–120 euro a month. And there they will remain in this situation forever. This process is simply a reintroduction of feudalism.

Who else is an outcast in this post-fascism?

People whose recognition requires moral effort and is not granted immediately and whose inclusion requires recognition of equality. Everywhere from Hungary to the US, minorities have become enemies and are expected to accept the suspension of their civil and human rights. Once considered necessary and logical, the connection between citizenship, equality, and territory is beginning to crumble.

So what can we do to avoid this? Introduce Communism?

Nobody even dreams about it nowadays. Not to mention a genuinely socialist program that aims for more than just equality. In more civilized, perhaps less remembered times, you could find reactionaries who understood socialism and did not focus their criticism on fake problems. Bertrand de Jouvenel was one such distinguished conservative thinker, a charming socialite who became a committed fascist and consequently spent his life in a kind of internal exile after World War II. Today, people misunderstand communism entirely. It means three different things. One is agricultural redistribution, ancient pre-modern. Because land was not legally considered private property in ancient societies, each generation redistributed the land. It has already disappeared as a concept since the 17th century with the spread of land trade. Then we have the social democratic option: redistribution of income to serve egalitarian purposes, mainly through taxation and social welfare for people experiencing poverty, which leaves capitalist private property in place. And the third kind is a higher goal than establishing “ordinary” justice. It seeks to establish a new order of brotherly love. And we have, as Jouvenel writes, examples of communism working well — in monasteries. Why? Monks strive not only for a fair redistribution of wealth or pleasure, but they don’t care about both. Their goal is a brotherly community where selfishness and privateness do not exist. And this redistribution is here a means to make selfishness weaker. It is supposed to prevent hatred, envy, and violence because someone has more. In short, they are a community not because they form a social body but because they are part of a mystical body. Communism seeks to restore this unity.

But here we have an example of a closed, separated community based on religious norms. How does this relate to actual social movements?

Yet, de Jouvenel did not write about religion but about monastic communism. And this was the mindset of the true rebels. It stood behind the heroism and cruelty of revolutionaries, the cult of sacrifice, martyrdom, and their self-denial.

For now, however, the global petit bourgeois does not produce redistributive communist orders but typical petit-bourgeois divisions, such as racism or xenophobia...

However, religiosity often erupts in entirely unexpected places. It can be found, for example, in the contemporary ecological movement. Morality comes first, not tolerance and comfort or free exchange of views. There’s not enough time because of the climate catastrophe and for social and ethical reasons. There is no time for mockery or contempt for the enemy or apologies for centuries of domination. You have to be perfect now. This attitude is religious atheism, and it cannot be tolerant. And it isn’t. From the outside, for example, it is challenging to understand the sexual morality of the new asceticism. On the one hand, it is gentle because it is egalitarian and does not exclude any practice except the degrading and sadistic. However, it is about banning all forms of coercion: economic, cultural, or psychological, and even the use of sexual attractiveness itself to gain power and position. It is no coincidence that Greta Thunberg, the cold-spoken virgin, symbolizes this movement. It is also an ancient symbol. “And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord, making His way,” we read in the Gospel of Luke. The authority of virginity, purity, innocence — this is very Christian...

I’m not convinced by the idea of the morally pure children...

...nor am I, but that is the concept. We also have leaders of animal rights movements who, when asked that yes, we must protect animal rights, but what about people, respond that they personally do not like them very much. They regularly and openly say that animals are better. Similarly, many middle-class representatives are concerned about the suffering of dogs, cats, and wild animals. Still, they are entirely unconcerned that another person is suffering somewhere far away in the South or East. And this is also deeply religious.

Maybe it’s psychology, after all? We are in the global production chain at the top, and we exploit absolutely everyone, so we just want to deny this suffering and distance ourselves.

I’m not sure. Let’s take feminists. The new ones are prejudiced against sexual pleasure, primarily understood in the same way as in the past. If we take out the element of pleasure, economic gain, wealth, and savings and say — I don’t care about any of that, then a fascinating new world begins to emerge. Maybe terrible, maybe wonderful, but the awareness of these rebellious youth is undoubtedly changing. Let’s look at Hong Kong. The spirit of sacrifice. So are the yellow vests. People are injured and dying. The same goes for Extinction Rebellion, whose happenings include, for example, playing dead. And again, this is very revolutionary. These people are heroic. They don’t go to death because they know they will die anyway. There is no cynicism in this. Contrary. They’re fanatics. According to the catechism, what is the evidence that the Church represents the truth? Revelation, tradition, and martyrdom. Martyrs, therefore, maintain the faith. You know, I come from an old communist family. I know too much about martyrdom and sacrifice. It was central to the experience of the revolutionary left. And also highly Christian in spirit. I asked my father how you can call yourself a communist when, in practice, you are against the regime. You’re always complaining, this is shitty, that’s shitty. So why? He showed me an album with photos of his comrades murdered in 1944 and told me because I wouldn’t be able to explain it to them.

Well, let’s talk about the other side of the same coin. On the one hand, Extinction Rebellion, Hong Kong, Chile. On the other hand, martyrdom for faith is also a typical motivation for neo-Nazi terrorists. They also think they are saving the world and building a new, better one.

Much less. Communism is utopian. Fascism isn’t. Biology is not utopian. Enclosure is dystopian. It’s opening up. For them, it is supposed to be heroism. Their fantasy is war. Of course, they have a kind of death cult, but it is not of the martyr type. It is a cult of courage, a warrior spirit, a Kshatriya. Risk and struggle. It is a feudal, noble tradition. It is the tradition of Raubritters, brave, risking their lives for victory. Martyrdom, however, is not for victory. It is for being perfect and holy. What was the most straightforward religious idea for communism? Sacrificing yourself to make the future perfect. Well, that’s not the ideal of a warrior. The concept of a warrior is to be a winner. It works every time, from Shakespeare to Conan.

Regardless, the left is weakening. It becomes part of the liberal camp, its guilty conscience that says we should be better. I wouldn’t call it a political position but rather a religious, moral one.

A situation like this was already discussed in Russia’s 19th-century Narodnaya Volya. This approach is an eternal temptation for the left, to become this solid moral component, as they called “Gutmensch” back then. To feel better than this disgusting world. I must admit that if there were no such small enclaves, bars, clubs, and bookstores, where would I be? I want to feel like I’m surrounded by people who may be unreliable here or there but who are certainly not fascists.

But it’s like a zoo or a reserve. I wouldn’t call it a path to victory.

It is a weakness, and yes, we are weak.

Ultimately, I see only two political groups in Europe today that are fighting without mercy with the system — anarchists and fascists. Others are a more or less polite part of it.

This system does not tolerate nonconformity. And, of course, Nazis were also imprisoned in the 1920s and were sort of rebels. As long as they remained rebellious, they ended up in prison. However, when they came to terms with reality, they began to throw others into jail. Fortunately, anarchists have never stopped and will never stop being rebels. Or they would have to stop being anarchists. So, there’s a significant difference here. But at this very moment, both wings are still anti-system and excluded. After all, the AfD has been telling people for a long time — to distance themselves from extremists and political madmen. But they don’t do it. They know well that they need them to maintain the growth dynamics. Even if they were to lose some votes now, they wouldn’t lose much; they would only grow. And they have people in their ranks who are persecuted for their activism, arrested, and beaten by the police. They have a fighting history. And today, they are in local parliaments. With this experience, they already know how to fight. Dissociating themselves from radicals is one of the reasons why social democracy played such a contradictory role between the wars, especially in Germany. It happened because the social democrats were directly separated from the fighting wings by the communists who took over them. And thus, they were forced to move to the right, even though they did not want to. They no longer had roots. They lost them—especially the unemployed. In the last fair elections in Germany, the Communist Party became their party. KPD voters were, on average, twenty-year-olds, and 70 percent were unemployed. So, obviously, they were radical. If they weren’t, they would lose those voters. At the same time, these people were very aggressive and violent. They fought street fights against the Nazis, and Rot Front was, at its beginnings, an organization of Roter Frontkämpferbund veterans. Young people joined it and wanted to fight, fight in the streets, and kill police officers. Social democracy did not intend to lose the votes of specialized and older workers, housewives, and retirees. That’s why they had to distance themselves very sharply from it. So, it wasn’t just the negative opinion about the Soviet Union they had. It was also their electoral interest. And they hated each other. This conflict is obvious in the period’s literature—these desperate, young, hungry communists. For them, there was little difference between social democracy and the bourgeoisie. They were all just well-fed conformists, dudes in ties and hats.

And as a result, both sides, the Social Democrats and the Communists, lost...

Their voters could indeed vote for the Nazis in 1933 and join the NSDAP, but this does not mean that they forgot who they were before. Thuringia, Saxony, and later eastern Germany were industrial, communist regions. And in 1945, the same people who sat silently during those 12 years of Nazism suddenly stood up and said to the right, “fuck.” “Fuck you,” this is our land now. This moment was the great revenge of the defeated East German working class, which had formerly leaned towards communism and social democracy because it had been laid off from large factories during the crisis. The Third Reich lasted only 12 years... In Hungary in 1945, the communist party was utterly terrified. Because the former activists of the former Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 reappeared. After 23 years! They didn’t die. When the line of the communist party was for a multi-party system, people’s democracy, they showed up and said — “fuck you.” And that’s precisely what they did in various parts of the country. They began to create small council republics, which were eventually destroyed by the communist militia. These activists were imprisoned because the official line was the People’s Front, the coalition government. The same thing happened in Poland. Those who wanted true grassroots democracy ended up in prison.

What about synthesis? Maybe the only left that is possible here and now is left-wing nationalism?

I have a theory: bit stupid but still. But I think it’s true. We still have a left-wing, but only in those countries where the anti-fascist tradition is part of the national tradition. Greece. Italy. In part of the former Yugoslavia. There, you cannot say that Tito’s partisans were simply traitors, pigs. Even in Croatia. Spain and Portugal. Where it was also a national resistance movement. Even in France. Let us also take the Wallerstein model. In these EU peripheries, it always works out this way. Poland: you have Piłsudski, quasi-fascist colonels, and after World War II, Mieczysław Moczar and his anti-Semites. Even Jaruzelski and the dilemma of national socialism or an agreement with liberals. Then Andrzej Lepper. The same idea keeps erupting: let’s be patriotic, our nation is great, religion is OK, maybe I don’t like priests very much, but there must be some organized spirituality and, most importantly, redistribution, but “reasonably,” so that it does not destroy the productivity of the economy.

So, maybe it’s worth trying?

The left is today accused by the right of being out of touch with these masses. The same masses that the right-wing so despised in the past. When people on the left today say that you shouldn’t be elitist, they are simply telling you that it’s time to become xenophobic and racist. Like the far right, because they think these are the real feelings of working people. Interestingly, this option is fairly common, although it doesn’t seem very effective. Sahra Wagenknecht tried this in Germany — “Enough immigration, enough refugees!” As a romantic communist leader, however, you cannot say this in the current situation. You must remain silent. You don’t have to call out right away — “welcome.” But you must not say something similar to what the fascists will say. It’s suicidal. Wagenknecht is a very talented politician, but she went a step too far.

So what, Bolsonaro-type fascism awaits us? Let’s cut down the Amazon jungle, introduce ultra-free trade, and build a super strong government, powerful army, and brutal police.

Mussolini was a budget-financing, free-market politician. Can fascists be ultra-capitalists? Of course. People’s fascists will never do this, but fascist juntas have done it many times in the spirit of Franco and Salazar. Those like Salvini who are focused on these two options simultaneously — populism and ultra-capitalism — will lose. These two things cannot be reconciled. What Bolsonaro is doing is still operating in an elitist spirit. He has the army behind him and part of the police. In Germany, the AfD is aiming for something like this... The German police are full of Nazis. And Greek. And here we have one of the richest countries in Europe and one of the poorest. We are sitting in the beautiful sun in Warsaw. It is quiet, nice, calm. But that’s how it was in June 1914. It was also very peaceful.

So what is the European left supposed to be like?

Socialism did not fail, because it was never actually implemented. We have to try once again.

This interview first appeared in Faszyzm, który nadchodzi, a book supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Warsaw Office.