Fascism, in both its classical form and contemporary neofascist variants, is an authoritarian ideology and political practice characterized by dictatorial power, extreme nationalism, and the suppression of dissent. These movements arise within specific historical and social contexts, often in response to the deep contradictions and crises inherent in the capitalist systems they emerge from. As these ideologies evolve, they reflect the social tensions and imbalances within their respective societies. Quantum Dialectics, a framework that merges concepts from quantum mechanics, dialectical materialism, and social theory, provides a unique lens through which to examine the dynamics of both classical fascism and neofascism. This perspective allows us to better understand the interplay of forces within these ideologies and their interactions with the broader socio-political systems in which they operate. Through the principles of Quantum Dialectics, we can explore how fascism, both past and present, seeks to resolve societal contradictions by imposing rigid, authoritarian control, often leading to new contradictions and social tensions.
Classical fascism refers to the authoritarian political movements that emerged primarily in the early-to-mid 20th century, particularly in Europe, in response to the profound economic, social, and political crises that characterized the period. These movements gained momentum during times of intense social upheaval, where the established political order was unable to address the growing discontent among the masses. The rise of fascism can be understood as a reaction to the inherent contradictions within capitalist societies, which were laid bare during periods of economic downturn, social instability, and war. Economic crises, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s, created widespread unemployment, poverty, and social distress, which undermined the legitimacy of existing political systems. These crises often exacerbated class divisions, leading to a deep polarization within society. At the same time, the disillusionment with liberal democracy, which seemed incapable of resolving these issues, created an opening for radical ideologies to flourish. Fascism, in this context, offered a solution by promising national revival, strong centralized leadership, and a return to order. Its appeal lay in its ability to channel the frustrations of the masses into a powerful political movement, promising stability in an otherwise fractured social landscape. Additionally, the decline of traditional political structures, particularly after the trauma of World War I and the subsequent rise of communist movements, left a vacuum that fascists were able to exploit, presenting themselves as the only viable alternative to the perceived chaos and collapse of the established order. Thus, classical fascism was not just a political ideology but a response to the crises and contradictions of capitalist societies during a time of significant global upheaval.
Historical Context and Contradictions
Classical fascism emerged in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s, most notably in Italy under Benito Mussolini and in Germany under Adolf Hitler. These movements were deeply rooted in the contradictions of capitalist societies at a time when Europe was grappling with the aftermath of World War I and the economic turmoil that followed. The global competition between imperialist powers had intensified by the early 20th century, with colonial ambitions, trade rivalries, and nationalistic fervor further destabilizing fragile political systems. This period also saw the exacerbation of economic crises, particularly the Great Depression of 1929, which led to widespread unemployment, poverty, and social discontent. The capitalist system, which had previously offered a degree of stability, seemed increasingly incapable of resolving these issues, resulting in political polarization and rising dissatisfaction among the masses.
At the same time, the growth of working-class movements, particularly the spread of socialist and communist ideologies, posed a direct challenge to the established capitalist order. The revolutionary fervor of the Russian Revolution of 1917 served as a powerful symbol for many workers and intellectuals, while the labor movements in countries like Germany, Italy, and France gained increasing traction. These movements called for radical reforms, including wealth redistribution, the nationalization of industries, and the dismantling of the capitalist state, which were viewed as threats by the capitalist elites.
In this environment of profound instability, fascism arose as a reactionary ideology, seeking to protect and preserve the capitalist system. In dialectical terms, fascism can be seen as the product of the unresolved contradictions within capitalism. Faced with the potential for a revolutionary challenge to the existing order, the ruling elites turned to fascism as a means to safeguard their interests. Fascist movements, particularly in Italy and Germany, allied themselves with conservative and reactionary forces, including the military, business leaders, and elements of the aristocracy. These alliances allowed fascists to consolidate power by presenting themselves as defenders of national unity, social order, and private property in the face of the perceived threats from both communism and the anarchic conditions of economic collapse.
Fascism, therefore, represented an authoritarian response to the deepening contradictions of capitalism. The fascist leaders promised stability and national strength, advocating for a return to traditional values, militarism, and the suppression of leftist movements. By aligning with reactionary forces, fascism sought to reassert the control of the ruling elites over society, often through violent repression of labor movements, political dissidents, and minority groups. In this way, fascism became a means by which the capitalist system sought to maintain its hegemony, using authoritarian methods to neutralize the growing revolutionary potential from below. Thus, classical fascism can be understood as both a product and a safeguard of the contradictions and crises inherent in capitalist societies.
Classical fascism is fundamentally characterized by an extreme form of nationalism that places the nation-state at the center of all political and social life. This hyper-nationalism is not merely a patriotic sentiment but an aggressive ideology that asserts the supremacy of the nation over all other forms of identity, including ethnic, religious, or social differences. Fascist nationalism often glorifies a mythical or idealized past, with a particular emphasis on a perceived “golden age” of national strength and purity. This narrative of national rebirth is used to legitimize the authoritarian structures of fascism, which promise to restore the nation to its rightful place of power and prominence in the world. The nation-state, in fascist thought, is seen not just as a political entity but as a living organism with its own destiny, which must be protected from internal and external threats. In this context, the fascist leader is often portrayed as the embodiment of the nation’s will, charged with the sacred duty of safeguarding its unity and sovereignty.
At the core of fascist ideology is the belief in the supremacy of the state, where all individual freedoms and rights are subordinated to the needs of the nation as defined by the fascist leadership. In a fascist state, individual rights are not seen as inalienable but rather as privileges that are granted by the state and can be revoked if they are deemed detrimental to national interests. The role of the state is to maintain order and discipline, often through a centralized and highly bureaucratic structure that allows for strict control over every aspect of society. The fascist leader, typically a charismatic figure, is the ultimate authority within this system, wielding unchecked power to govern without the constraints of democratic checks and balances. This authoritarian structure is justified by the need for decisive leadership in times of national crisis, with the leader often portrayed as a savior who will guide the nation through perilous times.
Fascism promotes militarism as a central tenet of its ideology, seeing the military not only as a means of defense but as a key institution for cultivating national unity, discipline, and strength. The glorification of military power serves to reinforce the idea of national superiority and the necessity of aggressive expansionism or the protection of national borders from perceived threats. The militarization of society is not limited to the armed forces but permeates all aspects of life, from education to culture, where loyalty to the state and the leader is instilled through various state-run institutions. Fascism elevates the warrior spirit and presents war as a natural and honorable means of asserting national greatness and survival.
Central to fascist regimes is the repression of any social movements or ideologies that challenge the existing order. This includes not only leftist and labor movements, which are viewed as subversive and dangerous, but also any form of political or cultural dissent. Fascist regimes employ various methods of repression, including censorship, state-sponsored violence, and the establishment of secret police forces that monitor and control the population. Political opponents, intellectuals, and social activists who resist fascist ideology are often subjected to imprisonment, torture, or execution. The fascist state employs these measures to ensure total ideological conformity and suppress any challenges to the absolute authority of the leader and the nation-state. Social movements that promote equality, justice, or human rights are seen as threats to the unity and strength of the state and are crushed through violent and coercive means.
Thus, classical fascism is defined by its commitment to an all-encompassing nationalism, a rigid authoritarian structure, and the glorification of militarism. It seeks to suppress individual freedoms in the name of the collective good as defined by the state, and it utilizes state power to stifle any opposition that threatens its control. The belief in the supremacy of the nation-state and the central role of a dictatorial leader are foundational to fascist ideology, which aims to maintain societal order and national strength through repression and the elimination of dissent.
Totalitarian Control and Suppression
Fascism, by its very nature, seeks total control over every facet of public and private life, leaving little room for individual autonomy or alternative societal structures. This control is not confined to the political realm but extends deeply into culture, education, the economy, and even personal beliefs. Fascist regimes aim to shape the thoughts, behaviors, and values of the population by imposing a singular, state-approved worldview that permeates all aspects of society. Cultural institutions, including the arts, media, and entertainment, are co-opted to serve the ideological goals of the state, ensuring that all forms of expression align with the nationalist and authoritarian agenda. In fascist states, culture is not a reflection of the diversity of human experience but a tool for reinforcing the state’s power and promoting its vision of national unity. Artists, writers, and intellectuals are often pressured, censored, or even imprisoned if their work does not conform to state-approved ideals. The arts are transformed from a means of individual expression into instruments for propaganda, celebrating the glory of the nation and the leadership that embodies its will.
In the realm of education, fascist regimes seek to mold the minds of the young to ensure the next generation of citizens adheres to the same authoritarian values. The curriculum is carefully controlled to teach loyalty to the state, the superiority of the nation, and the importance of discipline, militarism, and obedience to the leader. Education becomes an extension of the state’s power, where the goal is not to foster critical thinking or intellectual independence but to produce citizens who are ideologically aligned with the regime. Fascist states often manipulate history, emphasizing narratives that glorify the nation’s past while erasing or distorting those aspects that challenge the state’s legitimacy. This form of indoctrination ensures that dissent is not just politically dangerous but culturally unthinkable, as generations grow up with a deeply entrenched sense of national pride and loyalty to the state.
Economically, fascist regimes seek to centralize control, often through state intervention in the market and close collaboration with corporate interests that align with the goals of the regime. However, unlike communist ideologies that call for state ownership of the means of production, fascist economies tend to maintain private property but with strong state regulation and control. Large corporations, particularly those in key industries like armaments, infrastructure, and manufacturing, are brought into line with the needs of the state, often through coercive means or the establishment of corporatist structures that blur the line between government and business. This centralized economic control allows the fascist state to direct resources toward its militaristic and nationalist ambitions while suppressing any economic forces that might challenge its authority. The focus is not on economic equality but on strengthening the nation’s global position, with the economy serving as a tool for the state’s broader objectives.
The maintenance of totalitarian control is often achieved through violent repression and widespread censorship. Fascist regimes use force to suppress opposition and maintain order, including the use of secret police, military forces, and paramilitary organizations that carry out arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions of perceived enemies. These state-sanctioned acts of violence are presented as necessary to protect the nation from internal and external threats, justifying brutal crackdowns on dissent. Censorship is another critical tool in the fascist arsenal, used to control the flow of information and prevent any criticism of the regime from reaching the public. The media, including newspapers, radio, and later television, are tightly controlled, ensuring that only state-approved narratives are disseminated. In this environment, the truth becomes malleable, and dissenting voices are silenced.
A key element in fascist regimes is the creation of a common enemy, often an ethnic, political, or social group, which is blamed for the nation’s ills and used to rally the population around the state. This enemy is often constructed through propaganda, painting them as subhuman or as a direct threat to the nation’s survival. These scapegoats serve to divert attention from the real structural problems within society and unite the population under a single cause: the defense of the nation. By focusing the collective rage and fear on an external or internal enemy, the fascist regime seeks to consolidate its power, using this fear to justify extreme measures of repression and surveillance. This tactic of creating an “enemy” is not just about externalizing blame but about ensuring that the population is unified in a common ideological battle, one that allows the state to maintain control while suppressing any potential challenges to its authority.
In this way, fascists employ “decohesive” tactics—using violence, fear, and division to break down the social cohesion that could otherwise lead to resistance or rebellion. By fracturing society and fostering an atmosphere of distrust and fear, the fascist state enforces uniformity, creating a society where individual autonomy and dissent are eliminated, and collective obedience is paramount. The terror induced by state violence, coupled with the ideological indoctrination of the population, creates a society where compliance becomes the only option for survival, and any form of resistance is met with swift and brutal retribution. The fascist state, in this sense, is not just a political system but a totalitarian structure that seeks to control not just the body but the mind of the citizen, creating a homogeneous and subjugated populace.
Neofascism refers to the resurgence of fascist-like ideologies and movements in the post-World War II era, particularly from the 1970s onward, in response to the changing political, social, and economic landscape of the modern world. While neofascism retains several core characteristics of classical fascism—such as extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and the suppression of dissent—it manifests in ways that reflect the shifts in global politics and economics that emerged after the Second World War. Unlike classical fascism, which arose in the context of the economic turmoil and social instability of the early 20th century, neofascism is primarily a response to the perceived disintegration of post-war capitalist structures, the rise of multiculturalism, and the challenges posed by globalized markets. Neofascism capitalizes on feelings of alienation and frustration among certain segments of the population, particularly in the face of economic stagnation, rising immigration, and the erosion of traditional cultural and national identities.
A key difference between neofascism and its classical predecessor is its relationship to contemporary democratic and political systems. While classical fascism sought to overthrow or radically transform democratic structures, neofascism often operates within the frameworks of existing democratic institutions, using legal means to gain power and influence. Neofascists today are more likely to work within the political system, seeking to subvert democratic norms from within rather than rejecting them outright. This shift is largely due to the modern political context, where fascist-like movements find it more effective to use populist rhetoric, exploit democratic processes, and take advantage of the technological advancements in communication to reach a broader audience. This approach allows neofascism to appeal to a wide range of voters who feel marginalized or threatened by the effects of globalization, immigration, and the perceived erosion of national sovereignty.
In addition to these political adaptations, neofascism differs from classical fascism in its approach to the economy. While classical fascism often advocated for state control of key industries and the suppression of labor movements, neofascism tends to align itself more with neoliberal economic policies, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, and the protection of private property. However, it still retains elements of corporatism, where the interests of big business and the state are closely intertwined. Neofascism’s focus on economic nationalism, protectionist trade policies, and anti-globalization sentiments reflects its desire to protect local industries and jobs from foreign competition, while still preserving the capitalist order that serves the interests of the elite.
Ultimately, neofascism represents a contemporary reconfiguration of classical fascist ideologies, shaped by the modern political, economic, and technological context. While it shares many of the same authoritarian tendencies and nationalistic ideals, it adapts to the changing realities of the 21st century by working within democratic frameworks, using populist rhetoric, and aligning itself with neoliberal economic policies. Neofascism, therefore, is not a simple return to the past but a complex response to the contradictions of modern capitalism and the challenges of globalization.
Neofascism emerges in the context of late-stage capitalism, a period characterized by the intensification of economic globalization, rising inequality, and the gradual decline of the traditional industrial economy that once underpinned much of Western prosperity. The aftermath of World War II saw the establishment of a relatively stable capitalist order, particularly in Europe and North America, where welfare states and social safety nets were created to mitigate the effects of economic crises and promote social harmony. However, as the decades passed, the global economic landscape began to shift dramatically. With the rise of neoliberal economic policies in the late 20th century—championed by figures such as Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US—the post-war social contract began to unravel. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation, free markets, and privatization, led to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few while leaving the majority of the population increasingly marginalized. At the same time, austerity measures were implemented in response to growing national debts, further eroding the welfare state and worsening social inequality.
The disintegration of the post-World War II capitalist order, coupled with the decline of traditional industries and the rise of service-oriented and technology-driven economies, created a volatile environment. Economic stagnation, deindustrialization, and the outsourcing of jobs led to widespread job insecurity, especially in working-class communities. The promises of globalization, which were supposed to bring prosperity through international trade and interconnected markets, instead fueled resentment as large segments of the population felt left behind, particularly in regions hit hardest by factory closures and wage stagnation. In this environment of growing economic disparity and social unrest, the rise of neofascism can be seen as a reactionary response to the contradictions inherent in neoliberal capitalism. As wealth became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and the benefits of globalization were not equally distributed, neofascist movements gained traction by channeling public frustration and fear.
These movements often thrive in periods of economic crisis or stagnation, when the ruling elite’s ability to manage the economy and maintain social order is challenged. Faced with growing social unrest, political fragmentation, and the erosion of traditional institutions, the elite seeks to maintain control through authoritarian measures. Neofascist movements, which frequently adopt populist rhetoric, position themselves as the defenders of national identity, security, and tradition against the perceived threats posed by immigrants, globalization, and liberal social movements. They promise to restore national greatness and protect the economic and cultural interests of the “native” population, often through authoritarian means. By focusing on scapegoats such as immigrants, ethnic minorities, or political dissidents, neofascism diverts attention from the systemic inequalities and failures of the neoliberal capitalist system, instead offering simplistic and reactionary solutions to complex problems. In essence, neofascism is not just a political ideology but a reactionary response to the deep contradictions of neoliberal capitalism, offering a pathway for those dissatisfied with the social and economic order to channel their grievances into a movement that promises both order and a return to perceived national greatness.
While classical fascism was overtly centered on aggressive nationalism, neofascism often adopts a more populist approach that presents itself as a “movement of the people” in direct opposition to the elites, immigrants, or foreign influence. In contrast to the more authoritarian and militaristic nationalism of earlier fascist movements, neofascist groups today frequently employ populist rhetoric to garner widespread support. This rhetoric emphasizes national sovereignty, the desire to protect local industries and cultural identities, and opposition to perceived threats posed by globalization, immigration, and foreign political influence. Neofascists portray themselves as champions of the common people, promising to restore national pride and protect the interests of “ordinary” citizens against an out-of-touch political establishment that they accuse of prioritizing the global elite or foreign interests over the welfare of the nation. By framing themselves as defenders of the nation’s sovereignty, these movements appeal to those who feel alienated or threatened by the rapid changes in their societies, particularly in relation to immigration and the erosion of traditional cultural values.
However, beneath this populist rhetoric lies a deeper commitment to authoritarian control and the suppression of social justice movements that challenge the capitalist status quo. Despite their claims to represent the interests of the common people, neofascist groups often advocate for policies that are inherently undemocratic and elitist, emphasizing the consolidation of power in the hands of a strong, centralized state. The populist appeal to the masses is often used as a means to justify the creation of a hierarchical, authoritarian regime that restricts individual freedoms and limits political pluralism. Furthermore, neofascism rejects social justice movements, such as labor rights, feminism, and racial equality movements, as threats to the traditional social order. These movements, which challenge capitalist norms and advocate for greater equality, are often demonized by neofascists as destabilizing forces that undermine national unity and cultural identity. In this sense, while neofascism may present itself as a champion of the people, its ultimate goals are not about empowering the masses but about preserving a reactionary, capitalist system under an authoritarian guise.
Neofascism stands out in its ability to adapt to and leverage modern technology and media to disseminate its ideology. Unlike classical fascism, which relied on traditional forms of media such as newspapers, radio, and state-controlled broadcasts to spread its message, neofascism has embraced the digital age, taking full advantage of the internet, social media platforms, and alternative news outlets to reach broader and more diverse audiences. The accessibility and reach of digital platforms allow neofascist movements to bypass mainstream media and directly communicate with their followers, creating a decentralized, far-reaching network of like-minded individuals. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube serve as key tools for neofascists to propagate their ideologies, recruit followers, and organize events, protests, and other activities. These platforms enable them to engage in targeted political campaigns, mobilize support, and promote nationalist or xenophobic ideas in ways that are often difficult for authorities to monitor or control.
A significant feature of neofascism’s use of modern media is its ability to create “echo chambers,” where users are exposed only to content that aligns with their existing beliefs, reinforcing their radical views and insulating them from opposing perspectives. These echo chambers amplify neofascist rhetoric, ensuring that followers remain immersed in ideologically consistent narratives, often based on misinformation and conspiratorial thinking. This digital isolation allows neofascist groups to strengthen their influence, creating a sense of unity and shared purpose among followers while isolating them from alternative viewpoints. Furthermore, social media’s algorithmic nature often prioritizes sensational, emotionally charged content, making it easier for extreme messages to gain traction and spread virally. This contributes to the rapid dissemination of hateful rhetoric, fear-mongering, and extremist views.
In addition to spreading ideology, neofascist movements use these digital tools to incite violence and intimidation. Social media provides a platform for organizing and coordinating acts of aggression, harassment, and even terrorism. The relative anonymity of online interactions enables individuals and groups to engage in harmful activities, including cyberbullying, doxxing (publishing private information to encourage harassment), and the targeting of marginalized communities. Online forums and chat groups foster radicalization by encouraging violent action, while the virality of online content amplifies the reach of extremist ideologies. Unlike classical fascism, which relied heavily on physical, on-the-ground direct action like mass rallies or militant groups, neofascism in the digital age can radicalize and mobilize individuals from afar, making it a more pervasive and insidious threat. In this way, neofascism’s adaptation to modern technology not only enhances its ability to spread misinformation but also makes its operations more difficult to monitor, challenge, or dismantle, creating new challenges for counter-extremism efforts in the digital era.
Neofascism is less overtly totalitarian compared to classical fascism, which often sought to establish a clear and outright authoritarian state through forceful means. In contrast, neofascism frequently operates within existing democratic frameworks, utilizing legal and electoral processes to gain power and influence. Neofascist leaders often work within the political system, strategically subverting democratic norms from within rather than aiming for a complete overthrow of the system. This allows them to bypass some of the direct confrontations with democratic institutions that characterized classical fascism, while still advancing authoritarian agendas. Neofascist movements tend to be more adaptable and flexible, blending authoritarian tendencies with elements of democratic processes, such as elections, to garner public support. They exploit the mechanisms of democracy—like populist rhetoric, voting, and legal reforms—to erode democratic principles and concentrate power in the hands of the state or a singular leader. This method enables them to manipulate the political system more subtly, often appealing to nationalist sentiments, fear of outsiders, or economic insecurities to push forward their agenda without the need for an overt break from democratic structures. Consequently, neofascism represents a more insidious form of authoritarianism, using the appearance of democratic legitimacy to gradually erode political freedoms and civil rights.
In the framework of quantum dialectics, the interplay between cohesive and decohesive forces provides a valuable lens for understanding both classical fascism and neofascism. Quantum dialectics views social and political systems as dynamic entities, where contradictions inherent within them lead to shifts in the balance and configuration of forces over time. In this context, cohesive forces represent the elements within a society or system that work toward unity, stability, and order, while decohesive forces symbolize the tensions, disruptions, and conflicts that challenge the existing social or political order. Fascism, both classical and neofascist, can be seen as a response to these contradictions—an attempt by ruling elites to restore or preserve cohesion by imposing authoritarian control. In the face of growing contradictions, such as economic crises, class struggle, or political fragmentation, fascism seeks to neutralize decohesive forces through repression and the concentration of power. However, this dynamic is never static, as the very forces that fascism tries to suppress—social movements, economic inequalities, and political dissidence—may eventually resurface, leading to new shifts within the system and the potential for revolutionary change. Thus, quantum dialectics offers a framework for understanding how fascism, in both its classical and contemporary forms, arises from and interacts with the tensions and contradictions embedded in social and political systems.
Both classical fascism and neofascism rely heavily on the creation of a “cohesive” social order, one that is centered around a unifying, often exclusionary, ideology designed to forge a sense of national unity and strength. This cohesive force is achieved by emphasizing a singular national identity, which is often defined in exclusive terms, creating a clear boundary between the “in-group” and the “out-group.” A central tenet of both fascist ideologies is the cultivation of fear toward the “other”—whether this other is an ethnic group, political faction, immigrant population, or perceived foreign influence. By presenting these groups as threats to the unity and survival of the nation, fascist movements rally the population around the need for a strong, centralized state capable of protecting the nation from internal and external dangers. This collective sense of belonging is not built on inclusivity or democratic participation, but rather through the suppression of dissent and the marginalization or persecution of those labeled as enemies of the state. In the dialectical sense, fascism seeks to impose cohesion by using coercive methods, such as violence, censorship, and state repression, making the society rigid and authoritarian. The cohesiveness it creates is not a product of voluntary, inclusive unity but rather the result of enforced uniformity, where individual freedoms are restricted in favor of maintaining a monolithic, state-controlled vision of society. This process of imposing cohesion through force and fear leads to a highly authoritarian system, where dissent is not tolerated, and any challenge to the state’s vision is quickly silenced.
Both classical and neofascism can be understood as responses to the disintegration or decay of traditional social and political structures, brought about by the contradictions and crises inherent within capitalist systems. In quantum terms, this decay or “decoherence” of the existing system creates a vacuum, a space where reactionary ideologies can take root. Classical fascism, for instance, emerged in the early 20th century as a direct response to the contradictions within capitalism, particularly during times of economic crisis and social instability. The global upheaval caused by World War I, followed by the economic devastation of the Great Depression, exposed the fragility of existing political and economic systems. In this context, fascism arose as a reactionary force, aiming to reassert order and unity in a society that seemed to be fracturing under the weight of class struggle, political disillusionment, and economic collapse. Similarly, neofascism emerges in the contemporary era, but its roots lie in the contradictions of late capitalism. These contradictions are exacerbated by the forces of economic globalization, rising immigration, and increasing economic inequality. As traditional industries decline and wealth becomes more concentrated in the hands of a few, many people feel alienated and powerless, further fueling discontent. Neofascism, like its classical predecessor, seeks to restore social cohesion in a world that seems increasingly fragmented, using nationalism, authoritarianism, and exclusionary ideologies as tools to unite the population around a common enemy and a vision of national strength. In both forms, fascism can be seen as an attempt to combat the social and political disintegration brought on by the contradictions within capitalism, offering a reactionary response to the instability that arises when established structures begin to break down.
Quantum dialectics posits that the contradictions within any system inevitably give rise to emergent properties, which are new characteristics or dynamics that manifest as the system evolves. These emergent properties often reflect the underlying tensions and contradictions within the system, and in many cases, they can lead to significant changes, including revolutionary transformations. In the case of fascism, the emergent property is authoritarian control—an attempt to resolve the contradictions and crises within society by imposing a rigid, centralized system of governance. However, this imposition of control is not without its consequences. The authoritarian state often becomes a site of intense social tensions, as it suppresses dissent, undermines democratic structures, and marginalizes opposing ideologies. These tensions can, over time, lead to the collapse or transformation of the fascist state itself, as was seen in the case of classical fascism. For example, Nazi Germany’s aggressive nationalism, militarism, and expansionism ultimately led to its destruction in World War II. In contrast, neofascism represents an ongoing tension between the authoritarianism of the state and the demands of global capitalism, particularly in an era of neoliberal economic policies, technological globalization, and rising inequality. This tension reflects the contradictions of a capitalist system that seeks to preserve economic power while attempting to maintain social order through authoritarian means. From the perspective of quantum dialectics, this ongoing struggle can be understood as the “superposition” of two competing social systems: one that pushes for greater authoritarian control and the other that demands democratic or egalitarian reforms. This superposition, where elements of both systems coexist and interact, generates a dynamic that is constantly in flux, as the pressures of capitalism, social unrest, and political ideologies create competing forces that shape the evolution of society. Ultimately, these contradictions may lead to revolutionary change, as the unresolved tensions within the system create the conditions for transformation or collapse.
Both classical fascism and neofascism arise as direct responses to the contradictions inherent within capitalist societies, particularly during times of economic crisis, social instability, and political fragmentation. These ideologies share a commitment to authoritarianism, with a strong emphasis on nationalism, which is often defined in exclusionary terms, and a determination to suppress any dissent that challenges the status quo. The authoritarian commitment is rooted in the belief that a strong, centralized state is necessary to restore order, stability, and national pride, often in opposition to the perceived threats posed by socialist movements, foreign influence, or marginalized groups. In both classical fascism and neofascism, there is a deep interplay of cohesive forces—efforts to unite the nation and its people around a singular, dominant identity that excludes those considered “other,” whether due to ethnicity, political ideology, or cultural differences. These cohesive forces work to solidify the social and political order, but they do so through violent means, often employing state-sponsored repression, militarization, and the elimination of opposition to enforce unity. In classical fascism, this often took the form of mass rallies, militarized policing, and state-sanctioned terror, while in neofascism, the tactics can range from online radicalization, hate speech, and targeted physical violence against marginalized groups. The use of exclusion and violence to create cohesion in both fascist and neofascist ideologies reflects a desire to impose a rigid, uniform order in the face of a system that is seen as unstable or in decline. Thus, both forms of fascism rely on the suppression of diversity and opposition to maintain their vision of a homogeneous, authoritarian state.
The key difference between classical fascism and neofascism lies in their historical context and methods of operation. Classical fascism emerged in the early-to-mid 20th century, at a time when traditional state structures, including established monarchies, militaristic regimes, and nation-states, were still dominant. These movements, such as those led by Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany, arose in response to the economic crises, social unrest, and political instability of the time, seeking to consolidate power through the creation of a highly centralized, authoritarian state. Classical fascism, therefore, operated within the existing frameworks of the nation-state, emphasizing strong leadership, militarism, and national unity as a means of restoring order and control. Its methods were overtly coercive, relying heavily on physical violence, repression, and direct state control to maintain power and suppress opposition. In contrast, neofascism operates within the context of modern, globalized capitalism, where economic systems are increasingly interdependent, and political systems are more democratic in form, though often less so in practice. Neofascism exploits the contradictions of global capitalism, often using populist rhetoric to tap into growing discontent with economic inequality, immigration, and the erosion of national sovereignty. Unlike classical fascism, which sought to dismantle existing democratic structures outright, neofascism tends to work within the framework of these systems, using legal and electoral processes to gain power and gradually subvert democratic norms from within. Neofascist movements are also far more adaptable and technologically savvy than their classical predecessors. They make extensive use of digital media, social platforms, and alternative news outlets to spread their ideologies, organize supporters, and influence public opinion. This digital approach allows neofascist groups to reach wider and more diverse audiences, often by exploiting the anonymity and reach of online spaces to radicalize individuals and create echo chambers of extreme viewpoints. In contrast, classical fascism’s methods were more grounded in physical mobilization, direct action, and state-run propaganda through traditional media like radio and print. While both forms of fascism share authoritarian tendencies, neofascism operates in a more decentralized, media-driven environment, adapting to the complexities of the modern globalized world.
In quantum dialectical terms, the tension between the cohesive forces of fascism and the decoherence of the capitalist system underscores the dynamic and constantly evolving nature of social orders. Fascism, whether in its classical or neofascist forms, can be viewed as an attempt to resolve the contradictions and crises inherent within capitalist societies by imposing authoritarian control. At its core, fascism seeks to create social and political cohesion by consolidating power, often through nationalist ideologies, militarism, and the suppression of dissent. This cohesive force is an effort to stabilize a system under strain, where the traditional political order has failed to address economic inequality, social fragmentation, and political disillusionment. However, this attempt to impose order through authoritarian means is inherently unstable, as it does not resolve the underlying contradictions within capitalism but rather attempts to suppress or contain them. The contradictions of capitalism—such as wealth inequality, class struggle, and the tensions between global capitalism and national sovereignty—continue to simmer beneath the surface, creating new social tensions and forces for transformation. In this sense, fascism, while temporarily consolidating power, often exacerbates the very contradictions it seeks to control, leading to further instability within the system. The outcome of these tensions can result in social upheaval or transformation, as the forces of dissent, whether from labor movements, political revolutions, or social justice movements, push back against the authoritarian order. Thus, both classical and neofascism, as reactionary responses to capitalist decay, are ultimately unstable in the long term, as they are unable to resolve the systemic contradictions of the capitalist system they seek to preserve. Instead, these contradictions continue to evolve, giving rise to new conflicts and potential revolutionary change.
By applying the concepts of quantum dialectics to the study of fascism, we gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of cohesion and decoherence within social systems. Quantum dialectics, with its focus on the interplay between cohesive and decohesive forces, allows us to see fascism not as a static ideology but as a dynamic response to the contradictions and crises inherent within capitalist societies. While classical fascism and neofascism share core ideological components, such as authoritarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of dissent, they differ significantly in their historical and social contexts. Classical fascism emerged in the early 20th century during periods of intense economic crisis, social unrest, and the decline of traditional political structures, while neofascism arises in the context of late-stage capitalism, shaped by globalization, economic inequality, and the erosion of democratic norms. Despite these differences, both forms of fascism represent attempts to stabilize capitalist systems in crisis by imposing authoritarian measures and creating a rigid, centralized order. Quantum dialectics helps us see these movements as responses to the contradictions within capitalism—movements that are constantly evolving and interacting with the larger forces of history. As such, fascism is not merely a reactionary political ideology but a manifestation of the deeper tensions within capitalist societies, shaping and being shaped by the ongoing conflicts and transformations that arise as a result of these contradictions. Ultimately, the application of quantum dialectics provides a more nuanced understanding of how fascism operates within social systems and highlights its dynamic, ever-changing nature in the face of historical and economic shifts.
QUANTUM DIALECTICS - BLOG ARTICLES 
Leave a comment