Late Capitalist Fascism

Theory Redux (Polity)

by Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen

What if fascism didn't disappear at the end of WW II with the defeat of Hitler and Mussolini? Even more troubling, what if fascism can no longer be confined to political parties or ultra nationalist politicians but has become something much more diffuse that is spread across our societies as cultural expressions and psychological states?

This is the disturbing thesis developed by Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen, who argues that late capitalism has produced hollowed-out and exchangeable subjectivities that provide a breeding ground for a new kind of diffuse, banal fascism. The overt and concentrated fascism of the new fascist parties thrives on the diffuse fascism present in social media and everyday life, where the fear of being left behind and losing out has fuelled resentment towards foreigners and others who are perceived as threats to a national community under siege.

Only by confronting both the overt fascism of parties and politicians and the diffuse fascism of everyday life will we be able to combat fascism effectively and prevent the slide into barbarism.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

138 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 18, 2021

About the author

Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen is an art historian and theorists working on the politics and history of the avant-garde, the politics of contemporary art and the revolutionary tradition. He is associate professor at the University of Copenhagen.

Reviews

[Liam Theveny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a compelling thesis on the past decade of politics and its economic origins. Some parts of the book were ill-defined and repetitive (i.e., despite ‘hollowing out’ being mentioned repeatedly, I felt like the term was only vaguely defined). However, if nothing else, it served as a stark reminder of the recent history of fascism in our world.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accurate account of where we were headed in 2021 and prescient about where we are now, but in a somewhat remedial way—anyone who has been paying attention will find themselves saying “tell me something I don’t know.” Short as it is, it gets repetitious, and I would have appreciated more granularity in exchange for little touches of Debord and Baudrillard in the night. It doesn’t see or identify the particular terrors of the neoreaction movement. It gets sloppy toward the end. And like any academic “critique,” its chances of changing the awful circumstances it describes are negligible. The book duly pretends to bring a hammer and sickle to an AR-15 fight, which is pathetic enough; but I am put in mind of the hapless scholar writing about clockwork oranges when set upon by Alex and his droogs.

Anti-intellectualism and media illiteracy are so deeply engrained in the societies this book discusses that it is, admittedly, unfair to fault the book for its toothlessness. It has a good deal of truth to tell. It will certainly be helpful to people flummoxed by Trump’s defeat of Kamala Harris in 2024.

[Matt Beaty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fairly level-headed look at the cultural...movement?...that has swept right wing, fascist leaders into power in the "Western world".
It's not an anti-Trump book, in that Rasmussen mentions him only as a part of an existing movement. Instead, it is a damning critique of a society declining for nearly 50 years that is perpetually asking for help and only knows how to do so by asking for a strong man (or woman, in the case of Le Pen) to redeliver the past they wish existed, all while accepting the status quo that shifts power (hard, soft, monetary, etc...) away from the populous to a few actors who have learned how to most successfully exploit resources and workers.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

The last quarter dips into ad hominem a touch.

[Bill Zalatoris · Rating 5 out of 5]

A spot on account of the state of modern politics.

[Hdawg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book largely incoherent. I didn't like how it drew upon contemporary examples, lots of references to tabloids related to Trump and Rittenhouse. I wish the author would have compared his modern understanding of fascism to Mussolini's fascism . Lots of references to Guy Dubord and the Society of the Spectacle.

Better than Tim Synder, obviously. Draws a lot from good postmodernist thinkers, but the delivery is incoherent. I wish this were a bit longer, maybe it would be clearer