Historical Materialism 29.

4 (2021) 3–21

brill.com/hima

Editorial Perspective

∵
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State
Alberto Toscano
Professor of Critical Theory, Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths,
University of London, UK
Visiting Faculty, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver, Canada
[email protected]

Abstract

Most theorisations of fascism, Marxist and otherwise, have taken for granted its idol-
atry of the state and phobia of freedom. This analytical common sense has also inhib-
ited the identification of continuities with contemporary movements of the far Right,
with their libertarian and anti-statist affectations, not to mention their embeddedness
in neoliberal policies and subjectivities. Drawing on a range of diverse sources – from
Johann Chapoutot’s histories of Nazi intellectuals to Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s theori-
sation of the anti-state state, and from Marcuse’s explorations of fascist competitive
individualism to debates on neoliberal authoritarianism – this essay sketches the
counter-intuitive but disturbingly timely image of a fascism enamoured of freedom
and at odds with the state.

Keywords

fascism – freedom – Nazism – race – neoliberalism – the state

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/1569206X-12342233

Downloaded fromBrill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
4 Toscano

The problem of fascism is as old as capitalism. The threat was

there from the start.
karl polanyi, ‘The Fascist Virus’1

∵
While the practical work of halting and reversing the catastrophic march of
the Right is on most fronts still lacking in strategy and force, the recent inter-
national debate on the new faces of reaction has been both vibrant and vital.
This editorial perspective is intended as a small contribution to the forging of
the collective compass to orient ourselves in this very grim conjuncture. I want
to do so by addressing some of the problems that arise in revisiting the theoret-
ical debate on fascism amid an epoch whose governing ideology and dominant
class strategy many still think are best captured by the idea of neoliberalism –
however mutant, recombinant or terminal the latter may be.
How, I want to ask, are we to conceptualise the connection between novel
variants of what Karl Polanyi once termed ‘the fascist virus’, on the one hand,
and the mutable instantiations of neoliberalism, on the other, beyond the
familiar if fallacious assumption of a basic incompatibility between these
two complexes of political ideas and practices?2 Can a more nuanced the-
orisation of the place of the state in fascist and neoliberal practice provide
some insight into the fascist potentials harboured by our current moment?
And how might it relate to the vexed status of freedom in fascist discourse?
Received wisdom suggests that at the core of historical fascisms lay a violent
aversion toward liberalism in all its guises and an unchecked worship of the
state as the hallowed vehicle for national and racial rebirth through inner- and
outer-directed violence – in other words, as the Italian regime philosopher
Giovanni Gentile himself affirmed, fascism would be a statolatry (a term soon
thereafter employed pejoratively by Pope Pius xi and critically analysed by
Gramsci in his Notebooks). Conversely, the common sense about neoliberalism
has understood it as driven by a veritable phobia of the state, a desire to limit

1 Polanyi n.d. Versions of this paper were first delivered at the Historical Materialism 2021
annual conference (online), in the closing panel The Fascist Horizon: Theoretical and Political
Perspectives (14 November), and (on 17 August 2021) in the context of the international sem-
inar Direitas, Fascismos, Bolsonarismo co-ordinated by Rodrigo Nunes. Many thanks to the
organisers and participants.
2 On Polanyi’s analysis of fascism, see Dale and Desian 2019.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 5

its interventionist inroads into the freedoms of the market and the ambitions
of the possessive individual.

The Fascist Love of Freedom

In the interminable seesaw of analogies and disanalogies that occupies so

much speculation, theoretical and mainstream, about the contemporaneity
of fascism, the notion of freedom has played a not insignificant, if at times
muted or implicit part. The largely liberal checklist-exercises that are a sta-
ple of the genre will often identify the exaltation of the state and the repu-
diation of liberty as constants of historical fascism and find contemporary
movements and ideologies of the far Right lacking in that department. Today’s
revamped authoritarian populisms spawn sundry Freedom Parties, and lib-
erty is their leitmotiv – from so-called ‘medical totalitarianism’, for and of
property-ownership, or as a marker of civilisational difference from migrants
and their religions. There are choice examples of this trait in Andreas Malm
and The Zetkin Collective’s formidable panorama of an emergent ‘fossil fas-
cism’ – White Skin, Black Fuel – where we can read for instance that:

The doctrine of ‘energy dominance’ was annotated with some classical

American freedom speak, when the Department of Energy in 2019 began
to refer to fossil gas as ‘freedom gas’, to be exported without constraints
around the world. Official documents from this Department, still headed
by Rick Perry, spoke of fossil fuels as ‘molecules of U.S. freedom.’3

Elsewhere, we come across Rainer Kraft, the Alternativ für Deutschland’s cli-
mate spokesman, decrying the fact that mainstream parties are ‘threatening
the end of the world and stirring up mass hysteria, so that people will accept
that more and more of their property and their freedom are stolen’.4 But are
the liberal, neoliberal and libertarian notes in the contemporary discourse of
the far-Right signs of an unbridgeable discontinuity with interwar historical
fascisms?
I want briefly to explore the proposition that, in several ways, conceptions
of freedom (at both the individual and collective levels) were not (and are
not) alien to fascism, and that we may gain in our understanding of fascist
potentials and subjectivities by tarrying with that apparent oxymoron, fascist

3 Malm and The Zetkin Collective 2021, pp. 191–2.

4 Malm and The Zetkin Collective 2021, p. 8.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
6 Toscano

freedom. In his recent White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea, the histo-
rian Tyler Stovall, having traced the racial entanglements of ideologies of lib-
erty across European imperialism, settler-colonialism and plantation slavery,
judiciously observes that ‘ideas of freedom did play a significant role in the
ideology of fascism’5 – which should perhaps not be a surprise given the shap-
ing role that those historical projects of white supremacy played in fascism’s
self-image. Writing in 1941 in the pages of the English-language final volume of
Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, the journal of the Institute for Social
Research in exile, Herbert Marcuse would declare that ‘[u]nder the terror that
now threatens the world the ideal constricts itself to one single and at the same
time common issue. Faced with Fascist barbarism, everyone knows what free-
dom means’.6 If only.
Italian Fascism’s relation to liberalism itself was by no means purely
antagonistic. In the first years of Mussolini’s regime, even a figure like Luigi
Einaudi – later to become a member of the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society
and a President of Italy – would welcome the Fascist government’s efforts at
balancing budgets and curbing social spending, writing in 1925 of: ‘A period of
fruitful return of the Italian tax system to its classic liberal traditions’.7 In 1923,
Gentile, in joining the Partito Nazionale Fascista, would write to Mussolini
himself that: ‘I have come to be persuaded that liberalism as I understand it
and as understood by the men of the glorious Right who led the Italy of the
Risorgimento, the liberalism of freedom in the law and therefore in the strong
state and in the state conceived as an ethical reality, is not today represented
in Italy by liberals, who are more or less openly against you, but, precisely, by
you’.8 Mussolini himself would later declare: ‘if liberty is to be the attribute of
living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberal-
ism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the
liberty of the State and of the individual within the State.’9 But where Italian
fascism spoke the language of freedom in the state, its German counterpart
advanced a different vision.
In Libres d’óbeir (Free to Obey), his recent book on the Nazi origins of
postwar management theories and practices, the French historian Johann
Chapoutot has incisively explored a deep seam of National Socialist intellec-
tual production, spearheaded by young jurists, some of them members of the

5 Stovall 2021, p. 214.

6 Marcuse 1998a, p. 62.
7 Quoted in Vodovar 2012.
8 Gentile 1989, pp. 94–5.
9 Quoted in Stovall 2021, p. 214.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 7

ss, which casts severe doubt on the centrality of the state to the project of
racial imperialism (something already noted by Franz Neumann in Behemoth,
with its pioneering insights into the Nazi non-state).10 For the figures explored
by Chapoutot, the state was a counter-selective hindrance to a ‘German free-
dom’11 understood as a kind of racial spontaneity capable of creating its own
immanent right or law, and guiding the flexible, inventive, target-based ‘per-
formances’ that officers would carry out in freedom and autonomy of means.
German freedom – an old leitmotiv of German nationalism, harking back to a
‘freedom of the forests’ opposed to dry, abstract, impersonal (‘Judeo-Roman’)
laws – is here the product of a sui generis racial withering-away of the state that
will herald a return to original Germanic models of community beyond indi-
vidualism, beyond the state, beyond modern sovereignty. As Chapoutot writes
in The Law of Blood:

According to German positive law as it had existed before 1933, a ‘per-

son’ was said to be defined by his ‘freedom.’ [The Nazi jurist Karl] Larenz
denounced this ‘freedom’ as utterly ‘abstract and negative,’ because it was
often presented as protecting the subject from the state and from others.
Larenz asserted that freedom was concrete and positive. He argued that
rather than being linked to a status, a notion rooted in a static under-
standing of the law, freedom was a question of position, that of the ‘legal
position of the individual, who is no longer a person, but a concrete
being-member’.12

In a seemingly frivolous if no less disturbing register, ‘Deutsche Leibeszucht, the

Nazi nudist movement’s magazine, argued staunchly that “nudity in nature is

10 Neumann 2009, pp. 467–70.

11 See Chapoutot 2020. On Chapoutot, see also D’Eramo 2021. For Hitler’s rather narrower
rhetorical reference to German freedom as racial-national freedom mobilised against geo-
political competitors, consider this excerpt from a 9 September 1936 Nuremberg speech
on authority and Germany’s colonial future, with its vague anti-capitalism: ‘Perhaps we
shall hear anew in the mouths of Western democrats the complaint that we deprive busi-
ness of freedom for its own arbitrary activity and put it in the straight-jacket of our State
planning. But you, racial comrades, will understand that the question here is not democ-
racy or freedom, but being or not being. Not the freedom or profit of some industrials
is the subject for debate here, but the life and freedom of the German nation. Whoever
believes he cannot exist because of the curtailing of freedom has no right to exist in our
community. Posterity will not ask us whether in this critical and dangerous period we
held high democratic freedom, meaning license, but whether we succeeded in keeping a
great people from economic and political collapse’. Quoted in Huber 1959, pp. 96–7.
12 Chapoutot 2018, p. 127.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
8 Toscano

not in any way immoral…. Liberated from the shackles imposed on them by
civilization and culture,” humans could experience “freedom” and “health” in
all the places nature had to offer’.13
This deliberate retrogression was compatible with an overcoming of bureau-
cratic principles of administration in the direction of a fully managerial con-
ception of the exercise of power (and of violence). As Chapoutot remarked in
a recent interview: ‘the National Socialists at least pretended that those peo-
ple who implemented their ideas were free in their work. Here again we see
the image that is essential to Nazi ideology: “We Germans are free. Over in
the East, in the USSR – that’s Asia – lived subhumans that were ruled by Jews
with a whip. We Germanic people are different, we are free.”’14 When one of
the main Nazi juridical and organisational intellectuals, Reinhard Höhn, came
to play such a prominent role in the business ideology of the postwar period,
the shift was not so drastic: ‘Höhn had the advantage of proposing a manage-
ment theory with the Harzburg model that was adapted to the spirit of the
times. His ideas dominated the German space: “We are free as producers just
as we are free as voters or as consumers. We are free, while those over there –
under communism – are un-free.”’15 In the managerial register that according
to Chapoutot was bodied forth by the Nazi non-state, ‘German freedom’ was
defined by a kind of performance principle, such that while the individual ss
officer was given maximum autonomy and flexibility in executing their mis-
sion, the community of the people was defined as a Leistungsgemeinschaft, a
‘community of achievement’,16 ever ‘working towards the Führer’.17
The very possibility of a fascist freedom – and the unsettling need to reflect
on the abiding potentialities of white, settler-colonial, propertied, masculine
figurations of freedom – is excised by the discourse on ‘totalitarianism’, even in
the latter’s most philosophically and historically rich variant, namely Hannah
Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism – whose recognition of the ‘boo-
merang effect’ of colonialism should have sensitised her to freedom’s racial
over-determinations. For Arendt, it is definitional that ‘[t]otalitarian domina-
tion … aims at abolishing freedom, even at eliminating human spontaneity in
general, and by no means at a restriction of freedom no matter how tyrannical’.18
While it certainly speaks to the phenomenology of fascist terror, of the

13 Chapoutot 2018, p. 34.

14 Chapoutot and Brienne 2021. This also resonates with the Orientalist pronouncement of
the Nazi jurist Helmut Nicolai: ‘Germanic loyalty is the exact antithesis of Eastern obedi-
ence’ (quoted in Chapoutot 2018, p. 183).
15 Chapoutot and Brienne 2021.
16 Chapoutot 2018, p. 167.
17 Kershaw 1993, pp. 117–18.
18 Arendt 1973, p. 404.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 9

concentration and extermination camp, Arendt’s notion that totalitarianism –

in its logical compulsion and obliteration of the space for human movement
and interaction – is the enemy of spontaneity, of that natal capacity to make
a ‘new beginning’ understood as the very source of freedom, is perhaps too
comforting. It exempts us from facing the spontaneities and enjoyments that
fascism offers, to its managers, militants, or minions. If ‘[f]reedom as an inner
capacity of man is identical with the capacity to begin, just as freedom as
a political reality is identical with a space of movement between men’,19 as
Arendt suggests, are we sure that fascism is purely and simply freedom’s other?
(Arendt herself introduces some doubts when she declares, perceptively, that
it is ‘this freedom from the content of their own ideologies which characterizes
the highest rank of the totalitarian hierarchy’).20
But if we wish to tackle the twisted nexus of freedom and fascism we will
probably have to probe farther into the latter’s psychic life. In this regard, it is
perhaps telling that an effort to depict the ‘psychology of Nazism’ as the ver-
itable apotheosis of a centuries-long ‘escape from freedom’, in Erich Fromm’s
eponymous wartime book, also contains a reflection on what appears to be
a very contemporary psycho-social type, the authoritarian rebel. For Fromm,
such rebels

look like persons who, on the basis of their inner strength and integrity,
fight those forces that block their freedom and independence. However,
the authoritarian character’s fight against authority is essentially defi-
ance. It is an attempt to assert himself and to overcome his own feeling of
powerlessness by fighting authority, although the longing for submission
remains present, whether consciously or unconsciously. The authoritarian
character is never a ‘revolutionary’; I should like to call him a ‘rebel.’ There
are many individuals and political movements that are puzzling to the
superficial observer because of what seems to be an inexplicable change
from ‘radicalism’ to extreme authoritarianism. Psychologically, these peo-
ple are the typical ‘rebels.’ … The authoritarian character loves those con-
ditions that limit human freedom, he loves being submitted to fate.21

Is the fascist love of freedom simply a detour on the way to submission – what
around the same time Marcuse called not freedom but ‘acquiescent license’?22

19 Arendt 1973, p. 473.

20 Arendt 1973, p. 387.
21 Fromm 1969, p. 192.
22 Marcuse 1998b, p. 86.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
10 Toscano

This is a question that I think anti-fascist theory still needs to meditate, not
least as a step in the clarification of its own philosophy of liberation.

Fascists against the State

In spite, but in a sense also because of, its paeans to the total state, fascism
could be understood as the simultaneous apogee and dismantling of the mod-
ern figure of the state. Not a Hobbesian Leviathan, but, to borrow the title of
Neumann’s pioneering analysis of the Nazi non-state, a Behemoth – an unsta-
ble, polycratic, ‘racial imperialism’ that accelerates the social contradictions
of monopoly capitalism in ‘a form of society where direct domination over
the population takes place, a domination based upon the negation of the
mediations deriving from the existence of a relatively independent and stable
authority like the state’;23 ‘an irrational, chaotic, lawless anarchic condition of
domination, without a coherent political theory, a non-state that forcibly kept
the economy going for the power accumulation of a leader and the profit of the
large industrial capitalists’.24 It is no accident that Neumann forged his analysis
in ideological battle with his former mentor Carl Schmitt who, in his 1933 Staat,
Bewegung, Volk (State, Movement, People) had sought to give doctrinal form
to this sublation of the independence of the state by the Führerprinzip and its
ontology of race and force – while of course disavowing the capitalist gang-
sterism and racketeering that Neumann so clinically details. Neumann’s close
friend Herbert Marcuse echoed these insights – in the process countering the
thesis shared by their fellow Institute for Social Research members Friedrich
Pollock and Max Horkheimer, according to whom Nazism had spawned a
historically new and potentially stable form of state capitalism. For Marcuse,
Nazism had effectively abolished the distinction between state and society on
which the concept of the former depends, leading to a volatile situation based
on ‘direct and immediate self-government by the prevailing social groups over
the rest of the population’25 – a de facto abolition not just of the modern figure
of the state but of modern law, which Marcuse found both legitimated and
mystified in Schmitt’s argument for a ‘plurality of orders’, which rescinds any
even notional transcendence of the juridical. If one may still speak of totalitar-
ianism here, there is no such thing as a totalitarian state in a situation where
there obtains a threefold sovereignty of capital, party and army and in which

23 Iakovou 2009, p. 435.

24 Harcourt 2020.
25 Marcuse 1998b, p. 70.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 11

Hitler operates as a locus of compromise – the state thus becomes merely ‘the
government of hypostasised economic, social and political groups’. Not a total-
itarian state but a machine-state, whose performance is measured by its effi-
ciency. The state ‘seems to move by its own necessity and is still flexible and
obedient to the slightest change in the set-up of the ruling groups. All human
relations are absorbed by the objective wheelwork of control and expansion’.26
Rather than echoing the rather undialectical juxtaposition between market
society and totalitarianism that some members of the Frankfurt School in
exile were articulating at the time,27 Marcuse pointed to the complex genetic
and structural relation between fascism and liberal capitalism – something
he had already begun to sketch out in the 1934 essay on ‘The Struggle Against
Liberalism in the Totalitarian View of the State’, where he also noted Ludwig
von Mises’s notorious reference in his 1927 Liberalism to fascism as a saviour
of Western civilisation, albeit an ‘emergency makeshift’ to be supplanted by a
fortified liberal order.28 As Marcuse wrote in 1942:

The emergence of the Third Reich is the emergence of the most efficient
and ruthless competitor. The National Socialist state is not the reversal but
the consummation of competitive individualism. The regime releases all
those forces of brutal self-interest which the democratic countries have
tried to curb and combine with the interest of freedom. Like any other
form of individualist society, National Socialism operates on the basis of
private ownership in the means of production. Accordingly, it is made up
by two polar strata, the small number of those who control the produc-
tive process and the bulk of the population which, directly or indirectly,
is dependent upon the former. Under National Socialism it is the status
of the individual in this latter stratum that has most drastically changed.
Here, too, however, the changes bring to fruition rather than contradict
certain tendencies of individualist society.29

26 Marcuse 1998b, p. 78.

27 See especially the 1941 ‘Research Project on Anti-Semitism’, drafted by Adorno, and pub-
lished in Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, now in Adorno 1994, pp. 181–217.
28 Marcuse 2009, p. 6. ‘It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at
the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their interven-
tion has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby
won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation
for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism
was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error’ (Mises
2002, p. 51).
29 Marcuse 1998b, p. 80.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
12 Toscano

So much for the fascist non-state as the volatile arena for political and eco-
nomic power-competitions, driven and legitimated by race imperialism. What
about the notion that neoliberalism can be adequately grasped as state phobia,
as an economic war machine set on the dismantling of state capacities? This
useful fable has been amply dispelled by all serious recent research on the real
intellectual and political history of neoliberalism. In their powerful polemical
study, Le choix de la guerre civile (The Choice of Civil War), Pierre Dardot and
his co-authors encapsulate this position with trenchant clarity: as their history
chronicles, from Santiago de Chile to Maastricht, Brasilia to Washington, D.C.,
‘there is no neoliberalism other than an authoritarian one’,30 since at its core
lies the ‘sovereignty of private right guaranteed by a strong power’31 – a strong
state for a free market. This constitutively implies ‘a political project of the neu-
tralisation of socialism in all its forms and, beyond this, of all the forms of a
demand for equality, a project borne by theorists and essayists who are also,
from the start, political entrepreneurs’.32 To this end, ‘the neoliberal social con-
struction restructures State/society relations, not with the aim of weakening
the state, but rather with that of reinforcing state institutions which create and
fortify the disciplinary power of markets’.33
But if we wish to attend to the fascist potentials in neoliberalism, I think it
particularly imperative to attend to those analyses of the latter that foreground
the shaping function of race and racism in the development and implantation
of neoliberal policies and ideology. To be more precise, I think we can say that
attending to neoliberalism’s racial regimes provides incomparable evidence
for the thesis that it enacts a differential reinforcement of the state which in
its turn compounds and refunctions those ‘fatal couplings of power and differ-
ence’ that, according to Stuart Hall, define the making, unmaking and remak-
ing of race.34 In this regard, I think that much is to be gained by exploring a
conceptual and analytical formula advanced by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, in the
ambit of her ongoing political and geographical investigation of the nexus of
state capacities, class warfare and racialisation in the ‘prison–industrial com-
plex’. I am referring to a notion already incorporated into my title, namely the
anti-state state.35
In a 2008 essay co-authored with Craig Gilmore, ‘Restating the Obvious’, we
are provided with some key elements for a materialist analysis of the place of

30 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, p. 292.

31 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, p. 293.
32 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, p. 21.
33 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, p. 49.
34 Gilmore 2002. Reprinted in Gilmore 2022.
35 For further reflections on the anti-state state, see the editors’ introduction to Gilmore
2022, which also includes several other essays mobilising different facets of this concept.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 13

the state in the ‘reactionary political cycle’36 in which we find ourselves. I’d like
briefly to itemise three of them here, in view of suggesting their usefulness as
tools with which to think the present.
First, an analytical distinction between state and government. A state is here
defined as ‘a territorially bounded set of relatively specialized institutions that
develop and change over time in the gaps and fissures of social conflict, com-
promise, and cooperation’, while governments are ‘the animating forces – pol-
icies plus personnel – that put state capacities into motion and orchestrate or
coerce people in their jurisdictions to conduct their lives according to centrally
made and enforced rules’.37 The state is fundamentally understood in terms of
capacities, that is materially enacted and enforceable powers – to distribute
or hierarchise, develop or abandon, care or criminalise, etc. By way of a corol-
lary, we can note that one of the chief aims of neoliberalism (especially in its
overweening obsession with the constitutionalisation of a market order) is to
‘bake in’ its imperatives into these state capacities themselves, so that even a
nominally socialist or social-democratic government would still be compelled
to carry out neoliberal policies.
Second, in polities structured by the long legacies and mutable modes of
racial capitalism, the state is also a ‘racial state’, one that may well operate
administratively and juridically through a manifest commitment to ‘colour-
blindness’. As the Gilmores write, in a passage that ably encapsulates the vir-
tues of a historical-materialist geographical sensibility when it comes to the
nexus of politics and race:

The state’s management of racial categories is analogous to the manage-

ment of highways or ports or telecommunication: racist ideological and
material practices are infrastructure that needs to be updated, upgraded,
and modernized periodically: this is what is meant by racialization. And
the state itself, not just interests or forces external to the state, is built
and enhanced through these practices. Sometimes these practices result
in ‘protecting’ certain racial groups, and other times they result in sacri-
ficing them.38

Third, while the state has of course been an integral material and symbolic
partner across the history of capitalism, the present has come to be defined by
a singular rhetoric – bound to the trajectory of neoliberalism but also exceed-
ing it – namely that of the anti-state state, a state that promises its own demise,

36 De Nicola 2017.
37 Gilmore and Gilmore 2008, p. 143.
38 Gilmore and Gilmore 2008, pp. 144–5.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
14 Toscano

and which employs that promise to increase, intensify and differentiate its
capacities. The combative version – think Reagan’s dictum: ‘The nine most
terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and
I’m here to help’ – is doubled by fatalistic academic apologia – recall the tired
mantras of ‘globalisation’ as the eclipse of the state. Contrary to a vision of mass
incarceration as the outcome of a drive to privatise, the extraordinary, racial-
ised growth in prisons is internal to and emblematic of transmutations in the
state, in the composition of its agents and capacities, which a one-dimensional
understanding of neoliberalism – a ‘low-flying economism’ in Hall’s formula –
often obscures. As the Gilmores note:

Because prisons and prisoners are part of the structure of the state, they
enable governments to establish state legitimacy through a claim to pro-
vide social ‘protection’ combined with their monopoly on the delegation
of violence. The state establishes legitimacy precisely because it violently
dominates certain people and thereby defines them (and makes them
visible to others) as the sort of people who should be pushed around. In
modelling behaviour for the polity, the anti-state state naturalizes violent
domination.39

It is noteworthy that in articulating the entanglement of the prison–industrial

complex with the anti-state state as ‘a state that grows on the promise of
shrinking’, the Gilmores link back to Negri’s pioneering analyses of the crisis
state, and in particular to his incisive contention that: ‘the counter-revolution
of the capitalist entrepreneur today can only operate strictly within the con-
text of an increase in the coercive powers of the state. The “new Right” ideology
of laissez-faire implies as its corollary the extension of new techniques of coer-
cive and state intervention in society at large’.40
But what Negri’s vantage point – that of the mass mobilisations and creep-
ing civil war of the Italian 1970s – may not have fully equipped him to grasp,
and what we need to dwell on to discern the fascist potentials in the anti-state
state, are the kinds of subjective investments in the naturalisations of violent
domination that go together with a certain promotion of a possessive and
racialised conception of freedom. Here we need to reflect on the fact not just
that neoliberalism operates through a racial state, or that, as commentators
have begun to recognise and detail, it is shaped by a racist and civilisational
imaginary that over-determines who is capable of market freedoms – we also

39 Gilmore and Gilmore 2008, pp. 150–1.

40 Negri 1988, p. 183.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 15

need to attend to the fact that the anti-state state could become an object of
popular attachment or better, populist investment, only through the media-
tion of race.41
In his germinal analyses of Thatcherism, Stuart Hall demonstrated – in ways
still profoundly pertinent to our moment – how populist authoritarianism or
authoritarian populism gestated in the 1960 and 1970s around a concatenation
of racialised moral panics. This process played a key mediating, consolidating,
and reproducing function for the rise of neoliberalism to political pre-eminence.
Racism was in this sense a kind of internal supplement to neoliberalism. In
Hall’s Gramscian terminology, it made possible (under the specific conditions
of a crisis-wracked England) ‘neutralising the contradiction between the peo-
ple and the state/power bloc and winning popular interpellations so decisively
for the Right’.42 Authoritarian populism could accordingly be understood as
‘the project, central to the politics of Thatcherism to ground neoliberal politics
directly in an appeal to “the people”; to root them in the essentialist categories
of commonsense experience and practical moralism – and this to construct,
not simply awaken, classes, groups and interests into a particular definition of
“the people”’.43 This construction was and remains racialised – by successive
figurations of the non- or un-people (from young Black proletarians figured
as ‘muggers’ to Muslims on a path to ‘radicalisation’ to, most recently, Eastern
European workers poaching ‘British’ jobs). In its English variant, neoliberalism
in power was first articulated as a national-populism (and, in the Falklands
venture, a social imperialism), and as such it largely remains. Whence the crit-
ical function of vanishing mediators such as Enoch Powell, whose more overt
and combative racist rhetoric seeded a more capacious successor44 (we could
also here think of the relation between Goldwater and Nixon in the US context,
or the continued force and function of the Front National/Rassemblement
National in the rightward drift of French politics).
For Hall, the ideological crusade of the mid-1970s – Negri’s counter-revolution
of the capitalist entrepreneur – required penetration into ‘some of the core and
root social ideas in the population’,45 and the staging of a kind of popular ‘ven-
triloquism’ that could draw on the ‘real material sources of popular discontent’
and secure the people to the practices of the dominant bloc, drawing on the
‘massively conservative force’ of ‘traditional and uncorrected common sense’.

41 See Kundnani 2021, Shilliam 2021 and Slobodian 2019.

42 Hall 1988, p. 56.
43 Hall 1988, p. 71.
44 See Shilliam 2021, with its persuasive contention, following Hall, that ‘through Powell,
race was the modality by which neoliberal subjectivity was politically induced’ (p. 246).
45 Hall 1988, p. 190.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
16 Toscano

In this respect, by contrast with its social-democratic (Labour) antecedent,

this authoritarian populist neoliberalism effected a kind of passive revolution
from below, grounded in ‘unceasing efforts to construct the movement towards
a more authoritarian regime from a massive populist base’.46 In the end, neo-
liberalism must be populist because it cannot be popular-democratic.
Hall, of course, was foregrounding the specificity of Thatcherism by way of
critical contrast with a facile Leftist stance that flattened all authoritarianism
onto a familiar fascist spectre – a lesson that remains valid today. And yet I
don’t think it’s irrelevant to ask in what way a neoliberalism that entered power
as a nationalist or indeed imperialist populism, instrumentalising racialised
moral panics and racialised (and gendered) class struggles, also seeded the
present conditions for the contemporary resurgence of a far Right which, in
its own distinctive ways, to quote Marcuse again, is based on ‘not the reversal
but the consummation of competitive individualism’.47 As evidenced in US,
UK, Brazilian, German and other scenarios, there are no fixed and tidy doc-
trinal barriers between combative neoliberalisms and the multiple variants
of contemporary reaction, including neo- or post-fascist ones. It is useful to
recall here Dardot et al.’s contention that neoliberalism ‘cannot be positively
defined by a specific political regime’.48 ‘Here’, they write, ‘lies the heart of the
authoritarian dimension of neoliberal politics: the structure of the state may
vary, the political personnel and its behaviour too, but what is essential is
that those in government be sufficiently strong to impose the constitutional-
isation of private right and thus restrict the field of what can be deliberated
upon’.49 Whether a revanchist right-wing populism may wittingly or otherwise
threaten that constitutionalisation is not clear – even today’s protectionist ges-
tures mostly respect the boundary conditions of neoliberalism and its class
imperatives. Perhaps rather than these doctrinal issues – often blurred by the
distinctive ideological flexibility and opportunism of the Right – we should
attend to the social and political trajectories that bind the possibilities of fas-
cist resurgence to neoliberalism’s morbid symptoms.
Here it is useful to recall Grégoire Chamayou’s recent analysis of the birth
of ‘authoritarian liberalism’ in the fateful year of 1932, and its unsettling reso-
nances with the present, namely in what he calls ‘the austerian-authoritarian
mechanism [engrenage]: the socially disastrous effects of [the government’s]
rejected economic programme sapped the threadbare political basis on which

46 Hall 1988, p. 146.

47 Marcuse 1998b, p. 80.
48 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, p. 295.
49 Dardot, Guéguen, Laval and Sauvêtre 2021, pp. 296–7.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 17

it could still rely, so that it soon could not continue in the same direction, save
by going up a notch in its authoritarianism in order to impose measures of the
same kind that produced the same genre of effects, and so on’.50 Not only does
the anti-state state manifest itself as ‘a series of punitive responses to the chaos
it has facilitated’,51 but, as Ugo Palheta has compellingly shown for the French
case, the protracted crises of hegemony (and social reproduction) effected by
neoliberal policies have considerably and determinately contributed to the
flourishing of fascist potentials.52 The 2007–8 crisis was of especial moment
in this respect, in France and elsewhere, revealing that neoliberalism is unable
to generate socially acceptable solutions, opening up a seemingly endless hori-
zon of austerity, stagnation, declining living standards, increasing inequality,
and a repressive hardening of the state against any challenge or alternative.
The recombinations of neoliberalism themselves manifest the hardening of
authoritarian tendencies, in a context of domination without hegemony in
which the ruling classes undergo a process of radicalisation, and where their
continued supremacy is dependent on a hollowing-out of democratic rights
and resources.
Here it is difficult not to recall Karl Polanyi’s dictum that ‘in order to com-
prehend German fascism, we must revert to Ricardian England’, and his related
observation according to which fascism was ‘merely the outcome of the mutual
incompatibility of Democracy and Capitalism in our time’, ‘that revolutionary
solution which keeps Capitalism untouched’.53 Behind this lay the thesis of a
longue durée of fascist potentials, grounded in the ‘recrudescence of the old
hostility of capitalism to popular government’.54 The incompatibility between
capitalism and a substantive, socio-economic notion of democracy, such as
Polanyi’s, is something that the anti-state state, as the rhetoric and practice of
neoliberalism, does not just share with the new faces of reaction – it creates
the material and ideological conditions for efforts to win popular interpella-
tions for the far Right, in the electoral arena and beyond. The modality through
which fascist potentials or trajectories emerge out of neoliberalism’s ‘disruptive
strains’55 involves the turbocharging of several inherent traits of the neoliberal
order – spoliation of nature for the sake of profit, attacks on the distribution
of the social wage, glorification of possessive individualism, etc. – happening

50 Chamayou 2020, p. 61.

51 Gilmore and Gilmore 2008, p. 152.
52 Palheta 2018 and Toscano 2021.
53 Polanyi 1934, p. 128.
54 Polanyi n.d.
55 Dale and Desian 2019, p. 151. Polanyi employed the term in his 1944 The Great
Transformation.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
18 Toscano

under the cover of a challenge to some of its supposedly defining dimensions.

The anti-statism of the contemporary Right marries culture-war themes and
corporate diktats, especially those of fossil capital56 – think Steve Bannon’s call
for the ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’.57 And it explicitly combines
this with a revanchist ethno-nationalism passionately attached to the symbol-
ism and reality of the repressive state – think of the ‘thin blue line’ American
flag, ‘blue lives matter’ slogans, and the like. What I’ve elsewhere called late fas-
cism58 is thus both a reaction against certain facets of the neoliberal moment
(those which come to be coded and sometimes racialised as globalist) and a
kind of passionate over-identification with the coercive dimensions of the
anti-state state – as well as an explicit assumption and affirmation of neolib-
eralism’s historical reliance on civilisational narratives of white superiority, as
well as of its contradictory modernisation of the ‘infrastructure’ of the racial
state. This ‘late’ fascism, coming after the hollow prophecy of a neoliberal neu-
tralisation of the political, is a kind of second-order or reflexive affirmation
of neoliberalism’s authoritarian facet, which is now subjectively sustained by
the blurring of the borders between liberal conceptions of freedom and indi-
vidualism (as market freedom, freedom to own, freedom from interference
with individual sovereignty) and what we could term fascist visions of free-
dom (freedom to dominate, to rule) – both drawn to aggressive imaginaries of
inevitable competition and the repulsion for solidarity, care, and vulnerability.
Those whose horizon remains in one way or another that of the root-and-
branch transformation of the state understood as a condensation and vehi-
cle of class power and social violence – a horizon that was once termed, in
communist circles, that of the non-state state – will thus have to continue to
contend with the material and ideological dynamics that entangle and embed
fascist potentials within the anti-state state, potentials that may organise
themselves around new forms of that appropriative entrepreneurial violence
which defined the Nazi Behemoth as a non-state. In so doing, they will also
have to take up again ‘the crucial transformation of the concept of freedom
as a static, given principle into the concept of liberation, the dynamic, active
struggle for freedom.’59

56 Malm and The Zetkin Collective 2021.

57 Lewis 2019.
58 Toscano 2017.
59 Davis 1971, p. 4.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 19

References

Adorno, Theodor W. 1994, The Stars Down to Earth: And Other Essays on the Irrational in
Culture, edited by Stephen Crook, London: Routledge.
Arendt, Hannah 1973 [1951], The Origins of Totalitarianism, New Edition, New York:
Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Chamayou, Grégoire 2020, ‘1932, la naissance du libéralisme autoritaire’, in Carl Schmitt
and Hermann Heller, Du libéralisme autoritaire, edited by Grégoire Chamayou,
Paris: Les Éditions La Découverte/Zones.
Chapoutot, Johann 2018, The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi, translated
by Miranda Richmond Mouillot, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Chapoutot, Johann 2020, Libres d’obéir. Le management, du nazisme à aujourd’hui,
Paris, Éditions Gallimard.
Chapoutot, Johann and Katharina Brienne 2021, ‘How the Nazis Pioneered Management
Theory’ (interview), Berliner Zeitung, 16 June, available at: <https://www.berliner
-zeitung.de/en/how-the-nazis-pioneered-modern-management-theory-li.165928>.
Dale, Gareth and Mathieu Desian 2019, ‘Fascism’, in Karl Polanyi’s Political and Economic
Thought: A Critical Guide, edited by Gareth Dale, Christopher Holmes and Maria
Markantonatou, pp. 151–70, Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishers.
Dardot, Pierre, Haud Guéguen, Christian Laval and Pierre Sauvêtre 2021, Le choix de la
guerre civile. Une autre histoire du néolibéralisme, Montréal: Lux Éditeur.
Davis, Angela Y. 1971, Lectures on Liberation, New York: NY Committee to Free Angela
Davis.
De Nicola, Alberto 2017, ‘L’Italia nel ciclo politico reazionario’, 14 February, available at:
<https://www.dinamopress.it/news/litalia-nel-ciclo-politico-reazionario/>.
D’Eramo, Marco 2021, ‘Rule by Target’, Sidecar, 15 October, available at: <https://newleft
review.org/sidecar/posts/rule-by-target>.
Fromm, Erich 1969 [1941], Escape from Freedom, New York: Avon Books.
Gentile, Giovanni 1989, La riforma della scuola in Italia, Florence: Le Lettere.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson 2002, ‘Fatal Couplings of Power and Difference: Notes on Racism
and Geography’, The Professional Geographer, 54, 1: 15–24.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson 2022, Abolition Geography: Essays Towards Liberation, edited by
Brenna Bhandar and Alberto Toscano, London: Verso.
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson and Craig Gilmore 2008, ‘Restating the Obvious’, in Indefensible
Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State, edited by Michael Sorkin,
London: Routledge.
Hall, Stuart 1988, The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left,
London: Verso.
Harcourt, Bernard E. 2020, ‘Rethinking Capitalism with Franz Neumann, Friedrich
Pollock, and the Frankfurt School’, Abolition Democracy, 17 December, available at:

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
20 Toscano

<http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/abolition1313/bernard-e-harcourt-rethinking-capi
talism-with-friedrich-pollock-franz-neumann-and-the-frankfurt-school/>.
Huber, Charles Willard 1959, An Examination of Certain Elements of Rhetorical Style in
Nine Selected Speeches of Adolf Hitler, M.A. Dissertation, Montana State University,
available at: <https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3297&
context=etd>.
Iakovou, Vicky 2009, ‘Totalitarianism as a Non-State: On Hannah Arendt’s Debt to
Franz Neumann’, European Journal of Political Theory, 8, 4: 429–47.
Kershaw, Ian 1993, ‘“Working Towards the Führer.” Reflections on the Nature of the
Hitler Dictatorship’, Contemporary European History, 2, 2: 103–18.
Kundnani, Arun 2021, ‘The Racial Constitution of Neoliberalism’, Race & Class, 63, 1:
51–69.
Lewis, David E. 2019, ‘Deconstructing the Administrative State’, The Journal of Politics,
81, 3: 767–89.
Malm, Andreas and The Zetkin Collective 2021, White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of
Fossil Fascism, London: Verso.
Marcuse, Herbert 1998a [1941], ‘Some Social Implications of Modern Technology’, in
Technology, War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 1, edited
by Douglas Kellner, pp. 41–65, London: Routledge.
Marcuse, Herbert 1998b [1942], ‘State and Individual under National Socialism’, in
Technology, War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 1, edited
by Douglas Kellner, pp. 69–92, London: Routledge.
Marcuse, Herbert 2009 [1968], Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, London:
MayFlyBooks.
Mises, Ludwig von 2002 [1927], Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition, San Francisco, CA:
Cobden Press.
Negri, Antonio 1988, Revolution Retrieved: Writings on Marx, Keynes, Capitalist Crisis,
and New Social Subjects (1967–83), London: Red Notes.
Neumann, Franz L. 2009 [1944], Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National
Socialism, 1933–1944, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Palheta, Ugo 2018, La possibilité du fascisme. France, la trajectoire du désastre, Paris: Les
Éditions La Découverte.
Polanyi, Karl 1934, ‘Fascism and Marxian Terminology’, New Britain, 3, 57: 128–9.
Polanyi, Karl n.d., ‘The Fascist Virus’ [draft manuscript from the 1930s], available at:
<http://kpolanyi.scoolaid.net:8080/xmlui/handle/10694/658>.
Shilliam, Robbie 2021, ‘Enoch Powell: Britain’s First Neoliberal Politician’, New Political
Economy, 26, 2: 239–49.
Slobodian, Quinn 2019, ‘Anti-’68ers and the Racist–Libertarian Alliance: How a Schism
among Austrian School Neoliberals Helped Spawn the Alt Right’, Cultural Politics,
15, 3: 372–86.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM
via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fascists, Freedom, and the Anti-State State 21

Stovall, Tyler 2021, White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Toscano, Alberto 2017, ‘Notes on Late Fascism’, Historical Materialism, 2 April, available
at: <https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/blog/notes-late-fascism>.
Toscano, Alberto 2021, ‘Trajectories of Fascism. A Review of La possibilité du fascisme.
France, la trajectoire du désastre by Ugo Palheta’, Historical Materialism, available at:
<https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/book-review/trajectories-fascism>.
Vodovar, Christine 2012, ‘Einaudi e l’avvento del regime fascista’, in Luigi Einaudi.
Guida alla lettura. Antologia degli scritti, available at: <http://www.luigieinaudi.it/
percorsi-di-lettura/lib/einaudi-e-lavvento-del-regime-fascista.html>.

Historical Materialism 29.4 (2021) 3–21 Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2023 11:30:21PM

via Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam