The Rise of Fascism in Brazil

• Author: Armando Boito
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221140419
• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Date: 01 January 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221140419

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 248, Vol. 50 No. 1, January 2023, 14–31

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X221140419

© 2022 Latin American Perspectives

14

The Rise of Fascism in Brazil

by

Armando Boito

Translated by

Heather Hayes

Analysis of Brazil’s Bolsonaro administration, its most active social support base, and

the political crisis that gave rise to it shows that, operating with a concept of fascism

embedded in the Marxist tradition, it can be characterized as (neo)fascist. The political

crisis of 2015–2018 that led to it involved a crisis of hegemony of the bloc in power, the

crisis of party representation of the dominant classes, political activism by the state

bureaucracy, the political defensiveness of the workers’ and lower-class movement, and the

formation of a reactionary middle-class movement. The option for fascism was not without

risks, as is reflected today by the demonstrations of dissatisfaction with its administration.

Uma análise do governo Bolsonaro no Brasil, a sua base social a mais ativa e a crise

política que lhe deve origem, mostra que, baseado num conceito de fascismo enquadrado

na tradição marxista, este governo pode ser denominado como (neo)fascista. O governo

(neo)fascista de Bolsonaro era decorrente de uma crise política nos anos 2015-2018 que

implicou uma crise de hegemonia no bloco de poder, uma crise de representação partidária

das classes dominantes, um ativismo político na burocrâcia estatal, uma atitude defensiva

política do movimento dos trabalhadores e classes pobres e a formação de um movimento

reacionário da classe média. A opçao fascista não é isento de riscos vis-à-vis a burguesia

como se reflete hoje nas manifestações de insatisfação com a administração burguesa.

Keywords: Brazilian politics, Bolsonaro government, Neofascism, Political crisis

The political crisis in Brazil that began with the movement to impeach Dilma

Rousseff created conditions that typically prepare the ground for a fascist gov-

ernment, and this is what ended up happening. The first question that this

statement raises is why Bolsonarism can be characterized as a version of fas-

cism. The second is whether there is any relationship between the political

crisis that began in 2014 and the emergence of Bolsonaro as a viable candidate

and his eventual electoral victory. Marxist political theory provides several

theories that can aid us in answering these questions. This is controversial sub-

ject matter. Why use the concept of fascism to characterize a political phenom-

enon that is taking place a century after Mussolini's rise to power? Is it possible

to conceive of a classification of political crises and then use it to identify a

specific type of crisis that would favor the rise to power of fascist movements?

Armando Boito is a professor of political science at the Universidade de Campinas and editor of the

journal Crítica Marxista and a participating editor of Latin American Perspectives. His most recent book

is Reform and Political Crisis in Brazil (2021). Heather Hayes is a translator living in Quito, Ecuador.

1140419LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X221140419Latin American PerspectivesBoito/The Rise of Fascism in Brazil

research-article2022

Boito/THE RISE OF FASCISM IN BRAZIL 15

ORIGINAL FASCISM AND NEOFASCISM

THE THEORETICAL CONCEPT OF FASCISM

The ideas proposed by writers such as Palmiro Togliatti (2010 [1970]), Daniel

Guérin (1965 [1936]), and Nicos Poulantzas (1970) support the theoretical legit-

imacy of a general concept of fascism—one that transcends the particularities

of the original Italian or German fascism. Much of the literature, both Marxist

and non-Marxist, rejects this idea, identifying fascism as the movement led by

Mussolini and Hitler and the dictatorships that were put in place in Italy and

in Germany in the interwar period. Several writers even refuse to use the same

concept when talking about the movements and dictatorships in Italy and in

Germany. They treat this phenomenon very differently from others when it

comes to the way in which political power is organized. While they discuss the

concepts of democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, republic, and others in terms

of their general characteristics, they do not accept that Jair Bolsonaro closely

resembles Benito Mussolini.1

Meanwhile, Togliatti (2010: 8) defines fascism as a reactionary political

regime based on mass mobilization, and Poulantzas (1970: 12) defines it as one

of the political regimes that may be reflected in a capitalist state of exception,

including options such as military dictatorship and Bonapartism. As we will

see, Togliatti's and Poulantzas's definitions can be combined. They are at once

theoretical and synthetic as opposed to the empiricist and descriptive defini-

tions proposed by others. In fact, in the study of fascism it is common for his-

torians and intellectuals aiming at a general characterization of the phenomenon

to enumerate the various attributes that characterize it. Umberto Eco (2017)

lists 14 attributes, including the cult of tradition, rejection of modernity, irratio-

nalism, action for action's sake, fear of difference, appeal to the middle sectors,

nationalism, and elitism. In his book Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton

(2004) defines fascism as political behavior marked by a set of some 20 attri-

butes. In such definitions the theoretical criteria for selecting one or another

attribute are not entirely clear. There is no clear explanation why there are 5, 10,

or 20 attributes attached to the concept, and no mention is made of which of

them are central and which secondary. In the end, the concept thus obtained is

not especially useful as an analytical tool. Each historical phenomenon consid-

ered ends up presenting only some of the concept’s attributes.

In both Togliatti's and Poulantzas's definitions, as opposed to the empiricist

and descriptive definitions mentioned above, the Marxist theory of the state as

the organizing force behind class domination, democracy, and dictatorship is

consciously mobilized to characterize fascism, along with the empirical infor-

mation available on political phenomena that, by some indicators provided by

the aforementioned theory, can at least initially be grouped under a single con-

cept. The resulting theoretical and synthetic definition highlights the essential

aspects of the phenomenon and therefore is a much more dependable and

enlightening guide for analysis than a detailed characterization of the phenom-

enon. The same thing happens when it comes to definitions of all the concepts

of historical materialism: “the state” is the institution that organizes class dom-

ination, “capital” is the most valued, a “social class” is a group whose members