has promoted openly racist beliefs, and perhaps in Hungary, where the far-right Jobbik party<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/world/europe/12hungary.html>
backs a brand of ethnic nationalism suffused with anti-Semitism.
But the soaring fortunes of groups like the Danish People’s Party, which some popularity polls now rank ahead of the Social Democrats, point to a fundamental political shift toward nativist forces fed by a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.
[WS:] The main difference between historical fascism (Italy and Germany) and these proto-fascist movements is the heavy presence of the disgruntled military elements (e.g. Freikorps in Germany) that provided not only numbers but also organizational capacity. The right wing populist movements in Europe or the US lack that element, for the most part. So the chances are that even if they do manage to capture the government - the effect will be very different from that in Nazi Germany or Italy. In Italy and Nazi Germany the disgruntled military merely used populist movements to grab state power, establish military dictatorship, and then then exterminate the populist movements that brought the military to power (e.g. the Night of Long Knives). This is unlikely to happen today in the EU or the US. A more likely outcome is a nationalist-populist welfarism - a lot of nationalist rhetoric, immigrant and elite bashing, maybe a mini-Kristallnacht here and there, but nothing more than that.. Nasty stuff, to be sure, but nothing like an organized campaign to dismantle democratic governance, start a war and exterminate a population.
I could be wrong, of course, but historically the presence of the military was a good predictor of organized fascist violence (cf. Latin America), so it is reasonable to assume that the absence of that element will likely make a difference.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."