Contemporary Dangers - Fascism as a Recurring Pattern
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume I, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
The preceding sections have shown: fascism is no historical relic, but a structural pattern—the systematic negation of the basic operations of reasonable thought and legitimate action. This pattern can recur in various forms and from various directions. The question is not whether “fascism” could return, but: where today are these basic operations being negated, and with what justifications?
The Universal Warning Signs
Fascist tendencies today do not show themselves in swastikas and Führer cults. They show themselves in the negation of the basic operations—and potentially from all sides:
Refusal of self-application: “We are above criticism because our cause is too important.” Whoever does not apply their own standards to themselves, whoever treats criticism as betrayal, whoever immunizes themselves—reproduces fascist structure, regardless of their political orientation.
Refusal of differentiation: “Whoever is not for us is against us.” Whoever reduces complex realities to friend-enemy schemas, whoever allows no mediation of various perspectives, whoever knows only victory or defeat—thinks fascistically, even if calling themselves antifascist.
Refusal of mediation: “The opponent must be annihilated.” Whoever wants not to sublate conflicts but only to decide them, whoever knows no reconciliation, whoever suppresses contradictions instead of integrating them—practices fascist methods.
Refusal of recognition: “The others are not capable of discourse / deserve no rights.” Whoever denies opponents subjectivity, whoever dehumanizes them instead of argumentatively refuting them—has already left the ground of civilization.
The Paradox of Antifascism
There is a bon mot attributed to Ignazio Silone: “When fascism returns, it will not say: ‘I am fascism.’ It will say: ‘I am antifascism.’”
This quote is often misused today to trivialize genuine fascism, but it contains a true core when read structurally rather than polemically.
The point then is not that antifascism is per se problematic. The point is: whoever acts in the name of the good is especially at risk of betraying their own standards. The good seemingly immunizes against critique. Historical fascism did not come as an open confession of evil, but in the name of good concerns: national renewal, social justice, protection of the family, salvation from Bolshevism.
The present danger is structurally the same: legitimate concerns—climate protection, security, justice, health—could be pursued with methods that negate the basic operations. They would then not be recognized as fascist, because they occur in the name of the good.
Self-Application as Touchstone
The decisive question is not: “Are you left or right?” The decisive question is:
- Do you apply your standards to yourself?
- Do you recognize opponents as rational beings who can be persuaded argumentatively?
- Do you seek integration or annihilation?
- Can you present the opponent’s position in its strongest form?
These criteria apply universally—regardless of who violates them, from which direction, with what justification. They apply to the right, the left, the center. They apply to governments and oppositions. They apply to ourselves.
A detailed analysis of contemporary dangers—differentiated by political orientation, with concrete warning signs and practical orientation—can be found in Appendix A to this chapter.[1]
Appendix A: “Contemporary Dangers - Warning Signs Beyond Camps” systematically develops the considerations sketched here and applies them to tendencies from the right, from the center, from the left, and from “antifascism” itself. ↩︎