Millions of people have devoted their lives to fascism; they fought ferociously for it, even against long odds, and many died rather than surrender. This is a fact which serious socialists cannot ignore.
What is the appeal of fascism? It certainly can’t be the clarity and consistency of its ideology, because fascism varies so much. It is generally authoritarian and includes a “mystique of violence,” and it is often racist, but not consistently: Nazi Nordicism and Italian Fascist Mediterranean-ism were conflicting ideologies, and the Falangists hardly had any consistent racist ideology at all. Franco believed, or wanted to believe, that Spaniards were descended from Visigoths, but he seems to have been alone in that opinion. Even “limpieza de sangre,” so important in Spanish social history, was forgotten.
Fascism isn’t even always anti-Semitic or expansionist, as Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain respectively prove. (Some Falangists wanted to annex Portugal, but nothing came of it.)
Overall, fascism eludes our conceptual grasp. This may indicate that it is based on a set of experiences in which consistency and precise thought are not useful. With Germany, defeat in World War I explains part of Nazism, but beyond collective trauma and a sense of wrong, what shapes can we distinguish in this darkness?
Let’s ask a taboo question: if there were a grain of truth to racism, what would it be? It would be that human evolution has proceeded partly through competition between ethnic groups. Tribes and clans—even nations—often have advantages over each other. Certainly when the Yamnaya moved into Central and Northern Europe, their horses and bronze weapons allowed them to dominate the Neolithic farmers they encountered. But the advantages may not always be so concrete—for example, the failure of the Gauls to create trans-tribal political institutions probably doomed them in their conflict with Rome. And—I pray I may not be misunderstood—there are biological advantages as well. Ethnic groups have varied in their resistance to certain diseases. Smallpox—a killer on every continent—had a particularly devastating effect on the indigenous people of America, because they had no resistance to it.
And, especially when the founding group was small, there may be broader biological advantages as well. For example, many tribes have attempted to socialize and even breed better warriors; the best-documented case is that of the Spartans, but the goal was nearly universal—tribes with good warriors tended to survive. It should be no surprise if some groups succeeded at that better than others, at least temporarily. Ibn Fadlan was not the only observer who noticed the strength and stature of the Vikings, and there are plenty of other examples of ancient warriors notable for their strength, their endurance, and their courage. Much of this was certainly the result of socialization and physical training, but there would inevitably have been selective pressure on small groups that had to fight in order to survive. Even in the 18th century, English officers commented on the physical strength of the Scottish Highlanders with whom they contended.
Lactase persistence, which allows adults to digest fresh milk, probably began in a small area in Europe, but it was so useful that it swept through most of Northern and Central Europe. Was this process accompanied by population replacement? Possibly, although we know that advantageous genes can sweep through neighboring groups through normal inter-breeding without much population displacement. But if tribes are on the move already, something like lactase persistence can make a big difference.
Racist ideology would say these advantages are permanent, inherent, but of course no advantage is permanent. Visitors to Scandinavia today might notice that the people are taller than average, but there would be few of the “perfect specimens” that Ibn Fadlan described.
But even a temporary advantage can have a long-lasting result. We don’t have to look far to find examples. The expansion of the Y-chromosome haplogroups R1b and R1a is clearly correlated with the spread of Indo-European languages, and in some places this meant a complete upheaval in the gene pool:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43115485
and
This replacement process may well have involved war—or not. All we know for sure is that the newcomers in both Spain and Britain out-competed the Neolithic farmers over a period of several centuries.
The emigrants in both Britain and Spain were largely descended from the Yamnaya, and the latter’s earlier migration from the steppes into Europe caused significant changes in male lineages almost everywhere, but particularly in Northern and Central Europe. The Yamnaya almost certainly brought with them Indo-European languages. In Southern Europe the population was better able to resist Yamnaya genetic encroachment, but even there the Yamnaya appear to have been a conquering minority, imposing Indo-European languages on the natives.
Of course, we are not talking only about Europe. The epic migration of the Bantus across Africa changed the genetics of the majority of that continent, and the Arabs of the Hejaz likewise spread their genes across the Middle East and North Africa. The population replacement in the New World, Australia and New Zealand is of course well-known.
At some level, everyone understands this history. People know that the arrival of strange folk can be very bad news indeed. We always hope for peace and cooperation, and we may sometimes get that, but we also know the downside quite well; we are in fact mostly the descendants of intruders who, at some point in history or pre-history, migrated into new lands and drove the native population to near-extinction.
What does this mean for modern society and for us as socialists? First of all, this analysis implies that migration from poorer to richer countries is necessarily limited. The natives will usually accept some migrants, if they are useful and no threat, but if it looks as if population replacement might be on the menu, then the doors will slam shut. The cultural distance counts, as well, although fascism often ignores this factor. If cultural differences are too great, or if it appears there are significant cultural or religious barriers to assimilation—for example, extreme Islam—the migrants will be turned away.
As socialists, we are fooling ourselves if we imagine that migration is merely a test of the compassion and tolerance of Western populations. It is flatly naïve to believe that people of different cultures and descent need only a sympathetic attitude to get along. I am not preaching cynicism here—good will and an open heart can go a long way, and different peoples have found common ground in the past. But that integration can never be taken for granted.
Second, it seems clear that fascism is founded on the primal experience of population replacement, of the evolutionary effect of competition between ethnic groups. Of course fascists exaggerate the importance of this competition, as if it’s the only factor in history, but in all truth it is important enough, and socialists should not ignore it.
We should, however, offer our own vision, of a future like a hawk on the morning wind, a future that transcends our tragic past.
Third, we should recognize that the rise of neo-fascism and racism in modern times is certainly aggravated by global migration—and aided by billionaire sponsorship. The low fertility rates in the wealthier countries, and the declining life expectancy in the U.S. are also naturally intensifying fears of population replacement. The native population is already under biological and demographic stress, just from the effects of billionaire capitalism and declining opportunity.
Of course, having the native population blame their problems on migrants—as we see with Brexit— is just catnip to billionaire capitalists; the ability of billionaire capitalism to deflect never fails to impress.
But a proper socialism cannot deflect; it must govern. It must acknowledge that integrating newcomers is never an easy process. Emigrants almost always try to make their new home similar to their old one…..but their new home actually belongs to the natives, who will not welcome change on any significant scale.
As socialists, we have to recognize the needs of both the migrants and of the native population; both are legitimate. It’s a false choice to take one side or the other—it’s unjust, it’s unrealistic, and it’s an evasion of the responsibility of governing. It is the usual case that neither the migrants nor the natives will get everything they want—there will be fewer migrants admitted than apply, there will be waits that might seem unreasonable, there will be security checks and requirements to learn the native language, and they may never achieve the status they had in their home country; for the natives there will be fewer apartments, longer lines at the hospital, more crowded streets and stores, perhaps higher crime. Both sides may experience unpleasant confrontations on the street; the young people may fight.
But if those governing are attentive to the problems and show even-handedness everywhere, then the goodwill of ordinary people will flourish and eventually overcome all problems. The boys who fight may eventually marry each other’s sisters. The world is vast, and enemies may yet turn to friends.
But not if those in power pit the newcomers against the natives at every turn.
The Socialist Investor 