For decades after the end of the Second World War,political parties and movements of the ultra-right bloc in Europe wereostracized and associated with the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler. The farright of the fifties and sixties was mostly neo-Nazis or revisionists. Theywanted another state and order. Their speakers and, to an even greater degree,their supporters appeared to be the rude rebels, terrifying citizens.In the early 1970s, a group of Western Europeanwriters, historians and philosophers, Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner,Guillaume Faye, Pierre Vial, later called the «New Right», criticized the stateof «European affairs», posing questions about the crisis of European identity,«erasing faces «of national states, decrease in the efficiency of nationaleconomies and a general weakening of Europe amid «global challenges». Theorganizational expression of this movement was the «Group for the Study ofEuropean Civilization» (GRESE), which united in the late 60s of the 20thcentury.
Nearly five hundred intellectuals were prominent politicians,scientists and representatives of the creative intelligentsia. The main goal ofthe «new right» was «the revival of European culture, affected by «the diseasesof the leftism of nihilism» and the «loss of roots».Almost everywhere in Europe the popularity ofright-wing nationalist parties was growing with the appearance of a newtheoretical concept. And this was not a phenomenon which only researchersnotice. National elections, as well as elections to the European Parliamentmade it clear.
It would be difficult to control the new political wave bypolitically correct ideologists. From terrorism and power acts, they slipped tothe political struggle.New parties and movements are coming differently thantheir predecessors to the power. Such things still exist, they arrangeskirmishes, but today in most countries they do not have a chance for broadsupport, as before.
What has changed since then is that the urgent issuesonly for the far right have become a common agenda now. This followed a seriesof unpleasant events for Europeans, which were caused by the economic crisis of2008 along with the wave of immigration that we are witnessing nowadays. The popularity of radical parties among the electorateis linked not only with a change in the political conjuncture, but also withthe change of radical image, course and the shift of these parties towardspopulism.Several right-wing parties existed and had popularityin 2000.
They conclude the «People’s Party» in Denmark, the Italian «NorthernUnion», the Hungarian “Jobbik” and the Austrian «Freedom party».In this essay Iwill describe and analyze the theoretical framework developed to analyze thetheoretical basis that have in common the right-wing parties. Theoreticalbasisof right-wing parties Traditionally, the basis ofdifferentiation on the right and left in political science are socioeconomicfactors.
The right advocates for the minimal role of the state in the economyand believe in self-regulation of the market, while the left insists on activeintervention and redistribution of income. Such a definition is little suitedto present-day realities, when the far-right often advocates for a “welfarestate” (however, only for indigenous people). More relevant is thedivision in relation to egalitarianism – the extreme right basically insiststhat inequality is a natural phenomenon and lies outside the sphere of stateregulation.But there is also a variety of terms relating toright-wing parties: “ultra-right”, “extreme right” and”right-wing radicals”.Pippo Norris, an Italian researcher, compiled acombined 10-point scale where the anti-immigrant orientation and the party’sposition on the left-right axis are estimated, the right-wing party isconsidered to be right-radical if it scored more than 8 pp. The Dutchresearcher presented his scale, where parties could score from 0 to 1.
0, to thefar right included parties that scored more than 0.85 for a number ofcharacteristics. In general, these studies distinguish one and the same groupof parties, which fall and selected for analysis in this paper. Of course,there are many differences between right-wing parties, but they have much incommon.
Analyzing the ideological and programme component ofthe extreme right-wing parties’ basis in Europe, we can single out that theyall correspond to one or several theoretical features: 1. Neo-fascism.Striving to dissociate themselves from the fascist movements of the past thathave been compromised, the neo-fascists in practice, nevertheless, reveal theirideological and political connection with the forms of fascism that havedeveloped between the two world wars. The most important distinctive featuresof all neo-fascist political trends and organizations are extreme nationalism,chauvinism, the racism, criticism from the ultra-right positions of governments,operating within the framework of the parliamentary system; the use ofviolent, terrorist methods of political struggle. Neo-fascism is hostile tohumanism, cultivates low-level instincts, often uses fascist attributes(swastika, black uniform, fascia, etc.) and rituals (greetings through handthrown out, torchlight processions, etc.). Using the methods of social andnationalist demagogy modified (with regard to the emerging politicalsituation), neo-fascists try to cover part of the population (primarily smallentrepreneurs, middle-level officials, some layers of youth, etc.
), which hasbeen knocked out of habitual conditions as a result of exacerbationcontradictions of modern capitalist society.2. Nationalismis an ideology, the basic principle of which is the thesis of the highest valueof the nation. As a result, in modern Europe we have two opposing nationalistideologies that feed each other, colliding in conflicts on ethnic boundaries.There are no fundamental worldview divergences between them, differences areobserved only in the specifics of the development of states and nations, at thelevel of their economic, political and demographic state. The first group ofnationalists can be called national conservatives, supporters of thepreservation of the status quo, protectors.
As a rule, these currents arereactionary, they are primarily oriented toward combating migration from othercountries, preserving the mono ethnicity and monoculture of the country.Maintaining national identity from the point of view of the first group canmitigate the negative aspects of globalization, manifested in the expansion ofcivilizational and cultural elements that are not characteristic of the titularnation. This kind of nationalism is mainly characteristic of countries that areat a high level of economic and social development, but at the same time withlow demographic indicators – Britain, Germany, France, etc. These factorscreate objective conditions for migration from abroad, which, in turn, affectsthe popularity of nationalist ideology. The second group of nationalists is interested in changing existingstate and ethnic borders, referring to the right of nations toself-determination, declared in the resolution of the UN General Assembly.
As arule, the National Revisionists represent the peoples of the outskirts offormer empires, in which the centers continue to restrict the independent tiesof the provinces with the world community. Overcoming dependence on themetropolis, from the point of view of modern separatists, should help thenation directly to contact the world’s major centers of power that can ensure acomfortable existence of the people better than the outdated structure.3. Neo-racismor propaganda of exclusivity or superiority of one part of the population overanother. In spite of today’s world absence of ability to have such obviousracial hatred as in the days of fascism, the right-wing parties constantlyexploit the image of immigrants (mainly with Islamic roots) as black sheep in awhite flock or as trash that invades the country.
Islamophobia plays for thenew racism a role that before World War II anti-Semitism played for nationalismand fascism. The caricature of a Muslim Arab painted by modern xenophobia doesnot differ from how it portrayed Jewish anti-Semitism in the early 20thcentury. Beards and caftans, which in the past distinguished immigrant Jews inCentral and Eastern Europe, correspond to the beards and veils of Muslimstoday.4.
Commitment to liberal principles. The vastmajority of right-wings parties demand to reduce the influence of the state inthe economy. So called economic liberalism – ideology, that further thelaissez-faire economy, free market and maximum trade freedom and competition,the supporters believe that political freedom and social justice areinseparable from economic freedom.5. Populism- tactic of direct «flirting» with a wide masses of the people, distribution ofunreasonable promises in order to gain popularity in the election campaign.Nowadays, throughout the world, we can see the growing popularity of theso-called «populism» which presents outstanding politicians and parties thatspeak with voters in an understandable, simple language, opposing to anestablishment that has lost touch with folk speech and expectations. Populistsoffer clear answers to all these challenges: «worthy life for everybody», «noto the establishment», «let’s face the problems and call a spade a spade”.
Thisattracts ordinary people from the province, representatives of various powerstructures, starting from the army and finishing the police and civil servantsof the lower level. This is a reason why right-wings parties attracts many people, especially young people, whoreject the current society, who want to fight to change it and try to do itwith a different style from traditional politics, through occupations,concerts, conferences, pub nights, projects, and mobilizations. Youngsupporters who want to demonstrate their beliefs. And as the party’s programmecontains an implicit consent to violence, one can not exclude that the forcewill be used repeatedly in the course of various actions (on the initiative ofthe party s members or in response tothe opponent s actions).
6. Anti-Semitism, xenophobia and anti-communism. Fascistideology is generally characterized by a constant search for internal andexternal enemies. This is necessary to rally the nation and prepare it foraggression.
Therefore, the basis of psychology is the obsession with the ideaof a conspiracy, if possible international. People should feel themselves besieged.The best way to focus the audience on a plot is to use the xenophobic springs.However, the internal conspiracy is also suitable, Jews and Communists are wellsuited for this, because they are both inside and outside.
These stereotypes,often referring to foreigners with pronounced physiological and psychologicaldifferences, flow from oriental and colonial thinking, which allowed them to beidentified through a negative, fear-based identification of the”other”, which was always perceived as an “invader” and an”enemy.” It can be argued that the mood of intolerance and discord ispractically spread in the information space, while the role of anti-Semitism asa key, the central theme turns out to be a kind of psychological factorstereotypes and myths designed to work out the technology of hatred andradicalization. For Mussolini, the socialists were a constant enemy. Hitlerdeclared the Communists the enemies number one, because they were the main obstacle for the Nazis to get the workers ontheir side and in winning the election. Jews were declared enemies by Hitlerbecause they, in his opinion, littered and weakened the “Aryan race”,and also because of personal antipathy.
Conclusion To date the existing diversity ofultra right parties, often have a different requirements. Thus, there areultra-right parties of a neo-fascist character characterized by nationalism,anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, opposition to Marxism and liberal ideology,traditionalism in the social sphere, aspiration for authoritarianism, etc.These parties do not have much influence, however, they are often engaged inextremist activity. In addition, such parties are judged to be successors tofascist and national-socialist parties that existed in the 20th century.Certainly, the existence of a certain principles andpriorities depends on the specific situation in the country, its economicstate, etc.
There are still debates whether it is worthwhile toclassify neo-fascist parties and organizations as one of the extreme right. Weshould admit that fascism is the sign of the extremely right ideology, but manymodern extreme right-wing parties and movements have not transformed into aneo-fascist stage. Therise of this phenomenon was caused by the economic crisis, political turmoiland continuing unemployment, fallingliving standards, absence of opportunities, and corruption have called liberalfree-market values into question.
In itspolitical practice, fascism, in order to create a total unity of the nation,used methods of terror and the destruction of political opponents, reprisalsagainst all dissidents. The political system of the statewith the arrival of fascists to power became typically totalitarian due to thestate-owned media, the education and upbringing system, the destruction of themultiparty system, and the expansion of punitive organs. The goals of foreignpolicy fascists considered the expansion of the state at the expense of theterritories of other countries, the conquest of “living space”. After the Second World War, which endedin the defeat of fascism, its ideology was condemned and banned by the NurembergTribunal. Therefore, there are no officially functioning fascist partiesanywhere in the world. Nevertheless, in the modern worldthere is a fascist ideology.
Neofascist groups and associations manifestthemselves in Germany, Italy, Spain, the United States, Russia and othercountries.The rise of the popularity of extreme right-wingpolitical parties around the world reflects the inability of modern governmentsto solve problems of public concern. Therefore, on the wave of growingconfidence in the rhetoric of the far-right forces, the lessons history taughtus we should never forget, namely, that the consequence of radicalism is thelack of freedom, destruction and a huge number of victims of the fascist`sdictatorship and National Socialists. History repeats itself and one who does notlearn from the past pay the price in future.