Yesterday's events in #CapitolHill raise important questions about the nature of the 21st Nationalist Right, and the relationship populism and fascism. Perhaps not the best time to discuss this as we lack perspective. But some notes may be useful.

Trump and his allies (Salvini, Le Pen, Bolsonaro) etc have often been described as right-wing populist, to express the fact that they displayed strong communitarian and nationalist values and appeal to the people against the elites.

Historically this harks back to the New Right emerging in the 1960s in response to New Left, in the US and Europe. It was described as "New Right" because it revived some motives of hardcore nationalism/conservatism that had long been disqualified after defeat of fascism.

Early figures of this trend in '60s/'70s include segregationist & former Democrat Wallace in Alabama & former parachutist Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. In following decades this spreads all over Europe (Lega in Italy, Fortuyn/Wilders in NL, UKIP etc) and gains ground in US.

Some people such as @aaronzwinter and @aurelmondon describe this as mainstreaming of Far Right. Parties that previously only had around 5% gain double digit support - and sometimes - as in Austria, Italy in '90/2000s also enter government in coalition with other parties.

The "populist 2010s" are the peak of this trend. 50 years after its inception, the New Right conquers the White House, Brazil, and partly also Italy (brief stint of Lega w 5 Star and UK (even though Johnson does not fit completely this identikit).

The key question theoretically is: is this fascism or something different? What is the difference between right-wing populism and fascism if there is any?

For some people such as Podemos' leader Pablo Iglesias, right-wing populism just an alternate name for fascism. Ultimately also fascists appealed to the people against the liberal elites of their time, and their language/discourse is just edulcorated version of fascist discourse.

However, one could say similar things about old-style conservatism which appealed to the people & national unity (one nation conservatism etc). It should be born in mind that there are many Hard Rights (nationalism, religious fundamentalism etc.) that are not necessarily fascist

To ascertain whether populist Right is fascism or not is good to go back to Poulantzas' classic criteria:
1) totalitarian and anti-democratic spirit
2) overt biological and/or cultural racism
3) its militarism and will-to-conquer

I would say that before yesterday's events most people would have agreed these criteria were not *fully* met by populist Right and leaders such as Trump, Bolsonaro, Salvini.

Specifically, right-wing populists seemed bent more on plebiscitary democracy than on outright dictatorship. They seemed very eager to have frequent elections ("snap elections" has been slogan of Salvini in th last year).

While systematically engaging in toxic, dog-whistle racism, they have mostly stopped short of explicitly affirming white supremacism (smthing some of their hardline supporters obv did not shy away from).

In their approach to foreign policy, meanwhile, they appear more doggedly isolationist than bent on war and invasion. Trump was elected in 2016 on the promise not to engage in foreign wars. He pursued imperialist aims in other ways and often w disappointing results (Venezuela).

Yesterday's events suggest that the populist Right at least Trump's version of it, now meets Poulantzas first criteria, namely an anti-democratic spirit as seen in the refusal to acknowledge election results.

Ultimately perhaps best way to conceive of this question is to conceive of populism->fascism as a continuum, a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind.

/end