Udoc in English
Udoc in Norwegian

In this essay I have endeavored to answer the question whether Geert
Wilders and his Party For Freedom are the prototypes of contemporary
fascism, as Rob Riemen has claimed.
In Chapter 1, I have discussed Riemen’s booklet The Eternal Return of Fascism and his Lowlands lecture Why Have We Forgotten What Is
Important In Life? Both of these lacked factual evidence supporting the claim that Wilders and the PVV are the prototype of contemporary fascism.
Riemen’s critics were dissatisfied with Riemen’s description of fascism, but they didn’t provide a clear and structured alternative. Neither did they argue
convincingly that Wilders and the PVV are not the prototype of
contemporary fascism. Two questions emerged from this discussion. First:
what is fascism? And second: are Geert Wilders and his PVV indeed the
prototype of contemporary fascism?
In Chapter 2, I addressed the first of these questions: what is fascism?
Although Riemen –– as his critics stressed –– didn’t provide a concise
definition, he did clearly and unambiguously describe what he meant by ‘fascism’. To examine just how accurate this description was, I discussed Robert Paxton’s book The Anatomy of Fascism. Rob Riemen’s description of fascism has withstood the test.
Paxton aims to rescue the word ‘fascism’ from sloppy usage –– an
ambition that should appeal to Riemen’s critics. Paxton, like Riemen, prefers describing fascism over defining it. He discerns five stages in the development of fascist movements: the creation of fascist movements, their rooting in the political system, their seizure of power, the exercise of power,
and their eventual radicalization and decline. I discussed these stages with an emphasis on the first three, for these –– by which I did not prematurely want to suggest that the PVV is indeed a fascist movement –– run parallel to the development of Wilders’ party so far.
Recapitulating: fascist movements in Stage One are characterized
firstly by a Manichean world view of a good but victimized ‘us’ against a
bad and threatening ‘them’, a view comprising nationalism, racism and
exclusion; secondly by a hostile anti-Leftism; and thirdly by a lack of philosophical underpinnings, the avoidance of critical media and intellectual debate and placing form high above content, thereby transforming politics into aesthetics. Early twentieth century fascist movements reached Stage Two only when liberal institutions failed badly. By allying to the
establishment, fascists found a fertile ground to grow in, because their words, views and attitude were legitimated by such an alliance. Fascisms that reached Stage Two did so partly, but not necessarily, by violence and intimidation. Fascist movements rarely reached Stage Three, that of seizing power. Where they did, they did so under conditions of extreme crisis and with no appealing alternatives. Stages Four and Five have only been only reached in Germany under Hitler and in Italy under Mussolini. Since the PVV is not exercising power nor in a process of radicalization, I have left these stages out of the discussion.