• Neofascism claims to respect the basic rules of democracy instead of establishing a naked dictatorship as its predecessor did, even when it empties democracy of its content by eroding actual political freedoms to varying degrees, depending on the true level of popularity of each neofascist ruler (and thus his need or not to rig elections) and the balance of power between him and his opponents. There is today a wide range of degrees of neofascist tyranny, from near absolute in the case of Vladimir Putin to what still retains a space of political liberalism as in the cases of Donald Trump and Narendra Modi.

• Neofascism differs from traditional despotic or authoritarian regimes (such as the Chinese government or most Arab regimes) in that it is based, like last century’s fascism, on an aggressive, militant mobilization of its popular base on an ideological basis similar to that which characterized its predecessor. This base includes various components of far-right thinking: nationalist and ethnic fanaticism, xenophobia, explicit racism, assertive masculinity, and extreme hostility to Enlightenment and emancipatory values.

• As for the differences between old and new fascism, the most important of them are, first, that neofascism does not rely on the paramilitary forces that characterized the old version — not in the sense that it is devoid of them, but it keeps them in a reserve role behind the scenes, when they are present — and, second, that neo-fascism does not claim to be “socialist” like its predecessor. Its program does not lead to the expansion of the state apparatus and its economic role but rather draws inspiration from neoliberal thinking in its call to reduce the economic role of the state in favour of private capital. However, necessity may make it go in the opposite direction, as is the case with Putin’s regime under the pressure of the requirements of the war he launched against Ukraine.

• While twentieth-century fascism grew in the context of the severe economic crisis that followed World War I and reached its peak with the “Great Depression”, neofascism grew in the context of the worsening crisis of neoliberalism, especially after the “Great Recession” that resulted from the financial crisis of 2007-08. Whereas past century’s fascism endorsed the national and ethnic hostilities that prevailed in the heart of the European continent, against the backdrop of the heinous racist practices that were occurring in the colonized countries, neofascism flourished on the dung of racist, xenophobic resentment against the rising waves of immigration that accompanied neoliberal globalization or resulted from the wars that the latter fuelled, in parallel with the collapse of the rules of the international system. The United States played the key role in thwarting the development of a rules-based international system after the end of the Cold War, thus quickly plunging the world into a New Cold War.

• As for neofascism, its dominance over the world is increasing, driven by the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in a guise that is much more in line with neofascism than during his first term. Thus, the world's greatest economic and military power is today the spearhead of neofascism, with which various governments in Russia, India, Israel, Argentina, Hungary and other countries converge, while the possibility of neofascist parties coming to power in the major European countries (in France and Germany, after Italy, and even in Britain) looms on the horizon, not to mention smaller countries in Central and Eastern Europe in particular.

• If it is true that the possibility of a new world war remains limited, our world faces something no less dangerous than the two world wars of the twentieth century, namely climate change, which threatens the future of the planet and of humanity. Neofascism is pushing the world towards the abyss with the blatant hostility of most of its factions to indispensable environmental measures, thus exacerbating the environmental peril, especially when neofascism has taken over the reins of power over the most polluting people in the world proportionally to its number, namely the people of the United States.

• There is no equivalent in today’s world to what the workers’ movement was like with its socialist and communist wings after World War I. Instead, the forces of the left are suffering from atrophy in most countries, after most of them merged into the crucible of neoliberalism to the point that they no longer constitute an alternative to the status quo in the eyes of society. Or else, they are unable to adapt to the requirements of our era, reproducing the flaws of the twentieth century’s left that led to its historical bankruptcy. All the above makes us uphold that the era of neofascism is more dangerous in some respects than the era of the old. The new generation remains the focus of our greatest hope, and significant sections of it have revealed their rejection of racism, such as that manifested in the Zionist genocidal war in Gaza, and their defence of equality of all sorts of rights, as well, of course, as their defence of the environment.

• In the face of the global rise of neofascism, there is a vital and urgent need to confront it by bringing together the broadest ad hoc alliances in defence of democracy, the environment, and gender and migrants rights, with the variety of forces that embrace these goals, while working to rebuild a global current opposing neoliberalism and defending the public interest in the face of the dominance of private interests.

   

6 more annotations...

• The Assad regime carries responsibility for leaving the Syrian state in disarray. Weak and propped up by external forces, with no genuine internal support, the regime’s reliance on Russia and Iran to maintain Assad’s grip on power has left the situation ripe for fragmentation. This fragility has created fertile ground for competing actors to pursue their interests in Syria, both regional powers and global player. As well as Israel, Turkey, for example, is deeply invested in expanding its control while simultaneously suppressing Kurdish movements.

• What has China done in response to the genocide? What does this say about its role as a global political player?

  China’s response to the genocide in Gaza has been notably restrained, characterised by calls for ceasefires and humanitarian assistance but lacking in robust action. While it has voiced support for Palestinian self-determination at the United Nations, it has not taken a leading role in directly opposing Israel or providing substantial material support to the Palestinian cause. This restrained approach reflects China’s broader foreign policy, which prioritises non-intervention and maintaining relationships with a range of actors, including Israel, for economic and strategic reasons.

  China’s actions reveal its prioritisation of economic interests over ideological alignment with anti-imperialist movements. While it positions itself as an alternative to US hegemony, its approach often mirrors the pragmatic calculus of traditional powers. Its growing interdependencies with Gulf monarchies and broader East Asia-Middle East trade corridors suggest a focus on economic integration rather than a direct challenge to US influence in the region. This leaves China appearing to be non-committal in moments of acute crisis

• At the same time, we must remain attentive to the voices of South Africa’s vibrant social movements, which have long demanded the country sever ties with Israel. These movements have led the call for concrete actions, such as ending diplomatic relations and enforcing boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS). While the ICJ case is symbolically powerful, it is grassroots pressure that ensures such symbolic gestures translate into meaningful change.

• For example, a critical development in Israel’s gas strategy has been the energy agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), formalised following the Abraham Accords in 2020.2 These gas deals reflect the deepening of economic ties between Israel and Gulf states, with significant geopolitical implications In 2021, the UAE’s Mubadala Petroleum acquired a $1 billion stake in Israel’s Tamar gas field, signalling the UAE’s strategic interest in Israel’s natural gas reserves. These deals enable Israel to position itself as a regional energy hub, projecting power across the region while deepening its alliances with Western-backed Gulf states. At the same time, the extraction and export of gas – often from Palestinian waters – reinforce Israel’s colonial domination and resource theft, exacerbating Palestinian dispossession. Similar normalisation deals over gas have been signed with Jordan and Egypt. These partnerships strengthen Israel’s regional influence, as gas exports flow through pipelines and maritime routes that are heavily securitised and militarised.

2 more annotations...