Translation by Zero Schizo.
Diego Fusaro is one of the most polemic intellectuals of Italy, given he occupies a political position which mixes conservative stances and left-wing ones. He is a Marxist, and his referents are Gramsci, Pasolini and Constanzo Preve, at the same time he is anti-globalist and sovereignist, and this has led him to uphold stances which many Salvinists do not disagree. Many books of his have been edited in Spain, both by editorials linked to the left, such as “Antonio Gramsci, la pasión de estar en el mundo” (Ed. Siglo XXI) or “Todavía Marx” (Ed. El Viejo Topo), or linked to the right, such as the recently published “El Contragolpe” (Ed. Fides). Fusaro’s thinking is a heterodox one, which is destined to receive criticisms from one side or the other, and not in few occasions has been labeled as both red and fascist, which also has been made with those who interviewed him, being accused of whitewashing. But here we will gladly take that risk, because the ideas of the trending philosopher in Italian politics deserve to be recognized.
Q: You have recently published “La notte del mondo”. Explain to me, please, why are we in a dark night, in which point do Marx and Heidegger crossover?
A: My book “La notte del mondo. Marx, Heidegger e il tecnocapitalismo” (UTET, 2019) is an attempt to reason according to the categories of Marx and Heidegger which what Heidegger himself, with the verses of Hölderin, defines as “The night of the world”. The night of the world is an epoch in which darkness is so present that not even we can see darkness itself and, because of that, we are not conscious regarding this darkness. Heidegger expresses it by saying that “it is the night of the flight of the gods”, in which we are not even conscious of the poverty and misery in which we encounter ourselves. This is a situation of maximum emergency. On his behalf, Marx in the “Grundrisse” said that “the modern world leaves one unsatisfied, or if one is satisfied it’s trivially”. Is another way of saying that we are effectively in the night of the world, in which we do not even see the enormous problem in which we are all involved. In the book I use the categories of two very different authors, such as Marx and Heidegger, in order to try to put into manifesto which ones are the contradictions of our present in which everyone calculates but nobody thinks. In which the economic and technic reason, technic-scientific, has been imposed as the only valid reason, and pretends to replace all of the others.
Q: You insist that the political axis should not be of left and right, but rather of above and below. And that ideologically we must be conservatives regarding our values (rooting, loyalty, family, ethics, and fatherland) and left-wing (emancipation, democratic socialism, dignified of work). Is that the way to being Marxist today?
A: Yes, I think the geography of contemporary politics has changed profoundly. Today there is a type of liberal totalitarianism which allows us to be right-wing liberals, left-wing liberals, centrist liberals, all while we are liberals, always, and, thus, left and right turn into two different ways of being liberals or, precisely, into economic and political liberalism, in libertarian praxis of our customs and, of course, in atlanticist in the geopolitical sphere. I think that we must re-formulate a re-categorization of political reality according to the dichotomy above/below or the category elite/people, which often times is used as synonym. This implies that if the elite, el Sir Globalist, is precisely cosmopolitan, in favor of the unlimited opening of free circulation, the servant, in turn, must fight for national-popular sovereignty as the basis of democracy and social rights. Today it is precise to reestablish the link between the National State and the socialist revolution. This is the fundamental point.
Q: Which one is going to be the future of the EU? Will it break? Which options will open? Do you think it is possible an alliance between the countries of the north, like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and others and another with the countries of the south? How will the international order recompose if the EU gets even weaker or if it breaks?
A: We should be very clear by giving a definition to the European Union. The European Union is the union of the European dominant classes against the working class and peoples of Europe. It is the post-1989 victory of capitalism which realizes itself by dissolving the last bastions of resistance: the sovereign National States with the primacy of the political and democracy over the total automatism of techno-capitalism. This is the European Union. A process of globalization, of depoliticization of the economy and of imposition of the cosmopolitan capital interests against the interests of national communities. Thus, the fight against capitalism in our continent today cannot stop being a fight against the European Union. The tragedy is that the left has abandoned this fight, in the sense that it has moved from proletariat internationalism to liberal cosmopolitanism and, in doing so, leaves the fight against the European Union, against capitalist globalization, be in charge of forces that, not so often, don’t want the human emancipation nor the solidarity of the workers, they try simply to react looking for a past that doesn’t exist anymore.
Q: How should the European countries act in front of USA and China?
A: I think that Europe can only save itself if it recovers, on one hand, its proper cultural identities and its structural plurality and, on the other hand, if it liberates itself from the dictatorship called European Union, which is the dictatorship of big capital, of the markets against the workers and the peoples, and if it liberates itself from the mortal yoke from Washington. We have to point forward to a Eurasian block which would go from Putin’s Russia to China in an anti-atlanticist manner. We should liberate ourselves from this and change our point of view.
Q: You insist that we must fight globalism, but we shouldn’t support nationalism either. Which one is the option?
A: I believe that today we should go beyond globalism and nationalism. After all, globalism is nothing else but American nationalism which has become worldwide and, thus, is a form of nationalism taken to its maximum development. I think it is necessary to make valid, against this two opposites, a model of internationalism between solidary sovereign States, based in democracy, socialism and the rights of the weaker classes and, in consequence, a type of internationalist sovereignty, democratic and socialist, kept away from both cosmopolitanism which destroys nations, and from nationalism* which is an egotism thought at the level of one’s own nation.
Q: The State is the primacy of the political over economy. Is that why the Global world** wants to get rid of the States?
A: National sovereign States, in the modernity, have not been just the places of imperialism, of nationalism and of wars, as the dominant discourse like to repeats, which wants to destroy the States to impose the primacy of globalist capital, where the States become uniquely the butlers of capital. This is the liberal vision of the State. In reality, the national sovereign States have also been places of democracies and of salary conquests of the weaker classes. And it is for this reason why today capital seeks to destroy them, certainly not to avoid wars or imperialism which, in fact, prosper more than ever in the post-national framework. Today the State can represent the only vector of an opposing revolution against globalist capital, just as the events of the Bolivarian countries show us, like in Bolivia, Venezuela or Ecuador which, despite their structural limitations, are creating forms of sovereignist populism, socialist, patriotic, anti-globalist and identitarian.
Q: By ideas like these, you have been called a fascist. Your political stances scare more the left than the right. Why? In that demonization, which role does the media apparatus and the Academia play?
A: Of course, today the category of “fascism” is used in a completely dehistoricized and decontextualized way, to demonize simply the listener. Today who reaffirms the necessity of controlling politically the economy and, thus, reintroduce sovereignty against the cosmopolitan opening, is vilified and labeled immediately as “fascist”, “red-brown” or “Stalinist”. The category of fascism is, then, completely dehistoricized, it only serves the purpose the true face that Pasolini had already identified as today’s true Fascism: that of free market society, the totalitarianism of markets and of speculative stock exchanges. This is the true face of power today, and many fools who like to call themselves “left-wing” fight against fascism, that no longer exists, in order to accept fully the totalitarianism of the free market. This last ones are those in France who fight against Le Pen in order to accept willingly Macron. They fight against a fascism that no longer exists in order to accept the new invisible baton of the free market. And, of course, the intellectual class, the media circus and the intellectual clergy play a fundamental role in this process; the task of the intellectual, academic and journalist class is to guarantee that the dominated accepts the dominion of the dominant class instead of rebelling. So that, just like in the cavern of Plato, they would love their own chains and fight against any liberator.
Q: You have insisted that with one hand they give us civil rights and with the other take away our social rights. Is this what so called diversity politics consist of?
A: The so called “civil rights” today are, in reality, nothing but the rights of the “bourgeois”, which Marx had described in “On the Jewish Question”. In other words, those are the rights of the consumer, as we would say, the rights of the individual that wants all of the individual rights which can be bought concretely. I am thinking about womb rental, for example, in the custody of the kids by the cost of the consumer. Well, today we are assisting a process through which capital takes away our social rights, which are rights linked to work, to communitarian life in the polis; negate these rights and, in turn, raises the rights of the consumer, always linked to consume which takes place in an individual manner, without questioning ever the order of production and which, in fact, end up strengthening the capitalist system instead of weakening it.
Also, they create a sort of generalized microconflictuality which acts as a weapon of massive destruction and, we could also say, as a weapon of eternal massive division. On one hand, distracts of the capitalist contradiction which is not even mentioned, and on the other hand, as a matter of speak, divides the masses in homosexuals and heterosexuals, Muslims and Christians, vegans and carnivores, fascists and antifascists, etcetera. And while this happens in a natural way, capital lets the people go on the streets for gay pride, for animal rights and for everything, but do not even try to go to the streets to fight against the slavery of salaries, against precariousness or capitalist economy! By doing so, repression appears, just like it happened in France with the yellow vests.
Q: You point out that stable bonds, represented by marriage, have turned today into revolutionaries. Why? How have things changed in order to something so frequent in History would become in something revolutionary? What does erotic consumerism consist of?
A: Modern capitalism is flexible and precarious. Breaks up an entire human community and wants to see everywhere the individual without any identity or bonds, the consumer who stablishes disposable relationships based on consumption. Hence, capitalism today has declared the war that me, in my book “Storia e conscienza del precariato. Servi e signori della globalizzazione” (Bompiani, 2018) called for the ethical rules in the Hegelian sense; so to say, those communitarian forms of solidarity which go from family to public organisms like syndicates, school, university, until their completion in the State. It has the goal to break them to reduce the world to a one and only market, just like Alain de Benoist said: society becomes a unique global market. This is the reason why the reetization of society, so to speak, the revalorization of the ethic roots in the Hegelian sense is a revolutionary gesture.
Q: Do you affirm that we must recover Gramsci and to separate him from liberal-libertarian left-wings that today dominate and are the ones who have used him usefully and incarnate better what Gramsci sought to combat. Would you define as well, in the Spanish scenario, Pablo Iglesias or Íñigo Errejón, and Podemos in general, as a cultural phenomenon of glorification of globalized capitalism?
A: Yes, in the essential, Gramsci is all of the opposite of what is being done by the left in Italy and in great part of Europe, left-wings are not reds anymore but fuchsias instead they are no longer the sickle and the hammer, but the rainbow. The fight for capital and not for work, they fight for liberal cosmopolitanism and not for internationalism of working classes. The specific case of Podemos in Spain seems very interesting to me, because it started as a socialist and sovereignist force, beyond left and right, but it seems to me lately that it is entering more and more into the unique front and the unique party of capital, and it is really tragic because the Podemos party originally seemed to be a rupture party.
Q: Which role should the intellectual play in this scenario?
A: In my opinion, the intellectual today should reestablish what Gramsci called the “sentimental connection with the people-nation”, so to speak, he should reconnect the people to politics, to intellectuality itself, in order for the people to break away from passivity and transform into active subjectivity, as it is already happening, as far as the people are rebelling against the cosmopolitan elite. They do by voting for Brexit, they do by voting for Trump, they do by voting in Italy against the constitutional referendum, they do by voting in Greece for the referendum against austerity of the European Union. But the people, says Gramsci, must be “interpreted”, need a living philology, the people are a text that must be interpreted and not directed in a univocal manner. One must listen to their needs, their requests, what the left today is not doing; the left is demophobic, which means, hates the people, hates the people because the people eludes their hands, it does not feel represented by a left-wing who’s friends with big capital and the masters, instead of the workers and the people.
Q: You propose to recover the utilization of Italian against English, and more so of a Italian well written or well spoken. You understand it as an essential cultural battle. Why?
A: Yes, I propose, against the neo-language of the markets that speak English of “spread”, of the “spending review”, of the “austerity” and of the “governance”, a veteran-language based in the recuperation of Italian which all of its richness, of the Italian of Dante and Machiavelli. Is a cultural battle of resistance to globalization and to this “cultural genocide”, as Pasolini called it, which globalization has been conducting by destroying cultures in the name of the unique model: the consumer of commodities, stateless, post-identitarian, which speaks the anonymous English of the stateless financial markets.
P.S. The interview was done via email exchanges and the translation of Fusaro’s replies correspond to its translator to Spanish, Michela Ferrante Lavin.
As for the English translation from Spanish and the notes, it is actually me, Zero!
*The author means globalized (post-globalism) world but it is written as worldwide in the interview by the journalist.
**This approach of petty nationalism has been already addressed previously in the Marxist point of view by Kim Jong-Il, on his writing “In order to Comprehend Nationalism Correctly” he already elaborates on that, writings of his are difficult to obtain in English but that one has been translated by me as well over here: https://therevolutionaryconservative.com/blog/in-order-to-comprehend-nationalism-correctly/