A fascist "solution"? A Polanyian Reading of the Fascist Backlash
by Roland Atzmüller
30.04.2026
As commentators struggle to make sense of the rise of the far right and its entanglements with the neoliberal project, Roland Atzmüller turns to Karl Polanyi’s analysis of fascism and liberalism a century ago. In Polanyi’s view, fascism was a reaction to emancipatory social struggles that challenged the unchecked expansion of capitalist market society and demanded greater democratic control, universal equality, and individual freedoms. Fascism, in turn, came to the rescue of capitalism, ending the social and political blockages by reinstating inequality — especially along racial lines — as a principle of governance. According to Atzmüller, Polanyi’s analysis sharpens our understanding of both neoliberalism as a project to suppress or absorb egalitarian movements in the name of economic recovery, and contemporary processes of fascisation as efforts to reverse an alleged Western decline by attacking “wokism,” reasserting white supremacy, and defending the capitalist development model.
(Mis-)interpretations of the Far Right
Since the beginning of the second Trump administration and its attempt to remodel U.S. society and democracy along authoritarian lines, public and scholarly debates concerning the appropriate interpretation of the far right’s recent electoral successes and governing projects have intensified. The debates centre on whether these phenomena should still be understood as right-wing populism, or if they are better described as processes of fascisation (Faschisierung, to use the German term) in the light of their radicalization – or even a new fascism. These debates build on earlier controversies about how the hegemonic neoliberal governing projects of recent decades in many countries are related to the growing successes of (increasingly radicalized) right-wing parties and movements.
Although originally, many right-wing populist parties were combining anti-migration sentiments with (authoritarian) neoliberal economic and social policy ideas, they developed increasingly encompassing and distinct programs and narratives for fundamental social change, particularly in the last one or two decades – albeit with considerable national variation. The emerging programmatic extensions of far-right parties have been particularly notable in certain sociopolitical fields such as welfare policy. Of course, these extensions remained closely aligned with ideologies which had been central to the (post-war) far right from the beginning, particularly concerning the rejection of immigration and a racist and even “völkisch” conception of the nation. However, since these programmatic expansions usually entailed assigning the state an important role in economic and social policy, certain public and social-scientific debates (for references see Atzmüller and Decieux, 2019) advanced the view that these actors should no longer be classified as right-wing, as their positions appeared closer to those of centre-left parties in these policy fields. This argument was linked to the fact that, in some countries, far-right reform policies hardly – or did not – reduce expenditure levels in certain policy areas, such as welfare.
In the course of such debates, two things are often ignored. First, and this is particularly overlooked in journalistic contributions, the far right – beyond all social rhetoric – draws on long standing traditions of authoritarian statehood that do not have too much in common with the idea of a democratic, social, and inclusive state. Second, a perspective that mainly focuses on state expenditure levels – which is itself a sign of neoliberal hegemony in certain debates – tends to ignore the qualitative policy-changes implemented by far-right parties to foster authoritarian change.
Polanyi’s Interpretation of Fascism’s Rise
Karl Polanyi’s writings from the 1930s and 1940s on the role and consolidation of fascist regimes and their political and ideological “essence” offer considerations and insights that are of remarkable relevance for interpreting today’s rightward shift in many societies. Their significance stems from the fact that Polanyi engaged with these questions in particular during the period in which the democratic constitutional state was being displaced by a far-right movement and the establishment of a fascist regime. In his analyses from the 1930s onwards, Polanyi demonstrated how fascism sought to impose itself as an authoritarian and antidemocratic “solution” to social crisis dynamics and political deadlocks resulting from the contradictions and dynamics of the unbridled expansion of capitalist market society. Fascism, in Polanyi’s theoretical framework, constituted itself as the rescue of capitalism as a whole. Hence, Polanyi ascribed fascism a systemic role oriented towards society in its totality. For him, fascism was a reaction of certain social forces to progressive developments resulting from social struggles against the crisis-prone effects of unrestrained market expansion in the decades before.
Polanyi’s fundamental critique of fascist philosophers such as Othmar Spann or Ludwig Klages in the 1930s therefore does not simply constitute a scholastic refutal of their attempt to formulate a philosophical essence of fascism. Rather, their authoritarian and antidemocratic philosophical musings about concepts such as freedom or in/equality referred to a range of real social developments which became the target of fascist politics to rescue capitalism. These concerned first, the expansion of democratic structures; second, the extension of individual freedoms; and third, their grounding in ideas of universal equality.
Thus, even if his formulations – particularly in The Great Transformation – were not entirely unambiguous, Polanyi did not simply conceptualize fascism as a “countermovement” similar to more progressive counterparts such as trade unions and working-class parties which aimed at securing the protection of society against the “liberal creed” and the consequences of market dynamics. Rather, because the “liberal creed” was unwilling and unable to react to the outlined progressive countertendencies and to accept democratic control of the economy and society, a profound social crisis and political blockage emerged. According to Polanyi, from a fascist viewpoint, the progressive countertendencies were responsible for the manifestations of crisis and political paralysis. The fascist “solution” was thus aimed at the abolition of democracy and individual freedom in order to subject individuals to violent re-education and, ultimately, to reimpose inequality – not least (but nationally varied) along ethnicized and racialized lines – as a mode of dominance. The attack on democracy and politics sought to absolutize the economy and to destroy all forms of democratic control and participation not only at the level of the state but also within the economy. In this way, as Polanyi wrote in 1933, economic dynamism was to be restored and society embodied in the economy.
Understanding the Neoliberal Project with Polanyi
What, then, is today’s relevance of Polanyi’s reflections on fascism? In my view, the social countertendencies he identified as responses to the unrestrained imposition of market society resurfaced in the social struggles and movements of the post-war period – in particular in 1968 and the social reform projects of the 1970s. The expansion of individual freedoms sought to realize the “utopian promise” of social inclusion in the words of Jürgen Habermas, individual freedom, and recognition in the democratic welfare state. They became the basis of emancipatory aspirations “not only” of the (traditional) working class, but also of women, ethnic minorities and other “minority” or marginalized groups and extended to struggles around sexual self-determination and gender identities.
Polanyi’s approach can help to understand the political impetus of neoliberal governing projects which saw these developments as obstacles for economic recovery. From the outset, neoliberal projects curtailed codetermination rights and trade-union activities, targeted the dismantling of economic-democratic institutions and control mechanisms, and sought to remove the economy from political control as they regarded these developments as obstacles to overcoming economic crises. Furthermore, through welfare-state cutbacks and reorganization, neoliberal policies aimed at recommodifying labor power and intensifying social inequalities. In the name of individual freedom on global markets, the autonomy gains of subjects vis-à-vis market dynamics (as well as traditional family ties and other personal dependencies and subordinations) were to be rolled back.
For neoliberal projects, allegedly focusing on individual freedom on markets, the expansion of minority rights could be legitimate only insofar as it proved its economic profitability. This points to the attempts of “progressive neoliberalism,” which since the 1990s sought to make market society more socially sustainable through inclusion and diversity and in particular equal opportunity to participate in markets. However, the alleged universalistic promise of economic individualism of so-called progressive neoliberalism ultimately collapsed – confronted with the reality of the market dynamics it promoted. Rather, these dynamics contributed to reproducing social inequalities and hierarchies along race, class, and gender, which deepened in numerous countries after the 2008 financial crisis. This reflects two fundamental conditions: first, that a democratic, diverse, and inclusive society cannot be achieved on unregulated, expanding markets; and second, that the basic structures of capitalist market societies were not challenged in neoliberal societies based on the Thatcherian claim that there is no alternative.
Contemporary Fascisation as “Solution” to Social Crises
In light of the failure of progressive neoliberalism, the new far right developed a comprehensive set of authoritarian “solutions” to social crises and political blockages, replacing market individualism through national and religious – i.e., Christian – homogeneity. As can be seen almost paradigmatically in the actions of the second Trump administration, this “new fascism” strives to gain extensive control over political structures in order to restrict political influence over economic domains and to reduce the significance of democratic processes or even destroy them. Social inequalities are deepened by cuts to social programs, the abolition of affirmative action, attacks on the public sector, and the like. The expansion of freedoms and opportunities for the inclusion and participation of all members of society – grounded in comprehensive concepts of equality and emancipation and the extension of anti-discrimination provisions won by social movements – has become a prime target of an increasingly authoritarian and fascistoid restructuring project that centres around the white, male-dominated, Christian nation.
From this (Polanyian) perspective, the question arises whether the outlined policies also have a systemic dimension oriented towards the rescue of capitalism, as did their historic counterparts. Since fascist “solutions” never intended to save capitalism as such but rather a specific national social formation – and since crises are always also socially constructed – a systemic justification of imposing an authoritarian “solution” for western/northern capitalism is part of the self-understanding of the far right or the new fascism.
To begin with, there is the far-right claim – especially in the Global North – of a decline of western societies under the sway of so-called “woke” ideologies and an allegedly migration-induced “great replacement” attributed to certain global elites. This is said to undermine entrenched patriarchal, white, and class-specific “natural” hierarchies. In addition to these phantasmatic perspectives, the political positions of the contemporary far right or “new fascism” involve the preservation of the capitalist development model of permanent growth based on private enterprise and fossilism, combustion engines, and unrestrained meat consumption – against their projections of an allegedly looming ecological dictatorship. Amongst others, they aim to create the political and ideological conditions to secure access to (fossil) resources against global competitors such as China amid an escalating climate crisis – if necessary, by means of warfare. To implement these policies, they furthermore try to re-educate individuals by reasserting for example entrenched masculinist and racist hierarchies. Members of society are to acquire those subject dispositions that make them willing to accept – or even enact – the violent defense of borders against climate refugees, rather than merely “enduring some cruel images”, as Sebastian Kurz, former Austrian prime minister and now staffer to a representative of the fascistoid tech-oligarchy, once emphasized.
Only if – opposed to what Polanyi calls “freedom’s utter frustration” – the connections between individual freedom, universal notions of equality, and the extension of democracy can be restored in all their already attained complexity, can a new perspective on freedom in a global, complex society be opened.
Roland Atzmüller is Associate Professor at the Institute of Sociology at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria focusing on (critical) theories of capitalist societies, welfare states and social policies with an emphasis on labour market policies.
Further Readings
Atzmüller, Roland; Décieux, Fabienne (2019): “Freedom’s utter frustration…”: Neoliberal social-policy reforms and the shift to the far-right through Polanyi’s theory of fascism. In: Roland Atzmüller, Brigitte Aulenbacher, Ulrich Brand, Fabienne Décieux, Karin Fischer und Birgit Sauer (Hg.): Capitalism in transformation. Movements and countermovements in the 21st century. Cheltenham, UK u.a.: Edward Elgar Publishing, S. 135–151.
Dale, Gareth; Desan, Mathieu (2019): Fascism. In: Gareth Dale, Christopher Holmes und Maria Markantonatou (Hg.): Karl Polanyi’s political and economic thought. A critical guide, S. 151–170.
Polanyi, Karl (2018): The essence of fascism. In: Karl Polanyi (Hg.): Economy and society. Selected writings. Edited by Michele Cangiani and Claus Thomasberger. Cambridge/Medford: Polity, S. 81–107.