💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › victory-of-the-authoritarian-neoliberalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:37:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Authoritarian Neoliberalism Author: Anonymous Date: Feb 15 2017 Language: en Topics: neo-liberalism, neo-liberal, fascism, Trump, Pinochet, Putin, USA, Chile Source: http://libcom.org/blog/authoritarian-neoliberalism-specter-pinochet-15022017
This essay explores the rise of populist demagogues and the economics of
their regimes. Rather than marking a clear break with neoliberalism or a
direct tie to early twentieth century fascism, these figures
historically connect to the regime of Augusto Pinochet and illustrate a
growing trend of authoritarian-neoliberalism.
The phrase “never forget” bears a particular significance in the
twenty-first century, recalling immediately images of the 9/11 attacks
on the centers of global power; Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the White
House. When one considers that these attacks justified the global war on
terror, which has in turn led to the rise of the Islamic state in
regions destabilized by the chaos of war, it becomes clear that
remembering this event is indeed crucial; however, there is another
September eleventh worth remembering—September eleventh 1973, the day of
the Chilean coup d’état that exalted Augusto Pinochet to the presidency.
This coup d’état proceeded a period of unrest facilitated largely by
economic warfare waged by the United States, in the form of Henry
Kissinger’s blockade under the Nixon Administration.[1] This blockade
was formed due to Chile’s democratically elected leader, Salvador
Allende, refusal to support the political and economic isolation of Cuba
and because of the threats posed to American company profits by
potential Chilean nationalization under his administration. Indeed, the
United States government was even involved in the coup itself. As early
as 1970 the CIA maintained, “It is our firm and continuing policy that
Allende be overthrown by a coup.”[2] On September eleventh 1973 this
coup was initiated and included the bombing of La Modena Presidential
Palace and in the death of Allende, either by assassination or by
suicide. After seizing power, Pinochet’s newly formed junta locked
hundreds of thousands of people in detention centers, “disappeared”
(killed) at least 2,279 for political reasons,[3] and tortured another
31,947.[4] Pinochet took power by military force and used military force
to maintain his regime.
Supporters of Pinochet’s government included the Chicago Boys, a group
of Chilean economists under Milton Friedman of the University of
Chicago, who instituted a neoliberal economic agenda in Chile under
Pinochet. Shortly after the coup, the United States ended the blockade
and provided economic assistance to the newly instated government.[5]
The regime and its neoliberal policies are often credited for massively
improving the economy of Chile but it is clear that without the
US-facilitated coup, there would not have been US-facilitated aid and
trade, which was crucial for the clientelistic economy.
In effect, Pinochet was the first neoliberal dictator. He was not the
first capitalist dictator, as in a sense; any capitalist state forms a
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. But in the more traditional sense of
“dictatorship,” Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, South Korea’s Park Chung-hee,
the German and Italian fascist governments, Estadio Novo in Portugal,
Franco’s Spain and numerous other right wing dictators embraced forms of
capitalism before Pinochet. Where Pinochet’s rule truly differs from
these regimes is that his iteration of capitalism companies was far less
corporatist because of the massive presence of US, allowing for a strong
authoritarian police state to coexist with economic liberalization,
globalization, and privatization.
Of course, it is necessary to note here that continental power relations
have changed to some extent. Noam Chomsky notes that
It was pretty clear at that time that at the next hemispheric meeting,
which was going to be in Panama [7th summit of the Americas 2015], if
the U.S. still maintained its position on these two issues [militarized
war on drugs and isolation of Cuba], the hemisphere would just go along
without the United States. Now, there already are hemispheric
institutions, like CELAC, UNASUR for South America, which exclude the
United States, and it would just move in that direction[6]
While Chomsky suggests that the hemisphere may no longer ubiquitously
acquiesce to the interests of the United States, this decreased power
does not mean that the position of the United States has been completely
superseded. For example, Michel Temer, the current president of Brazil
who came to power after a parliamentary coup, has again concentrated top
positions of power in the hands of white men and seeks to maintain
neoliberal economic policies. Temer has been an informant for the United
States on policy related to Brazil.[7] Thus, the influence of the United
States is not as potent as it once was, but it is still evident.
But just because the United States’ enforcement of its will across the
entirety of a hemisphere has been dampened, does not mean that the
ghosts of its imperial past do not still haunt the world. Pinochet’s
model of governance in particular seems to have remarkable significance
in the present day; this model of authoritarian governance and ruthless
market liberalism is being globalized by the rise of right-wing
populism, returning home to the United States in the form of Donald
Trump. This same legacy can also be seen in Narendra Modi of India,
Vladamir Putin of Russia, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, or in
events such as Brexit, which indicate the rising power of a broader
right-wing populism sweeping the world, particularly—though by no means
exclusively—in developed nations. While the sentiments motivating it are
often quite different, the results have been a doubling down on
globalized capital under a more authoritarian state structure.
Pinochet’s ghost also appears culturally, in the alt-right’s embrace of
his ideology, legacy, and likeness, in the form of memes. This cyber
popularity is part of the broader effort to utilize popular culture to
normalize white supremacism, fascism, and general far right ideology
that helps the alt right to gain relevance and cultural capital. There
are several Facebook pages dedicated to Pinochet, including Spicy
Pinochet Memes and Pinochet Helicopter Rides and Rentals (which is a
reference to his practice of throwing leftists out of helicopters and is
now popularly and positively referenced by the alt-right). There is also
a Reddit page r/Pinochet and several “dank meme stashes” that show the
supposed current relevancy of Pinochet’s rule and ideology. What was
once a relatively fringe Internet ideology has received mounting
attention due to the associations between key figures in the Trump team
and the alt right movement. Specifically, this link is shown by Trump’s
appointment of Steve Bannon the head of right-wing news source Breitbart
that serves as a gathering space for the alt right, as his chief
strategist. Moreover, alt-right leader Richard Spencer even gave a
speech after Trump’s election complete with the refrain “Hail Trump!
Hail our people! Hail victory!”[8] While this statement is a clear
reference to Nazi Germany, Pinochet also serves as a regular reference
for the movement. With Pinochet’s specter already haunting the political
landscape it seems only natural that it should also haunt the broader
cultural landscape through cyberspace and the far right.
While the pathway taken to power by Pinochet is very different from the
path taken by the current batch of right-wing populist figures, who have
mostly taken power through electoral rather than military victory, there
are certainly similarities between the processes worth exploring. There
have been many comparisons made between these new demagogic figures and
fascism, as there has been with Pinochet, and there is a certain use to
this rhetorically as well as to explain certain elements of the regimes.
Culturally the movements rely on similar sentiments and both clearly
practice authoritarian governance, however the economic structures
differ considerably.
The Trump campaign championed a strong message of national rebirth
typified by the slogan “make America great again.” Implicit in this
statement is an assumption of past greatness, an assumption that faces a
strong challenge by the legacies of genocide, slavery, imperialism,
ethnic cleansing and capitalist exploitation that tar the state’s
history. Quite simply, it is a message of palingenetic
ultra-nationalism, the core fascist myth.
[Palingenetic ultra-nationalism] Promises to replace gerontocracy,
mediocrity and national weakness with youth, heroism and national
greatness, to banish anarchy and decadence and bring order and health,
to inaugurate an exciting new world in place of the played-out one that
existed before, to put government in the hands of outstanding
personalities instead of non-entities.[9]
Palingenesis can also can be seen in Pinochet with quotes such as “They
entrenched the above goals, the armed forces and police will lead to the
restoration of our democracy, which must be purified rebirth of vices
and bad habits that ended up destroying our institutions” from a public
speech exactly a month after taking power.[10] This speech also invokes
a Portalian spirit, recalling Diego Portales, a Chilean capitalist and
presidential minister who helped shape nineteenth century Chile into an
authoritarian government voted on by rich men. This national rebirth,
formulated as a return to a semi-mythical past, is an essential part of
a fascist project. It is evident to varying degrees in the various right
wing populist figures and regimes today.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also invoked rebirth in
a formal political statements, such as in a speech last year saying,
"Let November 1 [the date of parliamentary elections] be the date of
rebirth for our nation. I am calling upon all of you to bury terror in
the ground…"[11] He then went on to condemn the People’s Democratic
Party, a left wing party that aligns with Kurdish interests, accusing
them of direct links to the PKK, an armed group Kurdish organization in
conflict with the Turkish state that has transitioned from orthodox
Stalinism to a Murray Boockchin influenced libertarian socialism that
the Turkish state considers a terrorist organization. Of course, this
speech also displays a second similarity with traditional fascism:
ethno-nationalism. Erdoğan’s invocation of a “terrorist” threat tied to
an entire ethnic minority bears an eerie resemblance to Trump’s
invocation of the threats posed by Muslims and refugees, which has also
led him to call for the ban of all Muslim travel to the United States.
This type of exclusionary ethno nationalism is also present in the
presidency of Modi in India. Although he has reigned in his rhetoric
somewhat since he condoned murderous anti-Muslim riots in 2002 in
Gujarat, he has done little to stop the rising tide of Hindu Nationalism
in his own party.[12] Putin, another similar figure, has demonstrated
imperial desires in both Syria and the Ukraine and is known to make
statements such as, “To forgive the terrorists is up to god, but to send
them to him is up to me.” Which is indicative of both the machismo
culture that pervades these new rulers, and of the logic of violent
authority. Of course, the Russian army bombing campaign in Syria has
been brutal. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric is employed by the
resurgent far right across Europe. This ethno-nationalism certainly ties
to traditional fascism and has violent impacts.
However, important economic policy differences separate Pinochet and
many contemporary figures from classical fascism. Traditional fascism is
characterized by highly centralized authoritarian structures, which
ultimately merge the state with private industry, at least to some
extent. The state and private industry form a corporatist “third way”
model as opposed to capitalism and international socialism with large
amounts of state control over the economy. Russia follows this model to
some extent, as oligarchs align with the state to form a tremendous
corporatist system; generally, these regimes have neither nationalized
industries that were not previously nationalized, nor created national
businesses, nor changed the relations to global capital. Turkey has been
liberal with its trading partners to an extent that allows for the
import of valuable oil from the Islamic State.[13] Erdoğan has also
conducted numerous privatizations in a variety of industries and
services, even delegating this work to a prime ministry of privatization
administration.[14] Modi has perused a neoliberal economic policy from
before his presidency during his time in Gujarat, which has been based
on the principles of private enterprise and economic growth.[15] Trump,
despite his language of “Draining the swamp,” appears to be preparing
for a neoliberal presidency as well, appointing mostly business
executives, politicians, and party officials including Goldman Sachs’
Gary D Cohn for director of National Economic Council.[16]
Pinochet’s embrace of American companies is used by Robert Paxton to
differentiate Pinochet’s regime from fascism in that it was not free to
expand or to challenge the foreign business interests.[17] While the
rest do not share the inability to expand, evident in Russian
acquisition of Crimea and involvement in Syria, Turkish invasion of
Syria, United States military interventions and bases worldwide, and
Indian conflicts over Kashmir, none of them have a fundamental control
over the economy. That control ultimately lies in the hands of the
global capitalist class, some but definitely not all of whom reside
within the nations themselves, rather than in the hands of the state or
in merger of state capital. This system of control marks a fundamental
distinction from the traditional fascist incorporation of economic ideas
from both the traditional left and right, whereas the new breed of
authoritarians have done little to change the base economic system. In a
certain sense, this ineffective new breed lends some credence to the end
of history narrative--although the governmental system seems to be
shifting, neoliberalism still reigns supreme economically.
Government support for capital has, of course, always existed under
neoliberalism and it important to note that while the state is often
pitted against the market in this discourse, the neoliberal state,
despite the rhetoric of freeing markets of state influence has never
disappeared and state power in terms of enforcing the status quo has not
been particularly challenged. After all, without state intervention, who
would be there beat up protesters and striking workers? This question is
somewhat facetiously asked and there is a long history of using private
security forces to accomplish the same task, although certainly there
lies a nugget of truth considering the era of neoliberalism has shown a
sharp rise in police militarization and the protection and support of
private interests by the state.
These aforementioned regimes adhere rigidly to neoliberal economic
doctrines is particularly interesting considering that all of these
figures have achieved and maintained power by appealing to populist
sentiments. The populism stems from a popular resentment of the status
quo. Neoliberalism has its discontents everywhere it has appeared and
after the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent waves of austerity
that swept much of the world, these discontents both left and right have
grown vociferously. These discontents may be the first real challenge to
the end of history narrative put forward by the technocrats in charge of
maintaining neoliberalism. Living conditions have stagnated while real
wages have stayed about the same since the 1970s despite a massive
increase in productivity.[18] In addition, under the auspices of
austerity, based in a perverse logic of punishment for perceived
indulgence, made all the more brutal for the fact that those punished
rarely are or were in a position to do much indulging and that those who
in such a position are usually let off the hook, social services that
would have provided a cushion for this have been cut drastically.
Through privatization, low cost or free services previously provided by
the state are now operated by for profit industries with every incentive
to maximize profits from the consumer, while spending as little money on
the services as possible. Material conditions in highly industrialized
economies have stagnated for all but the very elite in society;
resentment towards the system seems only natural under these conditions.
Resentment of the status quo can, however, be funneled in different
directions, movements such as Occupy have pitted the challenge in terms
of class struggle with the enemy identified as the 1% while right wing
populism is more likely to focus blame not on an internal divide between
the rulers and the ruled but on a divide between an exclusively
constructed people and the “other,” who is posseted as a threat to the
existence of the people. There is often a deliberate effort to smear all
left leaning challenges to this system as being pushed by and
financially supported by the system, often with reference to George
Soros in what often rings as an anti-Semitic Jewish power
conspiracy.[19] This claim, however untruthful it may be in specifics,
however, does have an element of truth to it as much of the left,
particularly the electoral left (including many of its more historically
radical elements) have been active participants in spreading the
neoliberal project and many self proclaimed socialist governments and
leaders have been tasked with implementing austerity programs that have
been no less harsh than the programs supported by conservatives. The
inability of the left to offer a clear alternative and instead resign
itself to the role of delivering (or at least promising) slightly less
vicious austerity, has allowed for the right to dominate the criticism
of this system and effectively tailor scapegoats to it.
The other most commonly used to invoke fear and resentment today (the
immigrant or the refugee, particularly Muslims) also has been directly
impacted by neoliberalism. Many of the immigrants and refugees
immigrating to the United States, both documented and undocumented, are
fleeing from regions destabilized in part by neoliberal free trade
agreements and the United States war on drugs. The refugees seeking to
gain entry into Europe from the Middle East and Africa are fleeing
imperial wars and poverty that originate from colonial exploitation and
its continuation today in the form of structural neo-imperialism under
the auspices of free trade. That their existence as immigrants and
refugees in the first place is predicated on the destructive neoliberal
order[20] adds irony to the fact that they are blamed for these chaotic
conditions. Indeed, these victims of the system are blamed for the
declining living conditions and justifiable anger about those conditions
is funneled in ways that allow the basic economic structure that has
created that discontentment to be maintained, while continuing and
advancing the marginalization of the already marginalized.
Resentment is turned into a useful tool for maintaining that very power
system that sparked the resentment. Neoliberalism has been particularly
effective at funneling resistance into itself particularly with
challenges from the left by utilizing identity politics to funnel
demands into increases in representation within the system but not a
fundamental change to it. Obama for example has been pointed to as an
indication of progress as the first black president however conditions
for black Americans have not improved. In fact, the wealth gap has
increased, police violence is still rampant, and the war on drugs has
been expanded—as have drone bombings, and mass surveillance. What we see
rising now appears to be an inversion of that technique. Appeals to
identity are wielded instead of structural criticism. These appeals do
not focus on including people within the movements against massive,
systematic oppression, instead they now focus on exclusion of the other,
whoever they may be. The usage of identity stripped of structural and
class analysis to advance political aims has been appropriated by the
far right to advance a form of identity politics catering to white men,
and advancing the interests of rich white men.
This new identity politics is based in identities, which have been
dominant, and is often positions itself against perceived discrimination
against this dominant group by the forces of neoliberalism and
multiculturalism. Richard Spencer, for example, states "Ironically
so-called white privilege is the privilege to be discriminated
against."[21] Across Europe and America there is a perception of white
identity as under threat, an idea that has fueled this rise of
authoritarianism; however, this paranoid thinking is not exclusive to
whiteness. In Turkey, Islamism and neoliberalism have joined forces
against the Kurds, who act as ‘the other’ to be excluded. Not
dissimilarly, in India, it manifests itself as Hindu nationalism and
sets ‘the other’ as Muslims, again—especially Pakistanis.
Capitalism has long positioned itself in alignment with noble ideas
about freedom and democracy, but this supposed freedom has always only
amounted to as much freedom as one can buy and the democracy has always
been suspect. This historical allegiance is however being challenged and
the alt-right and its Pinochet memes serves as only one particularly
curious manifestation of a global trend of anti-democratic sentiment.
Capitalism is being increasingly separated from democracy. Even in many
states that maintain outwardly democratic functions, authoritarianism
serves far better to describe the actual method of governance. More and
more capitalism, and a basically unaltered form of the same disastrous
neoliberalism is merging with authoritarianism. Strong personalities
with demagogic tendencies are winning the day against the technocratic
bureaucrats who have governed the world without great challenge to their
rule since the fall of the Soviet Union. The hegemony of the neoliberal
order and its universalizing of form and function was cemented by the
collapse of the berlin wall, but it is now being maintained by states
erecting walls everywhere. Walls are being built between the US and
Mexico, between Europe and Africa, along the boundaries of the European
union, between India and Bangladesh, and numerous other borders around
the world. This could seem contrary to the free trade principles of
neoliberalism, however, so far these walls have been mainly for people
and the free flow of goods and capital across borders has faced little
challenge while poor people of color die for the opportunity.
Ethno-nationalism appears to be on the ascendency and it is serving as
the glue that is holding the globalized capitalist economy together. On
the surface this may appear somewhat paradoxical, however, the roots of
this order lie in the basic structure of the state itself. The modern
state, the first real example of which is the US, and which was
globalized at the end of explicit colonization through world
institutions centered in the US and Europe (the former colonizing
powers) and based on the model instituted there. This model is based in
Westphalian definitions of sovereignty, which allowed for
self-determination of national identities through the formation of the
nation-state. At the core this dominant model of state formation is
inherently exclusionary and would seem to fundamentally require a form
of ethno-nationalism simply in order to constitute the body to be
governed.
The model has also always been tied to capitalism, with the basic
function of the state concerning itself with development and the
necessary preconditions for it. This is evident in many of the
institutions and practices of the state that are universal or
practically so and can be directly tied to capitalist development or to
the control of population necessary to facilitate it such as record
keeping functions, census taking, mass schooling, social services, and
development and financial agencies.[22] It should be noted that even in
self declared “communist” countries such as the USSR and China this
fundamental capitalist logic has been followed. Lenin for example states
in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, “Today, however, the
same revolution demands—precisely in the interests of its development
and consolidation, precisely in the interests of socialism—that the
people unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of
labour.”[23] The fundamental organization of the economy under the state
structure inherently relies on a class hierarchy and a version of
capitalism. The countries that have stayed under “communist” rule such
as China have proven to be some of the most effective and integrated
capitalist economies. This indicates two important things, capitalism
has long been comfortable with authoritarian governance, and that
authoritarian governance can actually manage a high degree of
development and interconnectivity. Capitalism does not require
democracy, it can do quite well with a state stripped of all its forms
of inverted totalitarianism and rendered brutally and honestly
authoritarian.
Much of that can be tied to capitalism’s willingness to incorporate
local structures of hierarchy and culture in order to preserve its
governance. This existed also under colonialism, with colonial powers
relying on local authority figures to maintain their control. Examples
include the British residency system where British advisors with the
real power were placed behind a local ruler under the British raj and
the régulos, traditional chiefs given governmental authority under the
Portuguese colonization of Mozambique, and there are numerous other
examples.
This takes on new significance with the rise of the authoritarian
neoliberals. Modi and his party have combined Hindutva (the supremacy of
Hinduism in india) and neoliberalism by ostracizing the anti-capitalists
in the Hindu right,[24] appealing to traditional beliefs, playing up the
ability to over come caste with personal effort, “While Hindutva seeks
an individuated but united Hindu social body, neoliberalism seeks
atomized individuals relating on one-on-one terms with the market.”[25]
Erdoğan meanwhile has rolled back on Turkey’s strong secular tradition
and claims to seek “the growth of a religious generation”[26] by
Islamizing education and purging non-Islamist officials, while at the
same time advancing a neoliberal economic policy addressed above.
Putin’s government is close to the Orthodox Church and this connection
is evident in the homophobic policies his government has pursued. Trump
has made less of religious identity, although he was backed strongly by
white Protestants,[27] Trump has relied on religion to marginalize
Muslims, but less so in terms of a platform of actual religious
governance; instead, his appeals are more to law and order and a strong
national identity (similar can be said for Putin).
If one were prone to Leninist accelerationism, and to heightening the
contradictions of capitalism, this recent trend might simply appear as a
necessary stage in the dialectics. Capitalism in its most ruthlessly
exploitative, expansionary, atomizing form as typified by the free
market dogma of neoliberalism combining with states at their most
viciously exclusionary, authoritarian, and undemocratic could
potentially create type of awakening that would facilitate systemic
change, but it also has the potential to hurl humanity off the
ecological cliff. Unless the contradictions of capitalism particularly
its massive inequality, its demand for constant growth at the expense of
ecological systems, and fundamentally undemocratic organizational
structure of the economy are addressed this is likely to happen
regardless, if it has not already because of positive feedback loops
facilitating the acceleration of climate change that we have little hope
of slowing down. Our only hope is to bring down the specter of Pinochet
and the capitalist order that birthed it!
[1] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/docs/doc20.pdf
[2] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
[3] http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/collections/truth_commissions/Chile90-Report/Chile90-Report.pdf
Pg. 122
[4] http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Ley%2020.405%20Instituto%20Derechos%20Humanos_0_0.pdf
[5] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/docs/doc10.pdf
This is a very interesting document. It includes both an examination of
the executions under Pinochet with phrases like “the Junta’s repressive
image continues to plague it” as well as detailing new payments to the
regime.
[6] https://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/17/chomsky_on_the_late_michael_ratner
[7] https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06SAOPAULO30_a.html
[8] http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/politics/alt-right-gathering-donald-trump/
[9] “It promises to replace gerontocracy, mediocrity and national
weakness with youth, heroism and national greatness, to banish anarchy
and decadence and bring order and health, to inaugurate an exciting new
world in place of the played-out one that existed before, to put
government in the hands of outstanding personalities instead of
non-entities.” Roger Griffin
[10] http://beersandpolitics.com/discursos/augusto-pinochet/a-un-mes-de-la-constitucion-de-la-junta-de-gobierno/1000
[11] http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2015/09/16/let-november-1-be-the-date-of-rebirth-for-our-nation-president-erdogan
[12] http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/26/narendra-modi-india-safe-for-muslims-hindu-nationalism-bjp-rss/
[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html
[14] http://www.oib.gov.tr/index_eng.htm
[15] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-gujarat-muddle/article5896998.ece
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-no-2-seen-as-a-top-economic-adviser-to-trump.html
[17] https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%20of%20Fascism%20%20-Knopf%20(2004).pdf
pg 201
[18] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/24/george-soros-blamed-unseen-hand-behind-trump-protests/94334844/
[20] https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/06/01/the-global-migrant-crisis/cQZsJl2wafcCDvwOIAnCAN/story.html
[21] http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-25/alt-right-and-white-outrage-around-world-explainer
[22] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231174
[23] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm
[24] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-hindutva-variant-of-neoliberalism/article5868196.ece
[25] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/springtime-for-modi/
[26] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-president-erdogan-islam-akp-government-a7142836.html
[27] http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/religion-and-the-2016-campaign/