Donatella Di Cesare: "War is no longer a means of politics, but an investment"

BarcelonaPhilosopher, essayist, and columnist, she teaches philosophy at Sapienza University of Rome. Donatella Di Cesare (Rome, 1956), has been fighting against the extreme right for years from all spheres, including the media and the streets. She is not afraid, even though she had to have police escort due to threats received from fascist and neo-Nazi groups. Among other works, she has published Heidegger y los judíos (2017), Tortura (2018), Terrorismo. Una guerra civil global (2017), Marranos (2019), and Sobre la vocación política de la filosofía (2020), translated into Spanish by Gedisa. In Catalan, Tecnofeixisme. La suspensió tàctica de la política (Arcàdia) has just been released. Translated by Coral Romà, the book reflects on how totalitarian forms of government are being imposed worldwide and how the power of the people is being reduced.

There is a point where she states that current fascism is like a "fascism without black shirts." Are we embracing fascism without the need for violence?

— It is a form of totalitarianism for which we no longer have names; we have no words to designate it or name it. But it is not a form of fascism that asserts itself with physical violence. It is a very subtle form, but it is also violent. We see this in many areas of politics and in the individual experience of isolation and depoliticization: the lack of political connection, the lack of the polis and of community. It is not the violence of brute force, but there is an implicit violence.

How would you describe this violence?

— I distinguish two tendencies that I try to outline in the book: technocracy and ethnocracy. Ethnocracy is a form of new racism. It is not based on a concept of race, but on a conception of the ethnos, of the people as an ethnicity in an ethnic reshaping of the people. And this has very violent consequences, as we see in migration and war policies. It is the idea that the people must be closed off, with immune borders, where the other is an enemy and a danger. This continuous production of enemies is, for me, a form of violence with enormous political relevance. The clearest form of this new totalitarianism is Trumpism. Trump is its emblem: the daily production of enemies, the need for war, and an immune and very violent migration policy.

In the classic fascism of the 20th century there was a visible Duce or Führer. Who would occupy this place in technofascism? Trump? The platform owners? Who is the leader of this system to which we cannot even give a name?

— This is a very important question, because the problem is that we don't have a new Mussolini or a new Hitler. It's the mechanism of this technocracy. What exists today, for the first time, is a global technocratic elite that is not just financial (which there was before), but also technological. I'm thinking of Silicon Valley: they, who were liberals, have decided on the right. It is a technocratic elite and, moreover, there is an alliance with the military industry. Musk is its emblem, but he is not the only one. This is the real danger of technofascism. The problem is not technology itself (which is always, at the same time, a danger and an opportunity), but this elite that represents a surpassing of democracy. Technocracy means that we are already beyond democracy.

It is no longer democracy, it is technocracy. The demos, the people, is lost. Does this mean the people no longer have any power?

— Exactly. In the book I say it is a demos without kratos, the people no longer have power. There is a technocratic elite that already decides, for example, on war. For me, war is the most interesting area right now. We are in a new era, a new chapter. War is no longer a means of politics, but an investment: one must destroy in order to rebuild. It is the opportunity for this technocratic elite. I think it is very dangerous.

Yes, but, in a way, it is a consented fact. Having given up power is something we have done in favor of an existence that suits us better. At what point and why did we give up this?

— I don't think we have renounced it. I believe that political mechanisms must be analyzed. For me, the most interesting thing is to ask why such a relevant part of workers in the United States, in Italy, or in Germany with the AFD have voted for the right. In Spain the situation is a little different because the new right is not so strong yet, but in many countries workers have voted for Trump or Meloni. Why? Because what he has promised is protection and immunity. "I will protect you because out there are your enemies." It is a way of governing through fear and the promise of protection. This explains why we accept this ethnocracy and this ethnic remodeling of the people.

In this era of artificial intelligence and networks controlled by these technocrats, is there room for dissent? How can one be a dissenting voice?

— There are two problems. The first is that there has not been an exciting alternative from the left; it is the failure of the left in recent decades, which has not offered an economic, ethical, or political alternative. The second is the problem of networks and algorithms. But it is not just a problem of information or propaganda. If Trump tells lies every day without shame, the problem is that we can no longer verify them, we do not have time or reference points. The success of this is the destruction of trust. As Hannah Arendt said about totalitarianism: the problem is not propaganda, it is that trust is destroyed.

Faced with this feeling of powerlessness, how does one resist?

— Political powerlessness is the theme of my book. It is not a private emotion, it is a political problem: the consequence of this depoliticization where everyone is isolated. The first thing to do is a diagnosis, to analyze what is happening because it is new. And, then, to ask about the possibility of a new resistance. It cannot be yesterday's resistance, nor just the defense of the rule of law (because we are already beyond the rule of law). It must be a resistance against war and a way to rediscover the meaning of democracy where the protagonist is once again the demos. We must also ask ourselves what Europe means to us today, because here too there is a failure.