Berlin panel: Fascism theory is not a guide for practice but a practice of thinking

Do we need to understand fascism well enough to defeat it? In Berlin, the connection between theory and Antifa was discussed.

Published: 28 July 2026, 5:56 PM

What to do against Nazis? Photo: Florian Boillot/picture alliance

By Julia Hubernagel

There are terms that work better as double words. "Body and soul" is such a double word, "supply and demand," and perhaps also "theory and practice." That the latter is worth further consideration is something quite a few poets and thinkers—from Bushido to Habermas—could sing a song about. The relationship between thinking and acting, what it is and what it should be, is one of the great questions that particularly politically thinking and acting people must ask themselves. This was the subject of a discussion panel on Monday at the Berlin project space diffrakt.

Dichotomies and Definitions

Moderator Patrick Eiden-Offe began with dichotomies. Interestingly, fascism and antifascism are the same age, he noted. Yes, said Morten Paul—fascism is a phenomenon "that forces us to think about it." Paul is a literary and cultural scholar who has published various works on fascism theory in recent years. He does not want to understand theory as an instruction for practice, as a hinge, but rather as practice itself—as a practice of thinking.

Next to Paul on the podium sat Enis Maci, who raised the question of usefulness and truth. Maci is an essayist, theater and novel author, and by truths she also means those of a poetic nature. As an example, she cited Alexander Kluge's concept of "cross-mapping," according to which, for example, walking through Singapore with a map of pre-war Paris, you may not necessarily reach a destination, but you do get somewhere. Connections emerge between what you see and what you could see, elsewhere.

Theory as Irritation

It was not about finding clear answers to clearly formulated questions this evening—that quickly became apparent. Instead, what Paul highlighted as the attractive aspect of intellectual work was replicated live: the small sparks that fly when good thoughts form and become concrete.

Using Roland Barthes ("Every speech is fascist"), Paul approached the differences. While fascism creates short circuits—simple, emotional truths—theory causes irritations, he said; productive ones, which it is also fun to engage with.

How to Fight Fascism?

Long-term engagement with a subject indicates a certain interest in it, sometimes a personally motivated urgency to work on the field. Marxist to liberal thinkers—from Gramsci to Adorno to Arendt—are united in the context of fascism theory by their aversion to it. The question Paul posed on the podium can be understood as a universal one:

"What actually needs to be in place for what I do to have an effect?"

And following that, the more uncomfortable one: Is it even true that fascism can be fought better if we know more about it?

Labels and Definitions

What fascism is, whether it is back or never went away—these are questions centrally negotiated in public discourse. Asked from the audience whether one should label today's right-wing governments with the designation "fascist," Paul gave an answer that seemed akin to Kluge's "cross-mapping." It is less about names per se, but rather about nets, he said—nets that one casts with the help of concepts to catch things that help to better understand situations and events.

Historically (and spatially), the search for a universally applicable definition of fascism has been approached differently. Recently, philosopher Eva von Redecker provided the explanation that fascism is "liquidating phantom property defense." Although here too, the question of property is answered differently depending on time and context.