The New Fascism in Chile: Mutation, Not Disappearance

The new fascism no longer needs tanks in the streets. And especially, the Chilean communists, who have been and continue to be one of the main targets of this new fascism. The persecution of leaders like Daniel Jadue is not an isolated incident or merely a judicial matter. Fascism did not disappear: it mutated. My respect and affection for the Chilean democrats, for the children of those killed and disappeared by Pinochetism, for those who keep memory alive as a form of political struggle. Democracy is not defended by allowing the judicial persecution of popular leaders, the criminalization of social protest, or the normalization of hate speech. They do not need overwhelming social majorities; disciplined minorities, well-funded and strategically positioned, are enough for them. History teaches us that fascism never announces itself as such. It arrives wrapped in speeches about order, freedom, morality, and anti-politics. Its economic architecture was not dismantled, its perpetrators were not judged exemplarily, and the sovereignty of the Chilean people was not fully restored. The extreme neoliberalism imposed by blood and fire survived under democratic facades. Democracy is not defended by renouncing organization, unity, and political and ideological confrontation. That is why we offer our explicit recognition to those in Chile who are resisting this reactionary offensive today. And when it finally shows its true face, it has already dismantled the democratic defense mechanisms. In the face of this panorama, neutrality does not exist. And today, when the Chilean people tried to open a constituent process to definitively close the wound of the dictatorship, the reaction reorganized with force. José Antonio Kast is the coherent political expression of a never-purged heritage. The objective remains the same: to discipline the peoples and eliminate their most committed political and social leaders. Chile is a tragic and revealing laboratory of this mutation. They conquer institutional spaces, colonize the judiciary, rewrite common sense, normalize hate, and turn social violence into state policy. Either we rigorously analyze what is happening and act accordingly, or we condemn future generations to live in a more unequal, violent, and authoritarian world than the current one. It adapted to the new political, cultural, and communicative conditions of contemporary capitalism. Today, a Videla is not necessary when one has a Milei. Contemporary fascism has understood that it can achieve power—and wield it with enormous social violence—without the need to formally suspend democracy. José Antonio Kast at a campaign event. Fascism never announces itself as such, but arrives wrapped in speeches about order, freedom, morality, and anti-politics, as a solution to a crisis it itself exacerbates. For decades, it was assumed that fascism in Latin America was inseparable from the noise of tanks, classic military coups, uniformed juntas, and the explicit terror exerted from barracks. Trump, lawfare, HazteOír, Disenso, Yunque, and a whole constellation of organizations operating as a perfectly coordinated reactionary international are enough for them. In this new scenario, lawfare replaces the military coup; judicial persecution replaces the firing squad; prison and proscription take the place of forced exile or disappearance. What has changed is not the objective, but the method. Classic military coups have become ugly, costly, and unpopular. He represents the ideological, cultural, and continuity of Pinochetism, now legitimized by the vote and the systematic use of fear, lies, and media manipulation. The message is clear: one can defend the dictatorship, relativize its crimes, and reclaim its legacy without needing to ask for forgiveness or to hide. Meanwhile, from broad progressive and leftist sectors, this advance is observed with a dangerous mix of incredulity, mockery, and fragmentation. There will be no historical excuses for those who, seeing the signs, decided to look away. The defense of democracy cannot be limited to the defense of its empty forms. It is part of a regional strategy aimed at eliminating those who represent a real alternative to neoliberalism and the imperial order. They are treated as a passing phenomenon or as a caricature. That error can be fatal. While we laugh at them—always separately, always disunited—they advance. Videla, Pinochet, Stroessner, or Banzer seemed to belong to a closed era, defeated by the historical defeat of military dictatorships and the fragile and limited recovery of formal democratic regimes. It presents itself as a solution to a crisis it itself exacerbates. The underlying political project is the same: destruction of social rights, annihilation of popular organizations, criminalization of the left, total subordination to transnational capital, and elimination of any semblance of popular sovereignty. The question is whether we will be historically up to facing it collectively, or if we will have to spend decades apologizing to our descendants for the world we left them. They are ridiculed for their eccentricities, their grotesque aesthetic, their chainsaws, their discursive vulgarity, or their religious fanaticism. Pinochetism was never defeated in depth. Tepidness either. Judges, major media outlets, digital platforms, ultra-conservative think tanks, colonized judicial apparatuses, and international networks of financing and propaganda are enough for them. Defending them is not an act of personal solidarity: it is a first-order political task. Pinochetism returns to La Moneda not necessarily with the military, but with the emptying of content from the ballot boxes, politicized tribunals, and a global right that has learned to govern without formally breaking the law, but destroying its spirit. The question is no longer whether this phenomenon exists. They generate international rejection, mobilize internal resistances, and leave scars that last for generations. (*) Secretary of International Relations of the PCE. They are underestimated. However, that reading has proven to be profoundly naive. A Pinochet is not necessary when one has a Kast. He learned.