It seems that every year the small and medium publishing fair in Rome causes an uproar. While last year there was the unpleasant inconvenience of the presence of a person convicted in the first instance of domestic violence, now we have a neo-fascist publishing house: this is Passage to the Woods, which in its catalog boasts far-right publications, writings by Mussolini, reproductions of objects symbolizing Nazism, texts glorifying fascist fighters and so on.

Stand assignments are only made public close to the fair, so the presence of this publisher only became known a few days ago. Immediately, as usual, a petition signed by many intellectuals and writers was distributed asking for the exclusion of the publishing house. It is considered outrageous that an openly fanatical reality of Nazi-fascism finds space alongside ‘true’ cultural production, of which Nazi-fascism is the opposite; as it is the opposite of democracy.

A discussion already seen

The same situation had already arisen at the Book Fair in 2019, when the name of the publisher Altaforte, also neo-fascist, emerged. There was the same reaction then too, a request for exclusion signed and supported by the cultural establishment, which in that case was successful, but because there was already an investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office on the matter. In the case of Passage to the Woods, however, there is no irregularity: to participate you apply, you are put on the waiting list, and when you are admitted you pay. The only stipulation is that the catalog respects the values ​​of the Constitution; and if it is true that fascism itself is the negation of it, unfortunately it is also true that there are many ways to praise and renew fascism while remaining within its boundaries.

In short, on a legal level you can’t rely on anything. The usual discussion therefore remains on the attitude to adopt when faced with these things: should we censor? This seems like a very widespread idea: these ideas are not acceptable because they undermine civil society and therefore should not have space. Giving them means to legitimize them and therefore propose them as something normal, an alternative like any other.

Is total closure the best strategy?

There are also reflections in the opposite direction: again in 2019 Michela Murgia had a very different attitude, stating that if we find ourselves having to live with a fascist publisher for three days during a cultural event, we must be there, instead of defecting, and respond with ideas and culture. This is essentially what Luciano Canfora said in recent days, who spoke of ‘living room anti-fascism’. It is not a new attitude in the world of Italian culture, which has some experience when it comes to dramatic symbolic gestures.

In fact, if we abandon the goal of being esteemed – that is, considered upright and morally incorruptible because we condemn what is wrong – and keep in mind the goal of obtaining a concrete result, we notice that censorship is a path that doesn’t work. Meanwhile, censorship very often translates into its opposite, given that today censorship means more than anything else loudly proclaiming that that thing cannot exist, thus notifying everyone of its existence; in fact, during the Passage to the Woods fair it even sold all the available books. A publisher who didn’t know anyone until a week ago.

Furthermore, the closure – although totally right, from the point of view of values ​​- unfortunately has the effect of producing martyrs: those whose mouths are closed by the intolerant left are exalted as examples of the battle for freedom of expression, and thus we contribute to spreading an image of fascism completely outside of history and reality; that is, that fascism is an idea, like others, but persecuted unjustly.

Symbolic gestures that lead nowhere

Symbolically therefore these are relevant gestures, but on a practical level they are more than anything else convenient for making a good impression: because they allow you to take sides and therefore appear in a certain way without making any effort and without risking anything. In fact, even the idea that the figure who doesn’t go to the fair will lose out is very questionable, given that his books will probably remain at his publisher’s stand and will still be sold. The smaller publishers, who have laboriously invested the money for the position, obviously cannot throw it away by deciding at the last minute to stay at home, and therefore a contrast is also created between those who make symbolic gestures passing themselves off as apostles of justice and those who cannot afford it.

The result is a little show to the sound of Bella ciao, appropriately filmed and placed on all social media, in which we sing it and play it among ourselves, shining and passionate anti-fascists. Real changes achieved: zero; interactions and views: well, not bad. In short, we can go to sleep peacefully because we have done our part. But if we don’t even start discussing how we came to have a fascist publisher at More free books, we will continue to move forward with petitions and skits, complaining that democracy is under attack.

Should the criteria be revised so that access to such publishers is prevented? In this case, how should it be done? Deciding who can speak and who cannot is always very complicated, especially if it comes out of a media case. And even by solving these dilemmas, would we have solved the problem?

Is so little enough to fight fascism?

Probably not, although I personally believe that the law should be much more severe: if an anti-fascist culture is missing in Italy, which is reduced to collective performance, it is obvious that fascist ‘cultural’ production is spreading. But the problem here is precisely to remind the progressive Italian cultural environment (so to speak) what culture is and how it is created; we all know that anti-fascism has long been a pose, a pin on the jacket, without any real content. Anti-fascism cannot be imposed, it is truly an oxymoron; it can and must be transmitted, but not with catechism, but with education in democratic values, which also involves the very attitude with which the most difficult topics are discussed (if they are discussed at all). Which shouldn’t be, for a change, speaking in slogans.