Gabriel Pereira reviews Odillon Caldeira Neto’s Neofascism and the Far-Right in Brazil (Cambridge University Press, 2025).
Gabriel Pereira is a permanent researcher at the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas of Argentina (CONICET) and editor of the Review of Democracy.
The resurgence of far-right ideologies across the globe has forced democracies to reckon with the continued appeal of authoritarian political cultures. In this context, Brazil has emerged as a crucial case for understanding the entrenchment of radical right-wing ideologies beyond the global north. Odilon Caldeira Neto’s “Neofascism and the Far Right in Brazil” intervenes in this debate by historicizing and contextualizing the evolution of Brazilian neofascism, tracing its roots, ruptures, and resurgence. Odilon Caldeira Neto is a historian at the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (Brazil), where he is a leading scholar on understanding the Brazilian far right. His authority in fascist studies, especially in the Latin American context, makes his analysis valuable for those interested in understanding current political developments in the region in general and Brazil in particular.
In the wake of Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency and the January 8, 2023, coup attempt in Brasília, understanding the ideological foundations of the Brazilian far right is more urgent than ever. Therefore, this concise but rigorous monograph explores how neofascist ideologies in Brazil evolved from marginal post-dictatorship groups to transnationally connected actors that have shaped mainstream political discourse.
One of the aims of the author is to shed light on the historical specificity of Brazilian neofascism as a “late phenomenon” by framing it from a global perspective. The nuanced conceptual framing is one of the key strengths; its argument centers on two primary research questions: How did neofascism develop in Brazil, and how did it impact the contemporary far-right political field?
Caldeira Neto argues that Brazilian neofascism, while emerging later than its European counterparts, has achieved significant political articulation and influence.
Caldeira Neto argues that Brazilian neofascism has achieved significant political articulation and influence while emerging later than its European counterparts. He traces this phenomenon across three historical phases: the formation of neo-integralist, neo-Nazi, and Holocaust-denialist groups during Brazil’s democratic transition; the development of transnational neofascist strategies in the 2000s; and the consolidation of these elements within the broader radical right under Bolsonarism.
The author’s core contribution is his insistence on viewing fascism as a global and dynamic phenomenon—not confined to interwar Europe—and situating Brazil’s far right within that larger constellation. Importantly, Caldeira Neto avoids alarmist generalizations, offering a historically grounded and empirically supported account of the Brazilian case. One of the particular challenged assumptions is that Latin America is immune to European-style neofascism. It highlights how local authoritarian traditions, religious conservatism, and racial politics provide fertile ground for the far right’s adaptation and growth.
The book challenges assumptions that Latin America is immune to European style neofascism.
The structure follows three main parts. The first examines the initial “wave” of Brazilian neofascism (1980–2000), analyzing its origins in post-dictatorship political reconfigurations, with emphasis on neo-integralism, neo-Nazism, and Holocaust denialism. This section details the internal disputes within integralist factions and their flirtations with violent skinhead subcultures. The second part tracks the second wave (2000–2020), showing how neofascist groups professionalized, embraced new technologies, and engaged in transnational strategies—including links with the Nouvelle Droite and networks like the Hammerskins. The third section explores the convergence of neofascist groups with broader far-right movements, culminating in the rise of Bolsonarism. Caldeira Neto meticulously charts how neofascist elements, once marginal, found renewed visibility and opportunity within Bolsonaro’s populist and anti-establishment platform. He shows that these groups are neither monolithic nor static; they evolve through tactical rebranding, transnational learning, and strategic positioning in times of crisis.
A significant strength of the book lies in its nuanced conceptual framing: Caldeira Neto refuses to treat fascism as a closed historical category, instead demonstrating its adaptability across time and space. His meticulous documentation of obscure political figures, grassroots organizations, and transnational linkages reveals the diversity within Brazil’s far-right landscape. Moreover, integrating memory politics, religious ideology, and digital activism enriches the reader’s understanding of contemporary neofascist mobilization.
Caldeira Neto refuses to treat fascism as a closed historical category, instead demonstrating its adaptability across time and space.
One limitation is the lack of a deeper comparative perspective that places Brazil’s neofascism alongside other Global South cases where far-right politics has also resurged. However, this limitation may be less of a shortcoming of the author’s analysis and more of a structural constraint of the “Cambridge Elements” series, which mandates concise, focused treatments. A more expansive comparative analysis might have broadened the dialogue with emerging literature on the radical right in Latin America—including recent work on the Andean region, Central America, and the Southern Cone—and situated Brazil’s experience within broader patterns of authoritarian revival in the region. Still, Caldeira Neto’s work lays essential groundwork for future comparative research and opens critical paths for understanding the distinct trajectories of right-wing extremism across Latin America.
The book is empirically rich, drawing on primary sources ranging from political party documents and denialist publications to court rulings and far-right digital forums. The analytical framework is consistent with contemporary fascism studies, echoing scholars like Federico Finchelstein and Roger Griffin, yet tailored to Brazil’s political particularities. While the tone remains scholarly and cautious, Caldeira Neto’s argument is persuasive: neofascism in Brazil is not a foreign transplant but a rearticulation of longstanding authoritarian currents in new guises. The layered historical argumentation supports his claim that Brazilian neofascism merits attention not as a fringe curiosity but as a meaningful actor within democratic backsliding.
