Definitions of fascism
What
constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a
complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism
and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other
scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.
A significant
number of scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an
authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are
fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars
will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian
regime fascist
Similarly,
fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, it referred to a
totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism which existed in Italy
from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Many scholars use
the word "fascism" without capitalization in a more general sense, to
refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) which was influential in many
countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to
identify what Roger Griffin calls a "fascist minimum"—that is, the
minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be
considered "fascist".[3]
Scholars have
inspected the apocalyptic, millennial and millenarianism aspects of fascism.
By fascist
thinkers and movements
Benito
Mussolini
Benito
Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915,
described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism as follows:[17]
Granted that
the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does
not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism,
liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to
believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the
'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century were the century of the
individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this
is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.
The Fascist
conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual
values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is
totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all
values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
...everything
in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.
Fascism is a
religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a
superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular
individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.
Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but
mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of
government is also, and above all, a system of thought.
Sergio
Panunzio
Sergio
Panunzio, a former syndicalist who was associated with Benito Mussolini, and
who later became a leading fascist theorist, stated that the spirit of fascism
was National Syndicalism as formulated by Mussolini before the battle of
Vittorio Veneto.[18]
Charles
Maurras
Charles
Maurras, leader of Action Française, a far-right political movement, praised
Italian Fascism, although he argued that it was an incomplete form of his ideal
integral nationalism.[19]
What in fact
is Fascism? A socialism emancipated from democracy. A trade unionism free of
the chains that the class struggle had imposed on Italian labour. A methodical
and successful will to bring together in a same fascio all the human factors of
national production ... A determination to approach, to threat, to resolve the
worker question in itself ... and to unite unions in corporations, to
coordinate them, to incorporate the proletariat into the hereditary and
traditional activities of the historical State of the Fatherland.[19]
By scholars
Umberto Eco
In his 1995
essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen
general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible
to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one
of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the
term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical
forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
"The
Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk
of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by
Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and
refinement.
"The
Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of
Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco
distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement,
as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality
of their system.
"The
Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value
in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco,
is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests
in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement
Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical
reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will
expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
"Fear of
Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the
form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal
to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands
and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession
with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an
appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized
groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the
1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism).
Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example
of a plot obsession.
Fascist
societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong
and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain
disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and
humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those
elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming
popular will.
"Pacifism
is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent
Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany
under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up
their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later
intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the
Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a
fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate
triumph with perpetual war.
"Contempt
for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular
elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of
belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep
tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as
they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader
who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it
by force.
"Everybody
is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of
death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his
impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
"Machismo",
which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the
sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance
and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to
homosexuality."
"Selective
Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will,
distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of
people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the
interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use
this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no
longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
"Newspeak"
– Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit
critical reasoning.
Emilio
Gentile
Italian
historian of fascism Emilio Gentile described fascism in 1996 as the
"sacralization of politics" through totalitarian methods[21] and
argued the following ten constituent elements:[22]
a mass
movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the
militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity,
organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy
or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a
mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against
political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by
using terror, parliamentary politics, and deals with leading groups, to create
a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy;
an
'anti-ideological' and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself
antimaterialist, anti-individualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist,
is populist and anticapitalist in tendency, expresses itself aesthetically more
than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and
symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the
faith of the masses with the goal of creating a 'new man';
a culture
founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived
of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer
of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the
model of life and collective activity;
a
totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an
integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses
in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral
community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those
considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or
members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the
integrity of the nation;
a civil ethic
founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility,
comradeship, and the warrior spirit;
a single
state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime,
selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a
process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith;
a police
apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition,
including through the use of organized terror;
a political
system organized by hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by
the figure of the 'leader,' invested with a sacred charisma, who commands,
directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime;
corporative
organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the
sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of
technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the 'productive sectors' under
control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private
property and class divisions;
a foreign
policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of
imperialist expansion.[23]
A. James
Gregor
A professor
of political science emeritus at the U.C. Berkeley, A. James Gregor, contends
that fascism was a “variant of Sorelian syndicalism” which also included
components of neo-idealism and elitist socialism.[24] Gregor took the position
that Stalinism and Fascist totalitarianism would have been impossible without
the “transmogrified Marxism, that infilled both.”[25] According to Gregor:
Fascism was a
variant of classical Marxism, a belief system that pressed some themes argued
by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national
syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.[26]
Furthermore,
he believes that post-Maoist China displays many fascist traits. He has denied
that fascism is "right-wing extremism."[27]
Roger Griffin
Historian and
political scientist Roger Griffin's definition of fascism focuses on the
populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated
nation and ethnic people.[28] According to Griffin
[F]ascism is
best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a
political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic
national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth
that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of
purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of
decadence[3]
Griffin
writes that a broad scholarly consensus developed in English-speaking social
sciences during the 1990s, around the following definition of fascism:
[Fascism is]
a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last
analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound
up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable
variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and
national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural
and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to
articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war
period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed
party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass
movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical
policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism,
to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring
about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of
what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western
civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its
ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the
nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.[29]
Griffin
argues that the above definition can be condensed into one sentence:
"Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various
permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism."[30]
The word "palingenetic" in this case refers to notions of national
rebirth.
F.A. Hayek
Classical
liberal economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek, in his 1944 book The Road to
Serfdom, argued that socialism and national socialism had similar intellectual
roots. “Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”
He cited the following exemplary cases of socialist scholars: Werner Sombart
was hailed as a Marxist and persecuted for his beliefs, but when he later
rejected internationalism and pacifism in favor of German militarism and
nationalism, he became an intellectual force for national socialism early on.
Johann Plenge, another early national socialist intellectual, saw national
socialism as a German adaptation of socialism. Paul Lensch was a socialist
politician in the Reichstag who argued for central control of the economy and
for militarism that became features of national socialism. He wrote that
Western or English liberalism, which includes the ideas of freedom, community,
and equality and rule by parliamentary democracy, was anathema in a true
Germany, where power should belong to the whole, everyone is given his place, and
one either obeys or commands. Oswald Spengler in his early writings advocated
many of the ideas shared by German socialists at this time. Arthur Moeller van
den Bruck, a patron saint of national socialism, per Hayek, claimed that World
War I was a war between liberalism and socialism and that socialism lost. Like
Plenge and Lensch, he saw national socialism as socialism adapted to the German
character and undefiled by Western ideas of liberalism.[31]
Dimitri
Kitsikis
Dimitri
Kitsikis, a Greek Turkologist and Sinologist, proposed a model of fascism in
1998 featuring 13 categories by which fascist ideologies, movements and
establishments can be analyzed and contrasted with others:[32]
The idea of
class and the importance of agrarianism
Private
ownership, the circulation of money, the regulation of the economy by the
state, the idea of ethnic bourgeois class, economic self-sufficiency
The nation
and the difference between nation and state
The attitude
toward democracy and political parties
The
importance of political heroes, i.e. the charismatic leader
The attitude
toward tradition
The attitude
toward the individual and society
The attitude
toward equality and hierarchy
The attitude
toward women
The attitude
toward religion
The attitude
toward rationalism
The attitude
toward intellectualism and elitism
The attitude
toward the Third World[clarification needed]
Using this
model, Kitsikis argued that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher and father of
the French Revolution, laid the foundations of French Fascism.[33] Kitsikis
also applied the model to the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), a Peruvian
communist party which claims to follow Maoism. The results of his analysis
showed that the party's ideology satisfies all the criteria of nine categories
(nine points), some of the criteria of three categories (1.5 points) and none
of the criteria of one category (0 points). A total score of 10.5 out of a
possible 13 shows that Shining Path actually follows a fascist ideology.[34]
John Lukacs
John Lukacs,
Hungarian-American historian and Holocaust survivor, argues in the Hitler of
History that there is no such thing as generic fascism, claiming that National
Socialism and Italian Fascism were more different than similar and that,
alongside communism, they were ultimately radical forms of populism.[35]
Ernst Nolte
Ernst Nolte,
a German historian and Hegelian philosopher, defined fascism in 1965 as a
reaction against other political movements, especially Marxism: "Fascism
is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a
radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical
and yet typically modified methods, always, however, within the unyielding
framework of national self-assertion and autonomy."[36]
Kevin
Passmore
Kevin Passmore,
a history lecturer at Cardiff University, defines fascism in his 2002 book
Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. His definition is directly descended from
the view put forth by Ernesto Laclau, and is also informed by a desire to
adjust for what he believes are shortcomings in Marxist, Weberian and other
analyses of fascism:[37]
Fascism is a
set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in
exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other
sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist
nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism
and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than
nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also
a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism
and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to
power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic
leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards
conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to
override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities,
the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require
it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by
accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as
these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the
harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by
mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate
system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon
members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial
characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with
ultranationalism.
Robert Paxton
Robert
Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his
2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism as:
A form of
political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline,
humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and
purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working
in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons
democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical
or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.[9]
In the same
book, Paxton also argues that fascism's foundations lie in a set of
"mobilizing passions" rather than an elaborated doctrine. He argues
these passions can explain much of the behaviour of fascists:[38]
a sense of
overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions.
the primacy
of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether
individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it.
the belief
that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without
legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.
dread of the
group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism,
class conflict, and alien influences.
the need for
closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by
exclusionary violence if necessary.
the need for
authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain
who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny.
the
superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason.
the beauty of
violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s
success.
the right of
the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human
or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess
within a Darwinian struggle.
Stanley G.
Payne
Historian of
fascism Stanley G. Payne created a lengthy list of characteristics to identify
fascism in 1995:[39][40] in summary form, there are three main strands. His
typology is regularly cited by reliable sources as a standard definition.
First, Payne's "fascist negations" refers to such typical policies as
anti-communism and anti-liberalism. Second, "fascist goals" include a
nationalist dictatorship and an expanded empire. Third, "fascist
style", is seen in its emphasis on violence and authoritarianism, and its
exultation of men above women, and young above old.[41]
A. Ideology
and Goals:
Espousal of
an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the
attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture
Creation of a
new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or
models
Organization
of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure,
whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national
syndicalist
Positive
evaluation and use of, or willingness to use violence and war
The goal of
empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other
powers
B. The
Fascist Negations:
Antiliberalism
Anticommunism
Anticonservatism
(though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake
temporary alliances with other sectors, more commonly with the right)
C. Style and
Organization:
Attempted
mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and
with the goal of a mass single party militia
Emphasis on
aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing
emotional and mystical aspects
Extreme
stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a
strongly organic view of society
Exaltation of
youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of the generations,
at least in effecting the initial political transformation
Specific
tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command,
whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective[40]
Zeev
Sternhell
One of the
world's leading experts on fascism, Zeev Sternhell, describes Fascism as a
reaction against modernity and a backlash against the changes it had caused to
society, as a "rejection of the prevailing systems: liberalism and
Marxism, positivism and democracy."[42] At the same time, Sternhell says
that part of what made Fascism unique was that it wanted to retain the benefits
of progress and modernism while rejecting the values and social changes that
had come with it; Fascism embraced liberal market-based economics and the
violent revolutionary rhetoric of Marxism, but rejected their philosophical
principles.[43]
John Weiss
John Weiss, a
Wayne State University history professor, described fascist ideas in his 1967
book, The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-Wing Extremism in Modern Europe:
organicist conceptions of community, philosophical idealism, idealization of
"manly" (usually peasant or village) virtues, resentment of mass
democracy, elitist conceptions of political and social leadership, racism (and
usually anti-Semitism), militarism and Imperialism.[44]
By Marxists
Marxists
argue that fascism represents the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically,
the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an
imminent proletarian revolution. Fascist movements are not necessarily created
by the ruling class, but they can only gain political power with the help of
that class and with funding from big business. Once in power, the fascists
serve the interests of their benefactors.[45][46]
Georgi
Dimitrov
Georgi
Dimitrov, Bulgarian Communist, was a theorist of capitalism who expanded
Lenin's ideas and the work of Clara Zetkin.
Delivering an
official report to the 7th World Congress of the Communist Third International
in August 1935, Bulgarian Communist leader Georgi Dimitrov cited the definition
of fascism formulated with the help of Clara Zetkin at the Third Plenum as
"the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most
chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital".[46]
According to
Dimitrov:
"Fascism
is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has
asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has
captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford
declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of
the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism
is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist
vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the
peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its
most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development
of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in
different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions
and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given
country."
Leon Trotsky
In the
posthumously published 1944 tract, Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It,
Communist opposition leader Leon Trotsky noted: "The historic function of
fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle
political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate
with the help of democratic machinery."[47] Amadeo Bordiga argued that
fascism is merely another form of bourgeois rule, on the same level as
bourgeois democracy or traditional monarchy, and that it is not particularly
reactionary or otherwise exceptional.[48]
Clara Zetkin
An early
study of fascism was written by Clara Zetkin for the Third Plenum in 1923:
"Fascism
is the concentrated expression of the general offensive undertaken by the world
bourgeoisie against the proletariat.... fascism [is] an expression of the decay
and disintegration of the capitalist economy and as a symptom of the bourgeois
state’s dissolution. We can combat fascism only if we grasp that it rouses and
sweeps along broad social masses who have lost the earlier security of their
existence and with it, often, their belief in social order.... It will be much
easier for us to defeat Fascism if we clearly and distinctly study its nature.
Hitherto there have been extremely vague ideas upon this subject not only among
the large masses of the workers, but even among the revolutionary vanguard of
the proletariat and the Communists.... The Fascist leaders are not a small and
exclusive caste; they extend deeply into wide elements of the population.[45]
By other
antifascists
George Orwell
Anti-fascist
author George Orwell describes fascism in a 1941 essay, "Shopkeepers At
War", in economic terms:
Fascism, at
any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from
Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes... It
is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not
allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its
way.[49]
Writing for
the Tribune in 1944, Orwell stated:[50]
...It is not
easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is
even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It
is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it
thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic
problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is
not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or
again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of
Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies,
reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able
to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we
apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know
broadly what we mean.
Franklin D.
Roosevelt
American
statesman Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led the US into war with the fascist Axis
powers, wrote about fascism:
The first
truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of
government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private
power.[51][52][53][54]
Fascist as
insult
Main article:
Fascist (insult)
Some have
argued that the terms fascism and fascist have become hopelessly vague since
the World War II period, and that today it is little more than a pejorative
used by supporters of various political views to insult their opponents. The
word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups
that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not
fall within the formal definition of the word. As a political epithet, fascist
has been used in an anti-authoritarian sense to emphasize the common ideology
of governmental suppression of individual freedom. In this sense, the word
fascist is intended to mean oppressive, intolerant, chauvinist, genocidal,
dictatorial, racist, or aggressive. George Orwell wrote in 1944:
...the word
‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is
used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers,
shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting,
the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek,
homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs
and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of
Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a
synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this
much-abused word has come.[50]
Fascism is a
set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in
exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other
sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.
The Doctrine
of Fascism
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Jump to
navigationJump to search
This article
includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by
introducing more precise citations. (January 2011) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
"The
Doctrine of Fascism" (Italian: "La dottrina del fascismo") is an
essay attributed to Benito Mussolini. In truth, the first part of the essay,
entitled "Idee Fondamentali" (Italian for "Fundamental
Ideas") was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile, while only the second
part ("Dottrina politica e sociale") is the work of Mussolini
himself.[1] It was first published in the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1932, as the
first section of a lengthy entry on "Fascismo" (Italian for Fascism).
The entire entry on Fascism spans pages 847–884 of the Enciclopedia Italiana,
and includes numerous photographs and graphic images. The Mussolini entry
starts on page 847 and ends on 851 with the credit line "Benito Mussolini."
All subsequent translations of "The Doctrine of Fascism" are from
this work.
A key concept
of the Mussolini essay was that fascism was a rejection of previous models:
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of marxism, liberalism,
democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of
marxism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We
are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to
the Right, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the
individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this
is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
The
philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who wrote the first part of the Dottrina
For if the
nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Classical liberalism always
signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be a century of
collectivism, and hence the century of the State. —Benito Mussolini, "The
Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Jane Soames authorized translation,
Hogarth Press, London, 1933, p. 20.[2]
Against
individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the
individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to
classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of
the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of
the individual. (p. 13) 1935 version
Yet the
Fascist State is unique, and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but
revolutionary...Jane Soames, translator, authorized 1933 edition, Hogarth
Press, London (p. 23)
The Fascist
conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual
values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is
totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all
values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p.
14)
Fascism is
therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which
amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and
which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise
opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit
of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism
and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system
in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the
State. (p.15)
Yet if anyone
cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings
at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a
doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)
It may be
objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No
matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims
advanced by national syndicalism (sindacalismo). (p. 24)
Fascism [is]
the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called
Scientific or Marxian Socialism. (p. 30)
After
Socialism, Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and
rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or
practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere
fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this
majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the
irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled
by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage. (p. 31)
Fascism is
definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the
political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist
State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes
its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of
its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political,
economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective
associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
—Benito
Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism", Firenze: Vallecchi
Editore.
The Labour
Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council for Fascism on April 21,
1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)
The Corporate
State and its Organization (p. 133)
The corporate
State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most
effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of
the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national
concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the
direction given to production.
State
intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is
lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are
involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct
management. (pp. 135-136)
—Benito
Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions", Rome: 'Ardita'
Publishers.
Edition and
Translation differences
"The
Doctrine of Fascism"
"Fascism,
the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity
quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in
the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the
doctrine of Pacifism – born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of
cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension
all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have
courage to meet it." —Mussolini
"Fascism:
Doctrine and Institutions"
"First
of all, as regards the future development of mankind, and quite apart from all
present political considerations. Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe
in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards
pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine contradistinction to self-sacrifice.
War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal
of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it." —Mussolini
Modern
History Sourcebook:
Benito
Mussolini:
What is
Fascism, 1932
Benito
Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he
was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new
political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the
symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Mussolini
came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed
Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.
In 1932
Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian
Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
Fascism, the
more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite
apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the
possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine
of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice
in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human
energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet
it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the
position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life
or death....
...The
Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he
rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for
others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries,
and those who will come after...
...Fascism
[is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of
history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of
interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in
the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes
in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no
economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history
be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to
and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out
of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and
unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic
conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the
preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After
Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and
repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.
Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can
direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a
periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful
inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere
operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism
denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality
dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of
"happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that
the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of
Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also
be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass,
but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century
of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a
century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of
collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The
foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty,
and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which
all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their
relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a
directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual,
of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording
results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has
itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic"
State....
...The
Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty
to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful
freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question
cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism,
the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an
essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence.
Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are
always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism
is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of
a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries
of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the
coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this
fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the
character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures
which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and
inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by
recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated
wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social
and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in
need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own
characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as
the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living
thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and
that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those
who have suffered and died for it.
