Most of us have
heard people accusing politicians of being ‘fascists’ or ‘Nazis’, but what do
we really mean? Is it a legitimate accusation, or is it just another term we
throw out with the intention of offending or labelling.
Well quite clearly
some of these accusations do not stand the test of analysis if we carefully
analyse what we mean by the term ‘fascist’ or ‘fascism’.
Opponents of
fascism usually tend to categorise it as a ‘far right ideology, yet this is
something that adherents would violently oppose. Indeed, Paxton (2004 p.) has
argued:
“The ultimate fascist response to the Right-Left political map was to
claim that they had made it obsolete by being ‘neither Right nor Left’,
transcending such outdated divisions and uniting the nation.”
Furthermore,
Jackson (2018) complicated matters even further by pointing out how any
defining fascism is inexorably obfuscated by the fact that any interpretation
will be tainted by the analysts own worldview. Thus, for example, a Marxist
might see fascism as a creation of modernity that identified how capitalism was
in a state of crisis and offered a violent response to fend off a true workers’
revolution. Alternatively, psychologists have argued fascism is either an
adolescent rebellion (Erikson) or an alienation of man in the modern world
(Fromm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
British
Union of Fascists
|
PNF
– Italian Fascist Party
|
Swastika
– symbol of the NSDAP – Nazi Party (Germany
|
|
Symbols of Fascist Organisations
|
While interesting,
none of this fully explains what is fascism and what underpins it ideologically.
In an attempt to address this, Paxton (1998) argued several mobilising passions
needed to be present for a movement to be described as ‘fascist’. These
included:
- The
primacy of the group toward which one has duties, superior to every right
whether universal or individual;
- The
belief that one’s group is a victim and that action again those enemies (both
internal and external is justified);
- A
dread that because of liberalism, one’s group is sliding into a state of
decadence;
- Closer
integration of the group into a ‘brotherhood’ to protect its purity is critical
even if this includes exclusionary violence;
- The
authority of natural chiefs (always male) culminating in a national leader who
will guide the group’s identity;
- The
beauty of violence when it is devoted to the success of the group in a
Darwinian struggle.
Meanwhile, Finchelstein
(2008) argued:
“Fascism
is a political ideology that encompassed totalitarianism, state terrorism,
imperialism, racism and, in the German case, the most radical genocide of the
last century: the Holocaust.”
While Griffin saw
fascism as:
“Fascism
should be seen as a revolutionary form of nationalism guided by the
myth of the imminent rebirth of the nation in decadence.”
Other theorists have
seen it as an expression of lower middle-class resentments (Lipset, 1963) while
a multitude of observers have seen fascism as a sub-species of totalitarianism.
Oswald Mosley and the
British Union of Fascists
Clearly, we can see from
all this there is no universal agreement on what is meant by the term. However,
for our purposes and for future understanding of all posts that will follow in
this blog, the following elements will generally be assumed to exist within the
ideology of what is generally termed ‘fascism’. While far from definitive, it
offers a starting point for future discussion:
- A
closed ideological system that places the state and the nation at the centre of
all human life;
- A rejection of political and cultural liberalism;
- Opposition to the democratic process
including parliamentary democracy;
- A total opposition to Marxist/
Communist ideology;
- A belief in the notion of the
Corporate State as defined by Gentile and Mussolini;
- Totalitarian or authoritarian ambition;
- The leader principle - the belief that
the party and the state should have a single leader with absolute power;
- Mass mobilisation of the population;
- The creation of “the new man” - transforming
the ordinary man into the “new man,” a “virile” being who would put decadent
bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists, and “feminine” liberals to shame;
- A sense of victimhood - despite claims
of superiority, fascists tends to claim the nation group has been victimized by
others;
- Ultra-nationalism that seeks to expand
the nation's influence and power;
- Racial scapegoating - exclusion of
certain groups, often through violence;
- Sexism and misogyny - women are urged
to perform their traditional gender roles as wives and mothers and to bear many
children for the nation;
- Anti-intellectualism;
What
does this mean?
Even a superficial
reading of the above clearly shows that the term “fascism” is frequently
misused and often reduced to a term of abuse. The trouble with this approach is
that it leads to a dead end. If we allow this continue, where does it lead and,
more importantly, what terms can we then adopt when we need to actually
describe genuine fascist movements. Indeed, in the coming weeks, I will
hopefully demonstrate that in the last thirty years, we often describe extreme,
or far right groups as ‘fascist’, when in fact they may be nothing of the sort,
even though many of their views may be repugnant to decent minded people.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed
this post and do feel free to comment. In the meantime, have a great weekend.
References:
Finchelstein, F. (2008) On Fascist Ideology Constellations. 15(3) 320 – 331
Griffin, R. (2002) Cruces
gamadas y caminos bifurcados: las dinámicas fascistas del Tercer Reich” in Mellón,
J.A. (ed.): Orden, Jerarquía y Comunidad. Fascismos, Dictaduras y Postfascismos en la Europa Contemporánea,
Madrid, Tecnos, p.103-149.
Jackson, P. 2018) Colin
Jordan and Britain’s Neo-Nazi Movement – Hitler’s Echo. Bloomsbury, London.
Lipset, S.M. (1963)
Political Man. Doubleday. New York
Paxton, R.O. (1998) The
five stages of Fascism. Journal of Modern History. 70(1) 1 – 23.
Paxton, R.O (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. Penguin.
London
