I don't like the fascists when translated into our political system, but their position makes a lot more sense when seen in the context of Italy's situation between the two World Wars. So I don't see it as an abstract political position but rather as the result of concrete historical circumstances.
The common roots of liberalism and socialism in the premises of the Enlightenment:
Ideological fascism rejects these premises:
Following these premises, fascists hold that liberal democracy and socialism are both undesirable and unworkable. If anything, liberal democracy and socialism are ideological disguises of what fascists believe is the fundamental conflict among people and/or what should be the fundamental subordination of the individual to the collectivity. [And since liberal democracy and some forms of socialism are ideological disguises, we can't dismiss the fascists' suspicions out of hand. This is one of the attractions of fascism; it correctly identifies (and fosters, I grant) a popular unease that "We're being had" and then eases its particular doctrines in the jet stream of that felt truth.] Freedom consists in obedience to these realities, just as we would not consider someone "free" because they reject the law of gravity and walk off cliffs.
Nationalism: National identity is paramount. Shared culture.
Elitism: Governance should be by elites who understand the nature of social reality, who can represent it in themselves, and who can thus command the loyalty, unity, and obedience of the masses.
Irrationalism: The human need for meaning transcends "rationality"; "rational" or "scientific" discourse cannot provide the collective meaning that people seek.
Italian nationalism (grounded in language, culture, and religion)
Economic corporativism: different parts of the national body cannot fight with each other.
The above implies a "totalitarianism", where the leader commands the totality of the society. For example, there were no independent labor unions.
Hitler
The Führerprinzip, bound the masses in obedience to the leader, just as the body is bound in obedience to the head.
Racial purity — that is, the purity of the "Aryan" race — is necessary for the race's effective action.
Soviet totalitarianism
Authoritarian dictators of many types
Afrikaner racial doctrine and South African apartheid
Anti-immigrant parties in the West generally, and White supremacist groups in the United States specifically
Jan 15, 2005: Here is what I wrote in an email to a friend who asked for a definition of fascism and whether the Bush Administration and/or the Republican Party were fascist:
Fascism is indeed an unclear term, because of its different uses. Sometimes it's more a term of abuse than a specific concept. Sometimes it refers to a specific historical movement and the external characteristics of that movement. Few definitions really get at the internal cognitive structure, which is the way I prefer to define it. To me, fascism is any system which concentrates on the interests of the collectivity to the exclusion (or relative exclusion) of the interests of the individuals making up that collectivity. The thing about fascism is that it originated in a country (or countries) that had almost no central authority, and in a world where people had to get along together in nation-states in order to survive, centralizing authority makes sense. This centralization happened with great brutality all through the world, albeit in different times for different countries; we forget that the Elizabethan monarchy was fascist. It is only after authority is centralized that the question arises, who gets to control that authority? Why should I consent to that authority instead of some other authority that wants my allegiance, or simply to my own interests? This is where classical liberalism originates, with a recognition that government exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the government. That recognition gave us our Bill of Rights. But Fascists don't recognize that question, or they dismiss it in contingent ways: a religious doctrine (e.g., "This is a Christian nation"); the support of a majority (e.g., "the Silent Majority"); the support of tradition (e.g., "traditional family values"); and so on. In general, then, fascism involves a glorification of the collectivity over the individual and -- since this collectivity has to exercise actual power somehow -- a highly centralized, coherent, and exclusive power. As you can see, this way of looking at things is not restricted to the right-wing or to conservatives. Indeed, I would call the Soviets fascists, even though they consistently held themselves out as anti-fascist. What they meant was that they opposed those other fascisms, while supporting their own brand. (This is not to deny that there were many communists who were genuine anti-fascists in my sense. Stalin disposed of them, though.)
Is the Bush Administration (or, more generally, the Republican Party) fascist? There's no simple "yes" or "no" answer to that. [Jan 10, 2006: But see below.] Certainly there are many trends and positions that disturb me greatly: Bush's statement that those who aren't with "us" (meaning his idea of policy) are with the enemy. Bush's apparent belief that his rule is sanctioned by God and/or that God speaks through him. The suppression of dissent through the all-purpose excuse of "security". The exclusion of competing voices, including an incredibly strict control over "the administration's message" each day and in general. The sense I get that Bush's ideological backers see their own position as absolutely correct.
Historically, Mussolini ruled through "corporatism", a system in which the political/economic world was divided among a number of powerful players, with no opposition to that resulting configuration of power being permitted. This meant that the (Roman Catholic) Church got its domain, different industrial interests got their domains, the Fascist Party got its domain, etc. And of course any powers that might oppose them got no domain: the communists and socialists; the unions; etc. Note that this division didn't require the powers to become ideological fascists or to believe in fascism; all it required was that they be satisfied with their having a reliable share of the pie. All of this is redolent of our current situation, where industrial interests support the Bush Administration simply because they get what they want, not necessarily for any ideological reason (even if they give lip service to ideology). So in that respect too I would say the Bush Administration resembles a fascist government.
The Republican Party has enough dissenters in its ranks that I would not consider it fascist — not yet. But remember that Bush and his allies are doing all they can to silence and exclude these dissenters.
[Jan 10, 2006: Now, a year after I wrote the above, I am even more convinced that Bush and his immediate circle have a basically fascist view of the world. The long series of revelations about Bush's unannounced policies (the practice of rendition; secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe; the defense of torture; warrantless and illegal spying on American citizens in the United States) makes it plain to me that he is simply convinced that his word is law.]
Here's an essay by Bruce Schneier (author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World [2003]). Schneier is trying hard to distinguish policies that truly increase security from those that merely "look good" but do little except infringe on our liberties. This essay gives a clear example of how the concept of security can get misused. Note particularly his distinction about how the interests of the schools differ from the interests of the children, and how thus "security" becomes a tool of power, not a tool of actual safety. (This last statement is mine, not his, nor do I want to imply that the connection with fascism is his.)
Concepts are weaknesses in the fabric of reality.
Cleavages, plus the pressure to choose sides, can divide a country, as happened in Yugoslavia.
Both critique and construction — legitimate critique, lousy construction.
Basic problem faced by nation-states is how to combine two disparate functions
| Nation | State | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | solidarity; unity | effectiveness |
| Sources of legitimacy (Max Weber) | traditional / emotional | rational-legal |
| Examples | Germany; Italy | United States |
| Motivational power | motivating, but mythical | necessary, but not motivating |
Enlightenment assumptions of the arbitrary liberal state:
These assumptions collapse under pressure. What pressure?
Under pressure, there is a retreat to organization around a (mythical) nation or race and a denial of the Enlightenment assumptions, as listed below. Note that under fascism, at least when fascism turns from critique to construction, this denial goes to the opposite extreme from the original assumptions instead of simply noting their limits or imperfections.
As a result: politics becomes authoritarian; society becomes exclusionary; the economics becomes corporatist. Note that these things are o.k. with most people. (Even today [2005] one hears occasionally of surveys in Russia where large majorities say they would like to return to Stalinist times.)
The University of Minnesota is
an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003-6 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights
reserved.