While the term “fascism” has been around since before WWII, its use has surged in recent years and is used across the American political spectrum. Both Bush and Obama were called fascists. Trump’s detractors and supporters regularly use the term on each other. But what is fascism?
One obvious problem, as noted by John Locke, is that “people can apply sounds to what ideas he thinks fit, and change them as they please.” This can lead to unintentional confusion and intentional misuses. Locke’s solution was practical: when making inquiries “we must determine what we mean and thus determine when it is and is not the same.” Those acting in good faith try to agree on the meanings of terms or at least establish the boundaries of the discussion while those acting in bad faith have excellent reasons to shift meanings as needed. As such, those interested in an honest consideration of fascism can disagree but will try to be consistent and clear when using the term.
A stop sign analogy also serves well here. While the American stop sign is a red octagon with “stop” in white letters, this could be changed to a purple square with the symbol of a hand in the center. Or an orange circle. Or almost anything. But we need to agree on what the sign will be, otherwise there will be crashes. The same holds for defining terms. We can define them anyway we wish, but if we are not consistent, then there will be language crashes.
An obvious place to seek the meaning of “fascism” is to look at what paradigm fascists and fascist thinkers say. As such, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile provide a good starting point since they are the Original Fascists. One aspect of classic fascism is the rejection of peace. As the classic fascist sees it, perpetual peace is impossible. Even if it were possible, it would be undesirable. War is seen as good because it energizes the population and provides the opportunity for nobility and heroism.
While some claim fascism is a leftist ideology and link it to socialism, there are two problems with this view. One is that fascism is a political rather than economic system. For example, while the Nazi state provided German companies with slave labor, these corporations remained owned by individuals (like Porsche) rather than by the state. And state ownership of the means of production is a hallmark of socialism. The second is that the fascist ideology directly opposes the basic tenets of socialism, especially the Marxist variants. In the case of Marxism, fascism explicitly rejects economic determinism. In the case of socialism in general, fascism rejects the notion of class conflict. The focus of the modern fascist is on race rather than economic class.
Fascism also opposes liberal democracy on two grounds. As fascism regards the state as supreme, the notion of majority rule by voting is anathema to their ideology. Instead, they embrace authoritarianism. Fascism also associates the concept of equality with democracy and rejects equality on two grounds. First, fascism sees inequality as immutable. Second, the fascist sees inequality as good, thus rejecting the notion of progress.
One plausible reason for confusing socialism and fascism is that the fascist state is seen as absolute and everything else exists to serve it. Under classic socialism, the state owns the means of production. But these are not the same. A fascist state, such as Nazi Germany, can have a capitalist economy that exists to serve the state, and this allows for individuals to own companies (such as Porsche) and profit handsomely under fascism.
A socialist economy could exist in a direct democracy in which the state exists to benefit the individual. One could, of course, have a fascist state that also owns all the means of production, but fascism is not socialism.
The fascists also have a negative view of liberty as the state is to decide what freedoms people have, depriving them of what the rulers regard as useless and possibly harmful liberties. Fascists also reify the state, regarding it as having “a will and a personality.” From a rational standpoint, this is nonsense. While Hobbes liked to cast the state as a leviathan composed of the people, the state is just a collection of people with various social constructs forming the costume of the state. To use an analogy, the state is a giant pantomime horse or an elaborate dragon dance.
The fascist view of the state also puts them at odds with the Marxist. According to Marxism, the state will no longer exist under communism because it will no longer be needed. As such there can be no communist state in the strict sense, though this term is used to describe countries that profess a form of Marxism that never gets around to getting rid of the state that is run by the ruling class.
Fascism also embraces the idea of empire and imperialism and use this to justify discipline, duty and sacrifice—as well as “the necessarily severe measures that must be taken against those who would oppose” the state. So, these are the basics of fascism, as per Mussolini and Gentile.
As with any complicated and controversial concept, there are many other views of fascism. Some are compatible with the account given above. There are also some fascists that attempt to recast fascism to, ironically, attack those who oppose fascism.
While I do not claim that this account is the definitive account, it does provide some basic and key qualities of fascism and deviations from them need be justified.
So, It is STILL raining. My clock shows 12:30 pm. That is not right, of course, because it is one hour behind fake time…I tailor my time, as I wish or need to, and, mostly have that privilege now. All good. Yeah, sure. This is erratum—has nothing to do with fascism—or, does it? Hmmmm… Out of nowhere in particular, I thought of a previous boss. He grew up on mean streets, went to school, got a JD degree, and “came up” in state government. Was doing well…His wife, love of his life, died. Young.
He was at a Director level, pretty good, years I knew, and worked, for the State. Along came a political wog. She was above him, only in connection—not in*knowledge, skill, or ability*, only, politics. He did not like her, nor she, him. Time passed. I got moved; he lost his job—was demoted…left government, shortly thereafter. In the interim, between his leaving and resignation(?) from government, the wog died, with her husband, in a plane crash. Moving forward, my former boss married again and was later convicted of murdering his second wife. As I understand it, after psychiatric evaluation, he was diagnosed as mentally deficient—I don’t know enough about this because the information is privileged. So, if this is correct, he is a detention facility, effectively terminally insane. This is, if not vaguely fascist, grossly unfair. Sure.
I like Locke’s assessment on meaning. It comports with my assertions regarding contextual reality. In short, if what someone says does not mean to me what they say it means to them, THAT means we hold different interests, motives and preferences (IMPs)…which does not=both of us being wrong. I don’t know if either Obama or Bush (elder or younger) were fascists. I don’t think they were, but I am not a political scientist. People like to fling labels to improve their advantage(s). This is politics, as usual. And, if they lack advantage, then it can’t hurt to try and get some. And just so. Status quo. As best I recall, Fascism was how Hitler and Mussolini were characterized. Other notorious figures may have been viewed in that shadow (Idi Amin?),but memory fails, right now, and, my tablet did not know who Amin was. Flinging labels is an imperfect art, at best, certainly not a science. DaDa. The current occupant of the Oval Office may say things that are not true. Particularly when he answers probing questions with “I don’t know”, and we know darned well he DOES know. The I don’t know retort improves his advantage because it is plausible deniability—is he telling the truth? We can’t know for sure. He hangs his hat—if he ever wore one— on the improbable. The unprovable. Innocence by dissociation. Clever. But, he is losing traction. Like a set of bald tires. It has been raining, most of the day. If you lived where I live, you would know I’m telling the truth. Just so.
This essay really packs a lot into a small space, and a punch too. Thank you. As a kid growing up in southern Italy, I’d hear plenty of people (common people, not philosophers like you) talking about fascism, usually they were actually people who saw WW2 with their own eyes. The idea of fascism that I had early on, was basically of a state formed by bullies. Stories about bullies wearing black shirts forcing castor oil on people, really sickening things. I remember reading an autobiography by a pianist, Franco Bignotto, the poor man was born with a serious disability of the feet, he could not walk. He described his first day at school:
”….our teacher, dressed in a black shirt, immediately seized me up and violently shouted on my face all the breath he had in his lungs: ‘HERE WE WILL NOT FAVOUR YOU IN ANY WAYS! YOU WILL NOT FARE ANY BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, BOY?’.
I was trembling with fear. I replied, ‘Yes, sir.’.
For fascism, ideology and abuse go hand in hand: one serves the other.
Thank you for your essay, Professor.