Sometimes passion becomes so blinding the truth becomes obscured. At others, despite logic dictating otherwise, what seems an impossibility is actually unaccepted reality. Thus, here we are with accusations of those on the right being fascists, an accusation bandied about everyday as though the continuation of such accusations will manifest themselves in truth.
Hyperbole abounds, name calling is rampant, and misinformation (whatever that is at this point) grows as weeds during a wet summer. Everyone on the political right is a fascist, at least according to left leaning pundits on television or on “X.” There are groups that call themselves “antifascists” but act more fascist than those they claim to be against. So, let’s answer the question…finally.
What exactly is Fascism?
Professors of history and political science along with armchair intellects alike have different interpretations, making a true definition difficult to pin down. The main reason is that fascism doesn’t have a true definition as it is an amalgamation of ideologies. When that invective is tossed around its mostly finger pointing at some politician they don’t like and saying, “There! There it is! Fascism incarnate!” Generally, the accusers associate fascism with the horrors of Hitler’s Germany including xenophobia, the Holocaust, and dictatorial control.
That version is entirely and distinctly German in iteration and something of a bastardization of what fascism actually was in its original form. Historian Niall Ferguson noted that in his work The War of the World when he stated that fascism in the modern sense was a “disproportionally German phenomenon.”[1] Taken as such, that version of fascism exists in a vacuum, a version, interestingly enough, supported disproportionately by the upper middle class as well as a significant portion of German intellectuals, those with university degrees and not by the working classes as so many were taught.
Further, armchair intellectuals along with those of the intellectual class are wiley beasts, massaging the square words and meanings and shaving off bits until they fit into the round hole they’re espousing, especially when attacking their political opponents. They’ll find a way with wordplay and innuendo to make the accusations stick, distorting history in the process. This occurred within the Prussian School[2] and continues to this day which is why the accusations of fascism should be investigated.
Where to Begin
Let’s begin with the easiest definition, found on Wikipedia, a non-acceptable source for information research, but the most widely used.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
The above definition is a direct reflection of the German National Socialist vision, one Hitler espoused as he gained power. However, as stated earlier, that is not the true definition, the German version entirely German in makeup and implementation. In fact, prior to the Second World War, “the only variant of fascism that was truly a mass movement was German National Socialism.”[3] In short, it was an anomaly, and should be treated as such and should not be given the weight it’s given when attempting to define fascism.
For the true version, we must look at the document that stated what fascism was(is), written in 1932, by the person who invented the ideology much before Hitler’s rise to power…Benito Mussolini in his work The Doctrine of Fascism.
Mussolini’s definition of fascism, the philosophy in bloom in Italy by 1922, is multifaceted meaning it cannot be whittled down to one specific thing or a couple of defining actions. Mussolini’s work entitled The Doctrine of Fascism is a rambling tome with a sprinkling of ideas scattered about as though reading a cobbled together collection of ideas with some basis in history. In fact, while reading The Doctrine of Fascism, one is struck by the chameleon-like attributes of his philosophy. For Mussolini, fascism is a repudiation of 18th century liberalism, a repudiation of individuality and what we might consider enlightenment ideals, the very ideals the West was founded upon, a stance he takes repeatedly throughout the document.
“Fascism is therefore opposed to all individual abstractions based on 18th century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic[4] utopias.”[5] He goes on further to state, “Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the state.”[6]
Reading that quote, and it is a theme repeated throughout the document, fascism is in line with the notion of larger government, government centered policies, and a restriction on individual freedoms only inasmuch as those freedoms do not coincide with what the state wishes.[7] It is not out of the question to equate Mussolini’s fascism with communism. In fact, this quote is a strong indication of similarities between the two doctrines despite the fact Mussolini’s foot soldiers, the squadristi engaged in street battles with the Communists for control of Italy.
“Oh yes, we admit we are in league with the National Socialists,” said one Communist leader in Saxony. “Bolshevism and Fascism share a common goal: the destruction of capitalism and the Social Democratic Party. To achieve this aim we are justified in using any means.”[8]
One might read that in the modern context of more government regulation and oversight into one’s life, and more direct government control over one’s behaviors. Certainly, it also means the use of violence to achieve the ends either desire. Read into that what you wish, but it is clear government’s expansive control is part and parcel of fascism.
As an example, the recent COVID restrictions, the continual regulation of what we can and cannot do regarding cars we can buy (remember, there is currently a requirement to have one-half of all vehicles electric by 2030[9]), the incessant regulations regarding climate along with notions of equity of outcome rather than equity of opportunity, and other such regulations imposed by government are more closely aligned with fascism and the authoritarianism that goes with it.
Mussolini rejects out of hand unions, guilds, and other such mechanisms that show the Marxian version of “class struggle.” However, at the same time, Mussolini’s fascism understands the need to safeguard workers, safeguards which gave rise to trade unions. He says, “Fascism recognizes the real needs that gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the state.”[10]
There it is again…a focus on the state. Large government…a government large enough to regulate and dictate what one should do or be allowed to do. If we were to examine this phenomenon, we might say the current state of our government with its massive regulations seems more closely related to fascism than a group or party that insists on less regulation and the importance of the individual. Under true fascism, the individual is subordinate to the state, for what’s good for the state must be good for the people.
In these United States, it is an uncomfortable assertion to say the least, but according to The Doctrine of Fascism, something we must consider and strive to avoid.
There is also another fundamental aspect of fascism that bears mentioning: the cooperation between the state and private business. Under fascist doctrine, businesses are free to create and thrive independently, unlike Marxist socialism, with the caveat being said business must work in concert with the dictates of the government.
This means you are free to run your business, but should the government need you to change for the benefit of the nation, you must comply. You will still be allowed to make a profit, but under the auspices of what the government needs. This was the reason Oscar Schindler was able to save as many Jews as he did. He made war materials, telling the government he needed the “specialized workers,” and they complied. He then took his profits and plowed them back into the company to save the people he saved, becoming penniless in the process.
Another ideal expounded upon by Mussolini is the notion that fascism does not believe in perpetual peace. The exact quote is, “Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradiction to self-sacrifice.”[11] He further states, “It looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all its manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.”[12]
Not only does this mean fascism will be aggressive toward other nations, but also aggressive introspectively. Taking the above at face value, it seems the current protests against Jewish students nation-wide either on college campuses or in the streets is Mussolini’s phraseology personified. Violence in the name of furthering a social justice agenda also falls into this category, along with the actions of Antifa, the self-styled “antifascists,” who behave more in line with Mussolini’s definition than not.
The same might be said of those 300+ during the January 6th protests, except upon closer examination and video evidence, widespread violence and a continuation of that event throughout the nation did not exist. It was a one off. Distasteful and wrong by any standard, but a one-off event, hardly in keeping with the continual violence directed at Jews in this nation or the never-ending protests in the name of social justice, the same actions occurring in both Italy and Germany during the rise of their respective fascist movements.
It should be remembered that fascism was not fueled by the working classes but rather by the intellectual class, students, and professorial class both in Germany and Italy during the 1920s and 1930s, something conveniently forgotten in textbooks. It is interesting to note in both Germany and Italy, less than 40% of voters supported fascism, with Italian support around 20%, and Germany just under 40%.
Engaging in violence, especially violence in the pursuit of a political ideal is certainly a hallmark of fascism, as well as being on guard and prepared at a moment’s notice when a group or individual strays from the proscribed path. Think on that for a moment…then consider Antifa and other leftist organizations and the destruction wrought by those groups in recent years.
…and finally…
Mussolini goes on to state, “The fascist state is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary. For it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere.”[13] The key part of this phrase, besides it’s intimation of reaction outside of its borders is the notion of “not reactionary but revolutionary.”
On the generic political spectrum[14], the term reactionary would refer to the far right…those who wish to go back in time and reclaim the old ways, something Mussolini railed against throughout his doctrine. He rejected republicanism, classical liberalism[15], and even the base tenants of Marxism, rejecting Marx’s notion of class struggle. Yet, he referred to his movement as revolutionary…far left…the classical political spectrum denoting revolutionary as complete change…through revolution. That is a far-left doctrine, and one which Mussolini embraced.
It is interesting to note that significant numbers of current college students who identify as leftist or left leaning are in favor of violence in support of their political views, as well as restricting free speech when engaging with those of opposite viewpoints. Students identifying as right or right leaning much less so under the same circumstances. When looked at in that light and based on the above paragraph, it would seem those on the left act more in line with Mussolini’s fascist doctrine than those on the right. This is not an accusation, but simply an observation based on reading The Doctrine of Fascism.[16]
Do any of our political candidates’ smack of rhetoric such as this? Which advocate equity of outcome, rely on the intellectual class to argue their agenda and prefer more government regulation? Which party or party representatives speak in favor of individual freedom, less regulation, enacting policies for the worker (less taxation, more growth)? Which party or individuals speak of radical change, even to the point of re-writing or jettisoning the Constitution itself? Reimaging the Supreme Court? Restructuring our electoral system?
It should be known that when FDR tried to enact the New Deal along with government regulation of not only businesses but extreme taxation without congressional consent, Mussolini was known to have said of FDR, “Behold, a dictator.”[17] It was also widely known and documented Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin himself agreed with many of FDR’s “reforms” of the American economy as documented by historian and writer Thaddeus Russell in his book A Renegade History of the United States.
This does not mean to insinuate FDR was something of a closet Fascist, but it does serve to underscore the notion that big government means more government regulation as well as an infringement on individual rights, something we in this nation hold sacrosanct and is embedded into not only our national consciousness but also our laws and the very documents that are the basis of our existence: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Understanding those premises, one must ask oneself if accusations of being a fascist are directed at the proper party or representative of said party, or if such accusations are baseless name calling with the expressed purpose of tarring and feathering those on the right side of the political aisle as so often such allegations are lobbed.
The answer must be, based on careful study and consideration, such accusations are not only wrong, but misguided, bandied about willy-nilly without knowledge of what true fascism stands for. Uttering such invectives without knowledge serves to show either an ignorance of what true fascism is, or a willingness to engage in little more than childish name calling, something both political parties and their followers participate in and should denounce.
As the latter has been part and parcel of American political life since our founding and certainly since the contentious election of 1800, there is no reason to suspect any of that will end within our lifetime. The best we can hope for is an end to the illogical and ridiculous name calling of “fascist” when such a term does not apply, and certainly to those on the right of the political spectrum. A case can be made on the basis of violence and political positioning, as well as orthodoxy the real fascists are those on the extreme left, self-styled revolutionaries and silencers of any speech they do not agree with. They are the ones giving part and parcel to Mussolini’s statement of “not reactionaries but revolutionaries.”
As such, they should be ignored and their messages torn up and tossed into perdition’s flames. Or maybe partisans on both sides can simply grow up, disagree, vote their conscience, and live with the results hoping to win voters during the next election cycle as this nation’s founders intended, living in peace and respecting each individual’s rights, along with a limited federal government.
[1] Ferguson, Niall, The War of the World, page 232.
[2] The Prussian School was a philosophy of taught history in which decidedly Pro-Prussian historians manipulated the history taught to foster a Prussian-German unification, beginning in the 1840’s. Among the most prominent historians of that school were Johann Droysen and Heinrich Treitschke.
[3] Ibid., pg. 232
[4] This is in reference to the Jacobins of the French Revolution who wanted representation and a National Convention, not a dictatorship or rule by monarchy.
[5] Mussolini, Benito, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Read the “state” here to mean federal government.
[8] Ferguson, Niall, The War, p.240
[10] Mussolini, Doctrines.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] This refers to the political science version, rather than the United States iteration of liberals, conservatives, etc.
[15] Original ideas contained during the Enlightenment period: Life, Liberty, Property, Free Speech.
[16] I’ve written about the significant disparity on this topic of free speech, violence and college students before, the article in my Substack archive.
[17] Russell, Thaddeus, A Renegade History of the United States, pg. 243.
