Fascism is arguably one of the most exercised pejoratives of post-World War II politics, levied as often as an athlete draws breath. Thus, it is worth investigating—what is fascism? Furthermore, do its postwar applications hold any weight?
Perhaps the greatest point to begin on the search for what fascism is—sans the corrupting biases of modern actors—is fascism’s own founding treatise: The Doctrine of Fascism. Unfortunately for its prospective readers, this manifesto is overwhelmingly reluctant to provide anything resembling a straightforward definition to the point of allergy. Nonetheless, there are clear recurring thoughts that may be pieced together to assemble a full and certain definition. So, I shall terse the document here and extrapolate its meaning from its more specific and coherent pieces. Ultimately, my goal here is to provide a clear, coherent, and complete definition of fascism that most accurately encapsulates its understanding and execution in Mussolini’s Italy. Scholarly consensus on non-Mussolini variants of fascism varies greatly, with Nazism often being deemed categorically different. I use Mussolini’s Italy as the basis for this definition because that is where the ideology was first labeled and thus where we will find the most accurate definition.
Though the best definitions tend to be simple, fascism prohibits definitional simplicity. I suspect that part of the reason why fascism is so ill-defined in the zeitgeist is that it began as an amorphous movement. In Mussolini’s own words, “Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine previously drafted at a desk; it was born of the need of action, and was action; it was not a party but, in the first two years, an anti-party and a movement.” The fascist movement was molded with political action before thought, a recognition of a problem without a clear solution. According to Mussolini, fascism’s formative years were “the period during which the need for action forbade delay and careful doctrinal elaborations.” It began as socialist and shifted to being democratic, before abandoning and opposing both movements and crystallizing into its complete iteration. Umberto Eco was right to characterize fascism in a list of symptoms due to its multifaceted nature (though, this has its own issues, which I shall detail later on). Though I once described fascism as hypernationalist collectivism, I no longer feel that this truly encapsulates the all-encompassing breadth of fascism. Fascism is certainly hypernationalist collectivism, but hypernationalist collectivism inspires a far tamer image than Mussolini’s own words conjure. Given the following search into Mussolini’s writing, I shall define fascism as follows: Fascism is a metaphysical framework in which all action and truth is derived from the nation, which serves as a proxy for the state, and which must be upheld via totalitarian, imperial rule. In more bare terms, fascism is the complete revolvement of all life around the nation through the totalitarian enforcement and expansion of the state.
The document begins with a blurb of fanciful fluff, as is customary with works written in the Apennine Peninsula. After mulling over the supposed prerequisites for an ideology, the treatise finally conveys a message worth noting for distinguishing the definition of fascism: fascism is concerned with a spiritual attitude, especially one that regards not only the individual but the nation and the country. The individual is said to have a duty to renounce their self-interest by death to achieve a spiritual existence. Throughout the entire piece, the renunciation and transcendence of the individual are constantly reiterated. Fascism outlines that man is endowed with a national will, one that transcends government and is, moreover, a system of thought.
Fascism’s spirituality continues to be reemphasized, wherein it is contrasted specifically with 19th-century material positivism. Luckily, negative contrast is an effective means of sculpting a definition, like a chisel to marble. Material positivism is the philosophy asserting that all correct claims can be verified through material proofs. Fascism, then, must entail that there are truths beyond the material reality. According to fascism, positivism places the center of life outside of man, where reality differs. Rather, it is the duty and will of man to create his own world (as Mussolini writes directly). Implicit in this assertion is a kind of Nietzschean subjectivism—the idea that the creation of truth is a liberty bestowed upon the victorious nation. To the fascist, truth is the child of man, or better yet, the nation. Truth itself bends to the will of the nation. This stance is further emphasized later in the manifesto, where Mussolini states, “Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature,” and, “The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.” Therein lies one of fascism’s most unmentioned yet notable attributes—fascism is a metaphysical framework that transcends the state. True fascism permeates life from all angles, not just government.
Naturally, fascism’s value of the nation and the individual’s role in said nation permits emphasis on culture (and its forms in art, religion, and science) and education. Facets of culture are manifestations of the nation, and therefore in themselves authorities on state morality. Man has a duty to work towards these aspects of culture to perpetuate the greater nation. This sentiment is reinforced towards the end of the manifesto, where Mussolini elaborates, “The State…safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith.”
Man is only man through his function in the nation, according to fascism. Thus, any individualistic view of history, such as those of the eighteenth century, is utterly refuted. History must be seen in collective terms, lest man be a nonentity. Life, according to the fascist, was not built for the individual to reach an end to his struggles. The exalted individuals—the heroes of fascism—are only venerated insofar as they are an arm of the nation. “[Fascism] accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State… The State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people.”
A large part of fascism’s manifesto is the description of what ideologies fascism is opposed to, specifically socialism, democracy, and liberalism. Fascism views all of these as ephemeral fads or elapsed phases of the past, ideologies that fascism is evolutionarily meant to succeed. However, this does not mean that fascism is a reversion to a previous state, which Mussolini denies explicitly. Rather, it is called a progression, operating under the framework that history does not regress.
Fascism’s primary gripe with socialism is not the historical recognition of wealth inequality, but the fact that socialism places the nexus of life on class struggle instead of the nation/state. Fascism only offers sympathy to socialism when it is in the context of the state, wishing to harmonize class interests in the name of unity. Mussolini later emphasizes once more that class struggle and the means of production are overly exclusionary and simplistic nexuses of history.
Fascism opposes democracy due to its equation of the nation and the majority. In fascism, the expressed views of the largest number of people do not determine the proper direction of the nation. Rather, quality is valued over quantity, meaning that the best ideas expressed by the few are the true expression of the nation. The flaw of democratic voting procedures is that they assume all men are equal. Democratic thinkers even state this directly. However, in reality, men are born unequal, and Mussolini believes that such inequalities must be embraced. Universal suffrage, therefore, is seen as a counterintuitive endeavor. “Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces,” Mussolini criticized, “Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
Given the earlier censuring of individualism and its adjacent philosophies, fascism’s opposition to liberalism is unsurprising. Where liberalism is said to deny the state in lieu of the individual, fascism denies the individual in lieu of the state, as it believes that the state is the truest representative of the individual. Fascism is stated to be both politically and economically opposed to liberalism on absolute terms. Liberalism, Mussolini says, is the historic and logical anteroom to anarchy, whose popularity was a mere 15-year fad of the 19th century. Mussolini even blames liberalism for the First World War, despite having been an advocate for war efforts of this kind. Liberalism is described as being agnostic in economics and indifferent in ways that ruin politics and morals. Mussolini finds the treatment of liberalism as the final stage of history absurd, having thought that the liberal order had already run its course.
Mussolini directly informs the reader that fascism is totalitarian. Upon refuting the ideologies that oppose fascism, fascism is defined as an “organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” Democracy, of course, is only intended to mean “representing the will of the people” and not dependence on the suffrage of the people. It is clarified that totalitarianism is not intended to mean monarchical absolutism or a police state, but instead a party governing a nation “totalitarianly.”
Though the nation may evoke a genetically rooted and homogenous group maintained over history, Mussolini defines the nation in far more political terms. He clarifies that it is “not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.” Such sentiments are in direct opposition to nazism’s pan-racial focus. Instead of explaining that the personality of the state crystallizes through the race or tribe, Mussolini asserts that it must be embodied in the state. Surprisingly, Mussolini directly calls the idea that the “nation generates the state” an “antiquated concept,” and instead proposes that the state creates the nation, and makes people aware of their moral unity. National borders in this context are determined by “an active, self-conscious, political will expressing itself in action and ready to prove its rights.” Though this antiracialist attitude comes as a surprise, it is consistent with much of Italy’s behavior under Mussolini, such as the labeling of Dalmatia as the third coast of Italy and Libya as the fourth. Such sentiments were likely meant to evoke the imperial diversity of the Roman Empire, wherein Roman-ness was determined by political boundaries rather than genetic ties (albeit not without debate).
Organization and expansion, i.e., imperialism, are thought to be necessary for the fascist state to live. “Inactivity is death.” Through conquest, the fascist state will attempt to make itself respected beyond its borders. Such expansion is seen merely as the will of man and thereby justified.
It follows the imperialist attitudes of fascism that peace cannot be guaranteed or even desired. Mussolini demonstrated in the First World War not only a willingness to fight but an active effort to involve Italy in warfare before any engagements had been made. “Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace,” Mussolini wrote. Fascism starkly opposes pacifism and views it as cowardly, demanding that its men stoically display their fighting spirit and fearlessness on the battlefield. The face of death is the truest test of courage. “…All doctrines which postulate peace are incompatible with Fascism.”
Economically, fascism advanced national syndicalism, but in practice, it morphed into a more corporatist model. As we shall see in the section where I address contrary definitions of fascism, fascist economics are often poorly understood and mischaracterized. Thus, it is worth exploring what fascist economics are according to those who advance them. National syndicalism emerged from the pro-violent, revolutionary syndicalism put forth by Georges Sorel. Mussolini hoped to unite the classes under the nation, offering a replacement for capitalism in union-controlled national businesses. Despite fascism’s anti-socialist stance, national syndicalism approximated a socialist ideal rooted in socialist philosophy. Shortly after the fascists took power, however, national syndicalism became more nationalist and less syndicalist. The democratic worker control of syndicates was abandoned in the Pact of the Vidoni Palace, wherein Catholic and socialist unions were banned, and fascist party unions were granted complete control. Eventually, parliament was replaced with the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, wherein corporations were granted legislative control.
Before proceeding, a clarification must be made about fascist economics: corporatism as we understand it in a contemporary context differs from the Italian perception. Though Mussolini uses the Italian word for corporation, he may have very well used another, as the corporations of fascist Italy do not resemble, say, American corporations. Rather, corporations were legally designated, non-competitive, political bodies that regulated economic sectors. Contrary to popular belief, these corporations were not firms with productive output of capital. Firms remained independent, albeit completely beholden to the heavy regulations imposed by the “corporations.” Thus, the bulk of misunderstandings regarding fascist economics stems from the conflation of fascist corporations with corporate firms.
Though it would be apt to call this corporatist, its socialist elements are undeniable. Fascist economics are very comparable to the Chinese socialism pioneered under Deng Xiaoping. Private enterprise maintains many private elements, but is subject to heavy state control. Though it is not identical to the Bolshevik command economy, it certainly shares the monoparty unionization and state control, albeit with more market flexibility. Fascist Italy and China both exhibit a sort of social corporatism. In both cases, firms may be allowed to accumulate large capital, but are ultimately beholden to the state and the nation.
COUNTERARGUMENTS
Now that we have established what fascism is according to its thesis document, I shall analyze other definitions of fascism and provide counterarguments as to why I have found them inadequate compared to the one provided. As will become undeniably apparent through this exploration, most accusations of fascism are in reality a recognition of isolated aspects of fascism rather than its confluential whole. Yet, for fascism to actually be present, this confluential whole is necessary. Most accusers of fascism are merely attempting to employ tripwire politics, levying the connotative weight of fascism on their opponents for a political advantage. This dirty tactic is as empty as accusing a political opponent of simply being evil. There is seldom historical understanding or thought involved in the process. Yet, these political tactics have infiltrated mainstream discourse and been taken seriously, arguably leading to such tragedies as the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
I’ve heard the point made before—if an entity bears even a single aspect of fascism, is that not worrying in itself? To that I say, not necessarily. Whether or not something has adopted a negative aspect of fascism is entirely contextually dependent. Furthermore, it’s absurd to even characterize traits as “aspects of fascism” if not in reference to fascism’s confluence. Otherwise, these aspects should only be referred to in their own right to avoid semantic overloading (thus, nationalism, totalitarianism, imperialism, corporatism, etc., are all referred to individually unless forming a cohesive whole).
I. Ur-Fascism
Umberto Eco’s essay Ur-Fascism is commonly cited as providing one of the most reliable definitions of fascism. Such a determination is sensible considering Eco’s extensive experience with the regime. Of course, the most accurate definition is gleaned from the expressed philosophy and actions of the Fascist Italian regime, but Eco’s descriptions align with what fascism’s founders expressed rather closely. Thus, I shall briefly summarize and compare Eco’s Ur-Fascism to that expressed by Mussolini.
Eco aptly captures the amorphous nature of fascism when he writes, “Contrary to commonly held belief, Italian Fascism did not have a philosophy of its own… Mussolini had no philosophy: all he had was rhetoric.” Eco elaborated, “…Fascism contained no quintessence, and not even a single essence. It was a fuzzy form of totalitarianism. It was not a monolithic ideology, but rather a collage of diverse political and philosophical ideas, a tangle of contradictions.” He later calls fascism consistent in its emotional output, but not in its philosophical output. Though there is certainly a great deal of truth in this statement, I believe it is more apt to say that Mussolini’s rhetoric eventually crystallized into a philosophy that was reiterated and built upon. It was at one point amorphous and continually contradictory, but not to the degree where defining it is impossible. In other words, fascism began as rhetoric and action, but slowly evolved into a philosophical framework. The definability of fascism is evidenced by the constant repetition of particular aspects, such as the pervasivity of the nation, its totalitarian praxis through the state, and an imperial thirst for blood. At the very least, Mussolini’s Italy strived to capture these elements thoroughly. Other elements changed under pressure, such as fascist economics. Eco’s statement that fascism did not have a philosophy is even undermined by the fact that he provides a definition for its philosophy.
The key point of Eco’s Ur-Fascism that must be modified in order to achieve a historically consistent definition of fascism is the expressed looseness and overwhelming inclusivity of the definition. Eco asserts that “…all you need is one [characteristic] to be present and a Fascist nebula will begin to coagulate.” Eco emphasizes that these aspects should be regarded in a mutually exclusive manner, even going as far as to state that they cannot be regimented into a system. Though it may be possible for one of the aspects of the system to coagulate into fascism as a whole, a great deal of evidence would be needed to prove that such a transition occurs naturally. Additionally, such framing opens the gates for oversimplistic definitions of fascism that only point to isolated and incoherent aspects. Eco’s definition works best when it is regarded exclusively as the sum of its parts, aligning most with the philosophy outlined by Mussolini and other fascists.
Eco’s characteristics of Ur-Fascism are the following: a cult of pseudo-tradition, irrationalism, action for action’s sake, dogmatism, fear of difference, populist appeal, obsession with conspiracies, a representation of the enemy as simultaneously too strong and too weak, anti-pacifism, scorn for the weak, cult of death, machoism, a sense of common will, and Newspeak. Some additional points Eco prefaces the definition with beforehand are, “Mussolini’s Fascism was based on the idea of a charismatic leader, on corporativism, on the utopia of the ‘fateful destiny of Rome,’ on the imperialistic will to conquer new lands, on inflammatory nationalism, on the ideal of an entirely regimented nation of Blackshirts, on the rejection of parliamentary democracy, and on anti-Semitism.” Of the main points, a cult of pseudotradition, irrationalism, action for action’s sake, anti-pacifism, and a sense of common will are most corroborated by the writings of Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Nonetheless, there are problems throughout in several of Eco’s leaps in logic. Thus, I shall go over each of his points individually.
The cult of pseudo-tradition Eco outlines (I have added the prefix pseudo for further clarity) is the post-French Revolution attempt to return to a romanticized form of ancient life. Because such a life is no longer tenable, Eco asserts that the traditionalist must accept contradictions. In a traditionalist framework, Eco believes, there can be no advancement of learning. This claim is hardly elaborated on and thus lacks clarity. Subsequently, Eco summarizes this aspect of fascism with the line, “If you browse through the New Age sections in American bookshops, you will even find Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a Fascist. But putting together Saint Augustine and Stonehenge, now that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.” This point rather accurately assesses the idea of tradition for tradition’s sake. In fascism, this manifests in the emphasis on cultural aspects as national authorities in themselves.
In the point of irrationalism, Eco expresses that fascism was not a rejection of modernity in lieu of tradition. Fascists embraced modernity, exemplified by their entanglement with the futurists and exaltation of technology. Rather, their antimodernism was really an opposition to the Enlightenment. As Eco writes, “The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason were seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” I take issue with such logic, as the second point fails to be a logical progression of the first. Mere opposition to philosophical developments of the Enlightenment does not at all imply irrationalism. In the tradition of reason, critiques are always and should always be made. Moreover, there is no single, unified Enlightenment philosophy. There are consistent outgrowths of Enlightenment philosophy that can be criticized, but to oppose such outgrowths is consistent with what many Enlightenment philosophers themselves might have done. Nonetheless, I have labeled Eco as correct in this argument due to the fact that Mussolini did promote heavy opposition to Enlightenment philosophy, notably material positivism. Furthermore, Mussolini painted fascism as a direct opposition to such philosophies. So, even if I do not find the label of ‘irrationalism’ to be accurate, the undergirding philosophy Eco is outlining is certainly accurate.
Action for action’s sake is a verifiable descriptor of fascism, as Mussolini himself says as much. Fascism was founded on action. Ideology and theory came second. “Action is beautiful in itself, and therefore must be implemented before any form of reflection,” Eco outlines. He further extrapolates this to suspicion of intellectual life.
Eco tells his readers that the fascists saw distinguishing as a sign of modernity. The critical spirit dissents, and dissent is key for scientists in their own advancement (ignoring the fact that many subjects are shunned and censored in the scientific community). Alas, to fascists, “dissent is betrayal.” This piece is accurate insofar as it encapsulates the authoritarian arm of fascism and the idea that individuals must adhere to the spirit of the nation.
Fear of difference applies to fascism insofar as difference is intended to mean that outside of the nation. That which is outside the nation is land to be conquered and politically integrated. If difference is meant to imply traits within the nation, such an argument is contradicted by fascism’s emphasis on the nation being politically founded by the state. Notably, Eco calls fascism racist by definition, when this is not consistently reflected by the fascist authors, particularly in their early years. The Doctrine of Fascism clearly outlines that race does not matter in the face of the nation. Mussolini yearned for a state resembling Roman glory, wherein genetically diverse peoples would be incorporated into an imperial whole. The racism that later arrived in Fascist Italy in the Racial Laws was largely imported from Nazi Germany, and thereby questionable in its applicability to fascism as an ideology. When the state of Fascist Italy diverges from written fascist ideology, it becomes apparent that the point of difference was not integral to fascism, but rather, secondary, and abstracted. These were matters on which fascist thinkers disagreed and argued. Some fascists embraced the Jews of Italy; others detested them.
Though the advocacy of populism (Eco words it specifically as “appeal to the frustrated middle class”) is not directly expressed in The Doctrine of Fascism, it certainly applies to fascism in practice. Mussolini attempted not only to appeal to the ordinary man, but to appeal against elite institutions. He expressed disdain for bourgeois thought (despite later variation), citing their obstruction of national interest. Though he was anti-democratic, he aspired to a popular fascism that represented the people in the truest sense. Mussolini rose by appealing to the disillusioned underdogs—the mistreated veterans of the First World War. Thus, Eco is correct on this point.
Obsession with conspiracies and xenophobia possesses partial truth in their definitional assessment of fascism. Xenophobia is sensibly symptomatic of fascism in both fascism’s imperialist and warmongering behavior. Warring with and conquering of lands under the guise of righteous claim could be argued as xenophobic, or at the very least, highly conducive to xenophobia. Though obsession with conspiracies might be practically applicable, one might imagine an equally fascist state totally devoid of such an obsession. Nothing about obsession with conspiracies is directly symptomatic of fascism. At most, it would be a secondary outgrowth.
Similarly, Eco claims that the fascists viewed the enemy as simultaneously overwhelmingly strong and pitifully weak. Though such an observation is an effective criticism of many war efforts and applies well to fascism’s warring nature, it is less of a fundamental aspect of fascism and more of an aspect of a nation at war. Additionally, such a position is not inherent to a warmongering nation, thereby rendering the claim not definitionally fascist. Rome was both warmongering and imperialist, yet Romans consistently viewed themselves as the strongest force at the height of their power.
One of Eco’s most astute and accurate points is that fascism is anti-pacifist and encourages a forever war. Such claims are verified in the definition of fascism, as consistently reiterated by Mussolini. As quoted earlier, Mussolini states that fascism does not believe in “perpetual peace,” further elaborating on the necessity of war as an effective means of testing the strength of the nation. Mussolini outright calls pacifism a position for cowards, supporting Eco’s assertion that pacifism is, to fascists, collusion with the enemy, and that life is a permanent war. Aside from the noted excerpt, fascism even supports the idea of perpetual war in a spiritual sense.
Elitism and scorn for the weak speak to fascism’s rejection of democracy, wherein Mussolini designates the minority of great thinkers as the truest representatives of the nation in lieu of the majority. This sets up bounds for a new elite with expressed superiority over the majority, thereby validating Eco’s claim. Eco adds that each position has its own ‘dominator’ who looks down on those below them. Though this is certainly true, such a sense of hierarchy is more of a fundamental aspect of humanity than of fascism in particular.
Fascism’s “cult of death” is a byproduct of its anti-pacifism and warring nature. The martyrdom of heroes is deemed an ultimate way to serve the state. Martyrs serve as a passion-inspiring force for the fascists in ensuring the continuation of their war efforts, explaining the martyrs are highly exalted. Such an extrapolation is sensible and verified by the emphasis of martyrdom in fascist history. This is not to say that a culture of martyrs is a cult of death, but rather, the use of martyrs as fuel for war efforts, as it implies some degree of necessity in the continued death of citizens.
I find the point of machismo to be rather carried away. Although Mussolini certainly portrayed an element of extensive machismo, such extensiveness is not essential to fascism. Eco’s expounding of this point reaches a questionable absurdity, with Eco claiming that Mussolini’s machismo is a result of a permanent state of “penis envy.” Eco claims that the fascist does not play the game of sex with women because it is difficult, opting instead to use weapons as his ersatz penis. This claim comes off more like a weak social media insult than a legitimate political argument. I even stopped to ask whether or not this point was even intended to be taken seriously. Whether it was or was not, I will address it as though it was due to the nature of this piece. Not only does this utterly lack any substantiation, but it also contradicts real-world evidence from the fascists. Fascists, despite at one point attempting to appeal to the Catholics, were licentious in their upper ranks, practicing fornication and adultery on a regular basis. Furthermore, this argument lacks a bridge as to why a lack of sex with women is at all related to the use of weapons. Not only is this point poorly substantiated, but it is also absurd and arguably the most discrediting of the entire piece.
This next point expands on the previously mentioned populism, detailing the idea of common will. Much like Eco’s point of anti-pacifism, his understanding of common will is definitionally accurate and directly corroborated by Mussolini’s own words. Eco correctly outlines that fascism does not allow individual rights and imagines the people as a monolithic entity with a common will. Parliament is deemed a vestige of a misled democratic tyranny. Mussolini exemplified this in both word and action, denouncing democracy as an opposed ideology to fascism and dissolving the parliament while in office.
Finally, Eco calls Orwell’s idea of Newspeak from 1984 an element of fascism. Furthermore, Eco tells the reader that limited syntax was used by the fascists to limit thought among the population, but Eco fails to provide any concrete evidence or examples. This is not to say they do not exist. Such examples might exist and would be in line with fascism’s authoritarian nature. However, this exercise is not inherent with authoritarianism despite seeming effective, and therefore cannot be definitionally fascist.
Though Ur-Fascism demonstrates a knowledgeable and experienced understanding of fascism, the primary issue with Ur-Fascism is its symptomatic framework. Fascism’s symptoms, out of place, are often banal and even common when stripped of their definitional context. The confluence of many of these symptoms fails to match a danger worthy of the connotative poison fascism brings. Ur-Fascism’s expressed ability to be diagnosed without a complete exhibition of symptoms exacerbates this flaw to the nth degree. Using this definition, fascism becomes absurdly inclusive to the point of losing almost all meaning, and certainly no longer worthy of its connotative weight. Those influenced by Eco might call the average politician a fascist, seeing as they tend to be almost entirely populist, conspiratorial about their opponents, and scornful of dissenting intellectuals, all for electoral approval. Ur-Fascism’s symptoms are impotent in their ability to form a coherent definition if they are used as described, and may even contribute more harm than good through false identification and extreme measures taken to eliminate fascism. Worryingly, but understandably given his upbringing, Eco warns the reader, “Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in civilian clothes.” Not only does such a statement present a dehumanizing approach to fascists, but further encourages the application of his ill-founded symptoms to ensure more fascism does not come about.
II. Fascism is the End of Capitalism
Recently, during a podcast appearance on Triggernometry, popular socialist voice Hasan Piker said, “…Italy’s Mussolini and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany were ruthless fascist forms of governance where there was unimaginable repression. My fear is that that is where capitalism inevitably leads.” Hasan continues by elaborating that capitalism will always decay and deteriorate, forcing those who own capital to make a decision on how they must restore order from chaos. When threatened by socialism and a loss of profit margins, Hasan claims that fascism becomes the “domineering force that restores law and order,” keeping people working and repressing dissent. Hasan fears that, due to China threatening American hegemony, the United States will move in a fascist direction. Piker is not alone in his controversial assertion. The idea that capitalism under crisis leads to fascism was popularized by Antonio Gramsci, albeit in different terms. Among radical socialist and communist communities online, the saying, “scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds,” is a common sight. The implication of this phrase tends to be that liberalism will devolve into fascism under pressure (though, among the less educated crowd, this often means “liberals and fascists are the same at their core.” Any reader thus far should know that this is clearly not the case, given Mussolini’s own distinctions).
To assert that crises will, as a rule, push capitalism into fascism is a leap in logic that does not inherently follow. Moreover, liberal countries with decently strong institutions, more often than not, remain liberal in the face of crisis. The Great Depression and the 2008 financial crisis in the United States may have led to illiberal countermeasures, but certainly not anything that could be categorized as fascism in any way. This is not to say they do not decrease their degree of liberalism or undergo negative change after a crisis, but that there is no consistent evidence to show that fascism is an intuitive solution to a crisis. Similarly, threatening political hegemony does not necessarily pressure businesses in a global economy. In many cases, the opposite occurs. Unless the business is completely bound to the state, global markets often encourage cheap, outsourced labor and, later on, industrial commons in the manufacturing country. Certain businesses may even be damaged by the fascist corporate model, with stringent restrictions prioritizing the needs of the state over the authority of firms. Firms maintain some private power, but are ultimately limited in the choices they can make. As previously mentioned, the corporations of fascism are not ultimate manifestations of firms, but restrictive political bodies.
Mussolini establishes fascism specifically in opposition to socialism, democracy, and liberalism, yet that does not stop the inadequately informed from attempting to equate their political opponents with fascists. The nexus of the liberal belief system is the individual, yet the nexus of the fascist belief system is the nation. These are, as highlighted by Mussolini himself, fundamentally opposed. The fascist supposition is that individualism is a destructive locus that forgoes societal cohesion for short-term gain, while under fascism, individual desires must be sacrificed for the betterment of the whole nation. Fundamentally, the liberal framework of God-given rights and individualism is not agnostic about fascism, but outright contradicts it.
Additionally, fascist economics are somewhat amorphous and therefore not definitionally entangled into fascism. The fact that fascism shifted from national syndicalism to the corporate model means that, even if it were in some way advantageous for the bourgeoisie to shift to Mussolini’s corporate model, it would not be fascist without all the other aspects of the doctrine that Mussolini highlights. An accusation of fascism cannot be made on purely economic grounds.
Hasan, later in the interview, accuses the Republican Party and Reform Party of being nascent fascist organizations. When asked to define fascism, he defines it as a “palion genetic ultranationalism, an ingroup-outgroup dynamic that is constantly seeking to destroy the outgroup and dominate the outgroup (even if the outgroup is actually a part of civilized society), and surrounding itself with this like mythologized understanding of this national or ethnic or religious mythology of the higher group. Hasan agrees that fascism must be authoritarian and clarifies that it is usually but not always a monoparty. He justifies the accusation of nascent fascism by referencing the parliamentary presence of Mussolini’s Fascist Party before their eventual March on Rome. Hasan characterizes fascism as having a need to excise aberrations. Depending on how material conditions unwind, Piker believes these parties will unlock fascism.
The hosts rightfully question that, given Hasan’s shock at the death of Charlie Kirk, whether or not he was in part responsible for dangerous rhetoric in accusing Republicans of being fascist. This comes in addition to previous calls for violence made by Piker, such as when he posted a diagram of the firearm used to kill Shinzo Abe in response to Senator Tom Cotton on X. Hasan backpeddles slightly, pointing out that no Democratic politicians endorsed the death of Kirk, but then quickly affirms that there is a difference between his accusations of fascism in the Reform and Republican Parties and the one that led to Kirk’s assassination. Hasan claims that he advocates for change in democratic means and is in favor of working within liberal democracy unless fascism is unlocked.
The error in this logic is that Hasan is simultaneously calling parties fascist while saying that they haven’t reached the point of fascism. Yet, the connotative weight of fascism is still being dumped on the party regardless. Then, Hasan proceeds to say that this transformation to fascism is occurring due to a current crisis. These positions are mutually exclusive and cannot be held at the same time. Additionally, Hasan has recently portrayed China as an example of what he wants. Yet, China’s model is far more similar to Italian fascism than any recent western examples of fascism, incorporating party control into private firms, enforcing a unified national identity, and pursuing authoritarian and imperial displays of power (the last of which may be exemplified from the CCP’s dealings with Manchuria, Tibet, Tiananmen Square). This is not to indict Hasan’s character or even saying that this example of fascism is inherently unethical. Rather, this is to demonstrate that where fascism is cried, it is seldom understood.
There is no substantial evidence to prove that capitalism or liberalism in crisis will lead to fascism due to a deficit of examples, a difference in fundamental beliefs, and the extraeconomic nature of fascist ideology.
III. Fascism is Socialist
A common reaction among the moderate right upon being accused of fascism is to deflect and accuse leftists of being either “the true fascists” or the next closest thing. Often, there is the accusation of socialism, and then the claim is put forth that fascism was socialist in nature. I shall save the dissecting of socialism and its pejorative applications for another, wonderful time; But for now, let us address whether or not there is any credence to the point that fascism is socialist.
Similar to the accusation that liberals are fascists, Mussolini outright contradicts the assertion that fascism is socialist. Rather, he frames fascism in opposition to socialism, primarily because Mussolini does not recognize class struggle as a valid axis for framing history. Mussolini replaces the emphasis on class struggle with that of the nation, recognizing class struggle only when it pertains to a national context. On a fundamental level, fascist beliefs approach history through a different lens than Marxism and most variants of socialism.
Though fascist economic policy is amorphous and therefore cannot be used to make a definitive fascist equation, it’s nonetheless worth comparing economics to see whether or not the comparison of fascism and socialism bears any dimension of historical truth. In other words, economic similarities between socialist and fascist models do not equate the two, but simply provide understanding for why such a historical comparison may be made. Fascism originally borrowed its economics from an explicit form of socialism: syndicalism. However, Mussolini viewed his form of syndicalism, national syndicalism, as a rejection of full socialism and full capitalism. In practice, national syndicalism mirrored the unions of the Soviet Union—they were public reflections of the monoparty rather than representing any private interests. Upon Italy’s shift to the corporatist model, the Italian economy was distinctly not socialist, as private enterprise was allowed under the watchful supervision of the state (much like the model of Deng Xiaoping).
Despite some distinct similarities, fascism is concurrently and historically separate from socialism in its foundational focus on the nation over class struggle and its allowance of monitored private enterprise. Of course, if Fascist Italy was not socialist, one might argue that Communist China is not socialist either. Alas, that’s a topic for another article. Often, such accusations are weaponized by socialists to stoke the flames of fear against their opponents. In their worst incarnation, these accusations in liberal states may muddy the waters with political violence and turmoil.
IV. Fascism is Right-Wing Authoritarianism
If one were to check the dictionary for a definition of fascism, as any studied man does upon such curiosity, they would be met with a slew of vague and inconsistent definitions. Collins Dictionary calls fascism, “a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition.” Similarly, Oxford Reference summarizes it as, “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fascism as, “an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition” Britannica Dictionary focuses more on the authoritarian side, calling fascism, “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” Cambridge Dictionary follows with the definition, “a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.” And Finally, Random House, via Dictionary.com, defines fascism as, “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.” I do not expect each reader to memorize, compare, and contrast these definitions, so I shall present you this comparative chart before my analysis. Though I could cite even more dictionaries to demonstrate my point, I do not wish to exhaust my reader as I already have with this bland list of definitions. Nonetheless, these definitions all continue along very similar lines.
| Trait | Collins Dictionary | Oxford Reference | Oxford Learner’s Dictionary | Britannica Dictionary | Cambridge Dictionary | Random House |
| Right-Wing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Authoritarian | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Nationalist | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Conformist | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
All of the dictionaries rightfully agree that fascism is authoritarian. Mussolini himself would certainly agree. It is after authoritarianism that the definitions begin to contradict and err in their understandings. Of the six read out, two definitions do not describe fascism as nationalist. Such a fact is surprising, as fascism’s focus on the nation is the core of its ideology. Four dictionaries classify fascism as conformist, which can be true in tandem with other tenets of the definition. Lastly, half of the listed definitions categorize fascism as “right-wing.”
What right-wing and left-wing truly are warrants its own article. But, for the sake of time, I shall summarize why using political side indicators in definitions like this is poor practice. Right-wing and left-wing are incredibly vague indicators that mean different, often contradictory things depending on the speaker and their motive. For instance, Oxford Language’s definitions of right-wing and left-wing highlight two mutually exclusive aspects of each term. Right-wing is categorized as pro-free market and conservative, whereas left-wing is categorized as pro-economic equality and progressive. Yet, free market and traditional conservative are not inherently aligned positions and could, in theory, contradict one another. Economic equality and progressivism encounter the same problem.
Moreover, in the context of fascism, fascism is neither laissez-faire free market nor traditionally conservative. Its economic policy is scattered, accepting of free enterprise only under heavy restrictions. If extreme pro-market sentiments define the right wing, fascism just barely qualifies. Similarly, Mussolini emphasizes tradition in the context of the nation, but explicitly denies that fascism is a return to tradition. Rather, fascism is intended to be progressive, and certainly is progressive in the sense that it does not totally mirror any ideology that came before it. Fascism is, at best, a hodgepodge of political sides.
If I may speculate, this “right-wing authoritarianism” definition of fascism (in particular the one advanced by Collins Dictionary) appears to be an easy way to skirt the responsibility of research while stating something that attempts to be in some way vaguely correct enough to be unquestioned. If such a definition was not formed simply out of uncritical ignorance, I suspect its formation to be outright malicious, political malpractice. This vague definition is easily weaponized for semantic overloading and discrediting right-wing positions. “Authoritarianism” is often shouted upon any sign of centralized control, or even rhetoric that could imply control. If a political opponent is right-wing and signals support for any degree of centralization, the connotative waterfall of fascism will be dumped over their head.
I have intentionally neglected one major dictionary’s definition of fascism until now, but only to end this section on a positive note. Merriam-Webster’s definition of fascism is easily the most well-researched and historically correct. They call fascism, “a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.” This definition has been made to include nazism in its clause of race, but otherwise demonstrates a complete understanding of Mussolini’s doctrine, particularly in highlighting how the nation is exalted over the individual through authoritarian means. Thus, not all dictionary definitions of fascism are poorly constructed, but there are certainly many that have a duty to reevaluate for the truth and safety of others. Political side labeling is far too imprecise to characterize the specific parameters of fascism.
V. Fascism is Groupthink
Though perhaps a less common definition than those previously discussed, I have seen fascism defined as, “when the group is valued above all else.” Aside from being echoed by a couple dictionary definitions, YouTube educator and high school teacher Mr. Beat (not to be confused with the philanthropist) has openly supported this definition to his audience of hundreds of thousands. Though conformity can certainly be a present force in fascism, can fascism be defined by conformity itself?
Although the nation is the core tenet of fascism, limiting a definition of fascism to group conformity is far too vague to encompass the whole and leaves substantial room for error. Conformity is only sensible to note in the definition if it is in relation to the nation and thereafter the state. Focusing only on conformity makes fascism inclusive with nearly all movements that use social pressure. Social pressure, being a fundamental aspect of human nature, would make almost all politics where agreement is especially valued fascist. The totalitarian means of fascism are necessary to note when describing fascist conformity, lest you let fascism lose its fangs. Would such a definition classify much of the purity-centric American left as fascist (American Democrats are 18% less likely to have a Republican friend than vice versa according to an NBC poll)? If fascism is just ingroup bias, the connotative weight held by fascism appears wholly unjust and even dangerously overpowered. Where ingroup bias and conformity deserve their reputation is in the context of a totalitarian monoparty, imperial in spirit, that wishes to collectively structure all life around the nation.
VI. Nazism is Fascist
Though fascism was an Italian phenomenon, Nazi Germany is arguably more associated with fascism than Fascist Italy. Often, nazism is branded as a type of fascism. Certainly, Hitler took note of Mussolini’s fascism in the creation of his own ideological framework. But, is nazism actually categorically fascist?
Whereas fascism is generally agnostic on the idea of race, nazism is not. For fascists, the nation is a political entity, much like the Roman Empire. The genetic makeup of the groups inside the empire matters less than their imperial banner because the state precedes the nation. Nazism reverses this notion, asserting that the nation precedes the state, and that the nation is a racial, genetic body. Thus, Hitler strove to unite the German people across their political borders. Conversely, Mussolini sought to conquer new political borders and then render all the inhabitants within them Italian. Nazism cannot be fascist because it orders the nation before the state. Here I have only provided a surface-level analysis of nazism, but I shall follow this exploration of fascism with a similar one of nazism, given the concomitant, pejorative application of the two terms.
De Facto Times 