A Definition for Fascism

For the past several weeks, I’ve been overwhelmed by a thought that has been continually gnawing at me. While a number of commentators and pundits haphazardly slap the label of “fascist” on any political activity that they don’t like, I grew curious as to whether or not there was any validity to their use of the word, especially as a pejorative. This, of course, begs a very simple question: what exactly is fascism? And that’s where I hit a stumbling block.

The problem with defining fascism, or any political movement, for that matter, is that there have been so many iterations throughout history that finding all of their similarities in order to build a definition based on the lowest common denominator can be a herculean challenge. One might think that since fascism is so new in the history of political philosophy that it would be easier than, say, for democracy. However, the few fascist parties that popped up in the early twentieth century had more differences than similarities, and their relative success also does not appear to have been dependent on their governing mechanisms as much as the circumstances that surrounded their inceptions.

Taking a step back, perhaps we should first discuss some conditions for a regime that are necessary but not sufficient for the fascist label. First off, a large, authoritarian government. This is necessary but certainly not sufficient because there are many flavors of authoritarianism and the fascists of twentieth-century Europe were staunchly opposed to several of them. For example, the Nazis not only refused to build a parliamentary coalition with the communists, they threw many of them in concentration camps. So fascism is more than just a large government with a single figurehead ruler at the top. Stalin was an authoritarian and a tyrant in that he used his authority to trample on the rights of Soviet citizens. He was not, however, a fascist.

A stone’s throw away from communism, socialism and fascism have what one might consider a strenuous relationship. Although the term Nazi is short for National Socialist Workers’ Party, and even though Hitler used his power as the Führer to nationalize large industries within Germany, he considered the party’s name to be “unfortunate” and misleading. Surely it helped him rise to power in the early days of his political career, but there was no love lost between the Nazis and the socialists. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was a member of the socialist party before he became the fascist ruler of Italy, and nationalization of major industries is a basic goal of socialist rulers, although fascists never agreed with the end goal of socialism—communism.

This is not to say that fascists are fans of unmitigated capitalism. A key characteristic of fascist economies was corporatism. Although today that term is understood to mean that large corporations play an influential role in government, in the context of a fascist regime, it means the organization of worker groups and economic sectors (referred to as “corporations”) into state-controlled bodies. These worker groups would then turn to the fascist state for any mediation between them and their employers, giving the regime final authority over any and all workplace disputes. These corporations, as with everything else in a totalitarian society, were mandatory and independent alternatives like labor unions were banned.

Furthermore, fascist regimes always strived for autarky, that is, an economy that neither imports nor exports goods. Everything is produced and consumed in-house. The argument for this was that it was the best way to build up the home economy and support the fascist state. As a neoclassical economist, I have to point out that the problem with this is that it forces economies to produce goods for which they do not have a comparative advantage, and that free trade benefits both parties involved. For the fascist, the cost of a smaller GDP and fewer foreign luxury goods was worth the benefit of the national pride in an entirely isolated economy. In some ways this is admirable in the same way that it’s admirable to shop at the local mom-and-pop shop even though it might be a little more expensive because you value helping local businesses over national big-box stores. It’s the same logic, ironically, on the national scale; you would rather buy everything American or go without than purchase goods imported from the other side of the world. There are still, however, practical limitations to this, especially for smaller countries that need resources that they can’t find domestically. This is perhaps one justification for the territorial expansion we saw in many fascist regimes, especially Nazi Germany.

Speaking of territorial expansion, a third requirement for a regime to call itself fascist is the militarization of society. I won’t go as far as to say that every aspect of society is militarized, because that becomes a bottomless rabbit hole (What do you mean by “every aspect”?), but much of the country’s culture becomes oriented toward the military. The Nazis had the Hitler Youth program, which was essentially military training for young boys to prepare them for enlistment when they came of age, and which was also compulsory for all boys. Fascist Italy had the ONB and fascist Spain had the Youth Front, both of which were also military training for children ahead of formal enlistment.

Beyond childhood, the military and use of governmental and police force were key characteristics of fascist regimes across Europe in the twentieth century, even during their respective rises to power. Hitler et al. weren’t exactly hiding the ball with regard to their approval of the use of force against their political opponents. Their voters and constituents were aware of all of this. Perhaps this was even a key to winning their support, rather than a detail that made them squirm or reconsider their vote.

Fascist regimes also develop a spiritual view of their nation and their people, which I will refer to as their mythos, that becomes the basis of the logos for the party. They believe that their nation will, given enough manipulation from the state, produce the next step in human social evolution—the Übermensch; a superior human. This is not exactly racial in nature, although it can be, like in Nazi Germany, but rather a belief that human nature will ascend, to a higher, more virtuous status quo if they are molded in just the right way and by the right amount by the fascist regime. This sounds an awful lot like Karl Marx’s theory that by committing to communism, human nature will be transformed away from the greedy, self-centered version that exists under capitalism. Under both communism and fascism, the only way to achieve this higher nature is the participation and cooperation of everyone in society, voluntary or otherwise. This begs the question of what the regime must do with those who refuse to cooperate under any circumstances. Both regimes found solutions to that problem.

But for the fascist, the desire to conquer and ascend is much more than a need to cast off the chains of class struggles, as Marxists strive for. Instead, they believe that the Übermensch must come from their people on their soil. The Nazis often referred to the German Volk, which although that word is usually translated as “people,” it has a much more tribal connotation in German that gets lost in translation. This fascist mythos inspires much of the party’s actions with regard to the construction of monuments and large national projects, military action, and cultural promotion through the arts.

Finally, although this is still a working definition and is certainly subject to alteration, a requirement of fascist regimes is the desire to jettison everything old. This can conflict with the mythos that it creates surrounding the history and achievements of its nation and its people, but the fascist always has their gaze fixed on the future. The fascist party creates a clear vision for the future of the country, in which the fascist state plays a large role, and orients the nation, the economy, and the culture toward fulfilling that vision. Large national projects such as the construction of monuments or territorial conquest can certainly be part of that vision, and can give the people a goal that helps promote patriotism and nationalist pride, much in the same way that the space race and Apollo Program did for Americans in the 1960s, and the Artemis Program is doing for us again today.

It bears repeating that all of these conditions are necessary but not sufficient. A nation that tries to do great things, like going to the moon or building a world wonder, is not automatically fascist because of that initiative. Nor does taking patriotic pride in the accomplishments of your country and the citizens who came before you make you a fascist. For a regime to be considered truly fascist, I believe it must meet all of the following conditions:

1. Totalitarian, single-party state with no electoral participation from the common citizens.

2. Corporatist, in that labor unions are banned and the economy is divided into worker groups, which turn to the state for any and all mediation for disputes with employers.

3. Actively working towards autarky, either by ending trade agreements or expanding their territory to include regions with desired resources.

4. Militarization of many aspects of society, especially regarding children.

5. Possess a spiritual belief regarding its nation and its people.

6. Promote nationalism through the state, in such a way that one can only serve the nation if such an action also serves the state, and by serving the state, one serves the nation.

7. Orient the nation, the economy, and its culture toward the fulfillment of a futuristic vision in which the fascist state plays a large role and the nation’s people have ascended to the Übermensch.

Furthermore, the regime must not meet any of the following conditions:

1. Communist, or a nationalization of all industry and an abolition of private property.

2. Libertarian, or the existence of a small government that does not meddle in the affairs of citizens or allows them to operate without the direction of the state.

3. Anarchist, or the belief that the state is not needed, either now or in the future. The fascist state plays a domineering role in every vision of the nation.

To circle back to the beginning, is it a pejorative to be called a fascist? I would certainly suggest that it depends on the speaker and the one at whom the comment is directed. I would not appreciate the term because I do not think the state should play a role in daily life nearly as large as what fascists envision. But others may enjoy the label. I think of the film The Believer in which the leader of the secret neo-Nazi group said he was a fascist because he thinks New York was too capitalist and the state needed to give people meaning in their lives. I reject the premise that this is the role of the state, but I have met those who wish their leaders (elected or otherwise) would provide them some sort of moral guidance rather than practical policy solutions.

I will discuss later why I went on this deep dive into fascism, but for now, this is how I define it. Thanks for reading, breaux.