On The Different Interpretations of Fascism
by Zoltanous
Introduction
Fascism is a complex and multifaceted ideology that has been interpreted in a various amount of ways, making it difficult to define with a singular, absolute definition. Scholars of all varieties have developed diverse interpretations, focusing on multitudes of different factors such as economic, social, cultural, intellectual, and psychological effects in an attempt to define it. Unfortunately, these varying views have led to the use of the term fascism/fascist becoming a slur and political epithet in modern political discourse. Fortunately, by studying Fascist theory written by bona-fide Fascists and comparative studies by legitimate experts on the topic such as A. James Gregor and Stanley Payne, it becomes at least possible to define it as an ideological movement. It is important to debunk the wrong interpretations of Fascism and to explain and elevate the correct interpretation(s).
Incorrect Interpretations of Fascism
The American Liberal View:
This view characterizes Fascism as ultranationalist, racist, xenophobic, protectionist, and extremely authoritarian. Psychological attributes are also often added, such as extreme masculinity, a cult of personality, police state style violence, simplistic sloganeering, the creation of an in-group out-group dynamic, a reliance on a mythical past, a decadent present, and the promise of a pure future. This view is best articulated by charlatans like Umberto Eco. However, this view conflates Fascism with extreme paleo-conservatism and reactionary traditionalism, which thus fails to recognize its modernist and science-positive ideology. Moreover, it doesn’t account what Fascist policy actually was, such as Fascism's historical associations: Feminism and rejection of unfettered, totalitarian police-states that disregard the people’s will.
The Comintern (Second/Third International) View:
This view, as argued by communists Georgi Dimitrov and R. Palme Dutt and other Marxist-Leninists; sees Fascism as the authoritarian “last resort” of capital in times of crisis. The liberal economy built by Big Businesses and Monopoly Capital leads to unstable contradictions and social chaos, and so thus it is argued by them that Fascism is created as a dictatorship that bans independent trade unions and forces workers to swallow unfavorable wage agreements and to make concessions with the bourgeois. The first problem with this argument; that Italian Fascism and Nazism somehow represent the will of grand capital. is that it accounts for some views of these movements in practice but fails to explain their early platforms and ideological motives behind these reasons, instead looking at their material outcomes. It may be a good explanation of how such movements come to power by compromising with the ruling class(es), but it’s absurd to suggest that small and marginal movements represent the will of grand capital when they are banned, shunned, debanked, vilified, slandered, and their membership lists doxxed. The second problem is that this purely economic analysis does not differ in any way from neo-liberal practice, which implies that we live in Fascism now, even though the current system is globalist, capitalist, multi-culturalist and viciously suppresses Fascist dissent while ignoring, or even elevating Marxist dissent/viewpoints.
The Russian View:
This is a psycho-analytical (if not spiritual) view that relates to Nazi/Axis atrocities comitted during the Second World War, although its possible but not likely that some such criticisms predate the war. For many (ignorant) Russians, fascism was seen as being degenerate itself, for they perceieved it to be nihilistic and malthusian (likely influenced by Soviet anti-Fascist/anti-Nazi propaganda). Beyond the obvious Nazi tattoos of Azovites and other Banderite militia members in Ukraine, this so-called type of fascism is what a lot of Russians have in mind when they use the term to talk about Ukrainian (and sometimes Baltic) nationalism being weaponized against Russians. This view is not only too inherently biased to adopt, but is extremely reductionist and even dangerous in that it gives leeway to our enemies’ interpretations. It is also used as a general epithet to dehumanize or denigrate anyone against status quo Russian policies (for ex. a Russian monarchist against Putin can easily be smeared as a Nazi/Fascist for voicing concerns against the SMO, leading to his voice being supprssed from Russian politics due to being smeared as fascist or Nazi).
The Western Marxist View:
During the Cold War, a theory called productivism became popular in European social sciences. It suggested that Fascism is the result of the lower middle class feeling squeezed between the upper and lower classes, seeing them as parasites and feeling like the most productive class. During times of crisis, they fear becoming the working class and react strongly against both upper and lower classes. Although this theory is more of a psychological and socio-economic analysis, it is better than most in explaining the social basis for the original Fascist and Nazi movements. However, back then; like today, the social base of the Third Position tended to be the traditional working class and unemployed, similar to the original Communist base as well as disgruntled war veterans.
The Classical Liberal View:
This perspective contends that Fascism is frequently misidentified with conservatism, and instead, it traces the origins of Fascism to the progressive movement in the United States and the communist movements in Europe. It also asserts that Fascism shares ideological similarities with progressivism, such as a belief in the state's power to shape society and a repudiation of individualism and classical liberalism. This viewpoint even characterizes Fascism as a form of nationalism combined with communism. However, it is not widely accepted (then again, other definitions are wrong and are widely accepted, so this problem permeates all over intellecutal spheres).
The Anarchist View:
This argument suggests that Fascism is essentially a form of state capitalism/state socialism, whereas the State controls the economy and is intimately linked to state monopolies. In this view, Fascism is not fundamentally different from Marxism-Leninism, which also involves the State controlling the economy. The main difference between Fascism and communism is in their underlying philosophies. However, this view suggests that Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin, and that communism follows Fascism's form and praxis. Therefore, both represent forms of state capitalism/state socialism. The main issue here though is that despite this argument being mostly true. Communist won’t acknowledge this and still desire different outcomes than Fascists.
The Frankfurt School View:
This is highly psychological, with the "Authoritarian Personality" drivel by the Frankfurt School thinker Theodor W. Adorno. This analysis applies to people defending virtually any cultural norm and has nothing to do with the economic causes. This view also has an odd obsession with equating authoritarianism with sexual frustrations, mainly homosexual in nature (projection perhaps?). It is really more of a cultural method of deconstruction aimed at Europeans, as a way to remove so-called problematic sociological hierarchies. Overall, they think anything with any social conservatism on any issues is Nazism. Disregard it completely.
The Tautological View
This was actually expressed by some early Fascist thinkers like Oswald Mosley. It argues that Fascism is whatever the Fascist government does today, whatever seems to be in the interests of the nation at the time. It is not worth adopting this view because it’s intentionally vague and was only propaganda. It can also be dangerous as the vagueness can result in any totalitarian practices against the people’s will.
The Heritage View:
This is what White Nationalist institutions, publications, and milieu propose (usually paleo-conservative or libertarian). They kind-of respect Fascist history and sometimes use their symbols, but they have a fundamentally bankrupt understanding of what Fascism actually IS. They don’t understand its philosophic or economic views, to them it’s only racial supremacy, unfettered free-market capitalism/private property shilling, and or tautological arguments. Even though Fascism is and always has been a thoroughly anti-capitalist ideology, with a deeply defined economic doctrine: corporatism. They seem to not understand this.
The Reactionary View:
Reactionaries argue that Fascism is a leftist ideology emanating from a Rousseauian General Will (simply embodied in a centralized State and dictator), just a slightly different version of Jacobinism than that of the Communists. Reactionaries consider Fascism modernist, secular, and brutish. They largely consider Fascism to also be godless Caesarism. Although all of these things may be true to a degree; like most reactionary judgments, it never bothers to contrast its own contrasting vision, only to make sweeping condemnations of the side they argue against.
What’s The Correct View On Fascism?
Fascism is a political ideology that elevates the state as the supreme embodiment of a society's collective will. It advocates for the merger of state and national interests under an authoritarian rule. Characterized by its advocacy for economic corporatism, populism, and nationalism, fascism isn’t inherently linked to racism or anti-Semitism. Its goal is to instigate a national rejuvenation that is reflective of a country's cultural values, which may include a fondness for neo-classical architecture, avant-garde art, imperialistic ambitions, and a focus on urban and technological progress. With its roots in philosophical idealism and an emphasis on the significance of human consciousness, fascism is a type of social humanism. It fuses elements of nationalism and syndicalism within an idealistic philosophy, but in essence, fascism is epitomized as a palingenetic populist ultranationalism.
For further exploration on related topics, consider the following:
