The Fascist Question: Part II

Having extensively covered the historical points of fascism's father doctrine, Italian Fascism, let's pause to consider what we know thus far. Fascism should be characterized by:

• Fierce nationalism, a call for the rise or rebirth of a unified nation-state.
• Glorification of war and conquest.
• A hierarchical social order, likely based on ethnicity or culture.
• Authoritarian policies to promote order and stability; these include the suppression of the press, surveillance networks, and the use of paramilitary units.
• The creation of a totalitarian state, often under the aegis of dictatorship.
• Strong state involvement in the economy, Corporatism.
• Disdain for liberalism.

Thus, while people often associate fascism with the fourth or fifth point, these are mostly just means to an end, so to speak, in the fascist doctrine. More attention should be given to the first three, as these more accurately capture fascism's essence. Indeed, there are regimes all over the modern world that have authoritarian elements or are run by autocratic governments, but it would be inaccurate to call them fascist states, unless they are calling for the rise and hegemony of a national entity.

While we dealt previously with the comparatively well-tempered version of Italian Fascism, this is emphatically not the version called upon by the attacks in modern dialogue. Indeed, fascism took on an even father-right manifestation in Nazi Germany, one much more concerned with social control. We turn to this next, to be followed by briefly mentioning the paltry existence of fascism in the modern world, then with some concluding remarks.

Nazism is generally considered to be the more extreme offshoot of Italian Fascism; it is accurate to say that while all Nazism is fascism, not all fascism is Nazism. While it is true that those in the Reich (Hitler especially) borrowed heavily from the fascist styles and attitudes in Italy, Nazism argued for its superiority on the basis of social Darwinism and racial eugenics, policies which Mussolini generally rejected. Unlike Italy, it was not so much an appeal to historical and cultural superiority as it was a belief in the Aryan race, the only one fit to guide Germany towards new heights.

Such radical theories naturally required policies aimed at "purifying" the nation of those deemed unfit to participate in society. Those who could not work, the disabled and sickly, were exterminated via lethal injection or firing squad, as were those who carried genetic disorders. People deemed "incorrigible" or prone to genetic dispositions towards crime were sterilized. On the opposite end, those who fell into the desirable racial classes were encouraged to breed, with the state encouraging (often enforcing) woman to be housewives, while many young men were trained with the sole intention of preparing for war. The extreme anti-intellectualism of the Third Reich would likewise purge suspected enemies from universities, degrading them to mere institutions geared towards war and "racial science". Even the churches became targets with the intention of creating a new form of Aryan Christianity, though this met with little success.

During the events of World War II, Germany's racial enemies (Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, etc) became subject to unimaginable cruelty due to being considered "sub-human". The Holocaust would claim over tens of millions of lives in the form of Jewish prisoners, Soviet POWs, Poles, Slavs, and Gypsies, due to mass exterminations carried out in concentration camps. The concept of Lebensraum, "living space", formed the basis for the Nazi's plan to conquer Europe and establish a Greater German Reich, expelling and exterminating racial enemies while planning to colonize new territories with Aryan inhabitants. As an example, consider the declaration by Hitler: "Asia, what a disquieting reservoir of men! The safety of Europe will not be assured until we have driven Asia back behind the Urals. No organized Russian state must be allowed to exist west of that line."

Nazi Nuremberg Rally

The Nazi regime likewise took totalitarianism to new heights, far beyond even that of Fascist Italy. Mussolini, though head of state, was not head of government and remained subordinate to the Italian king (by which he was eventually deposed). Hitler, by contrast, was both head of state and government, having abolished the presidency upon Hindenburg's death and wielded virtually unchecked authority for the remainder of his life. Nazi police, paramilitary, and surveillance forces, such as the Gestapo and Schutzstaffel (SS) were far more extensive than any organization in Fascist Italy and the propaganda program, under the guidance of Goebbels, to which German citizens were subjugated permeated virtually every aspect of society. One is hard pressed to present an additional example of a nation whose government tried so desperately to bend the citizenry to its will (perhaps North Korea).

Like Fascist Italy, the initial Nazi approach to the economy was one in which state and industry merged for a common purpose. Due to the much-greater industrial capacity of Germany, their policies met with more arguable success, particularly in the preparation for war. Large-scale works were similarly adopted, such as the German Autobahn, helping to reduce the staggering unemployment, but trade unions disappeared, wages fell, and working hours posed significant health problems. Large companies and corporations, though initially granted capitalist control, eventually all fell to the Reich's demands in a so-called "command capitalism" fashion, with the profit motive all but disappearing. Due to the increasing demands placed upon industries by the Nazis, significant deficits were incurred and the availability of goods began to fall dramatically. This was mitigated slightly due to the exploitation of conquered resources, but near the end of the war, a serious economic crisis began to plague Germany.

In the end, it can be safely said that the entirety of Nazi policy centered around conquest and racial hegemony. Including the characteristics listed at the beginning of this chapter, Nazism structured its social hierarchy on the basis of Aryan racial policies and significantly expanded its totalitarian aims. One would certainly expect it to be farther towards the extremities in the upper-right corner of the political plane than Italian Fascism, as its authoritarian and conservative social policies were simply greater in magnitude. Considering the sheer scale of the destruction inflicted upon the world by such fanaticism, it is no surprise that no significant resurgence has since occurred since. However, the modern world is unfortunately plagued by a wide range of Neo-Nazi enclaves in virtually every major nation, though significant efforts to suppress their efforts have kept their numbers low. What was once an ideological philosophy has been reduced to confinement in hate speech groups.

Psychologically speaking, what draws one to the fascist doctrine? I myself have been drawn to at least a few of its aspects, particularly its emphasis on national unity, romanticism of war, and disdain for liberal policy. In high school, teenage angst certainly contributed in driving me towards a fascination with war and power, but I contend that there are more legitimate reasons for fascism's appeal. The human appreciation, if not desire, for war and conflict has been in existence since recorded history. Conquest among empires has been the sole mechanism behind the formation of the nations we know today and has brought with it countless works of art and film dedicated to capturing its emotional depths--Shostakovich's 'Leningrad' symphony is among my favorite orchestral works, but would not exist in its present form had the Russians simply surrendered to Nazi forces to avoid bloodshed. We do not appreciate the ocean because it has lifeless stillness, but because it ebbs and flows via turbulent tides.

Nationalism likewise carries great potential in its ability to bind people together and work towards a common purpose, though it should certainly *not* be based on beliefs as exhibited in Nazism (eugenics has a poor scientific basis apart from its abhorrent ethical practices). A theory in Roman history is that the empire suffered serious structural weakness in later years due to having lost a sense of what "Roman" meant to its citizenry, particularly when Germanic military leaders began taking more substantial positions of leadership. Here in the United States, we have been able to forge a single identity not on ethnicity (our diversity is unparalleled), but based upon a melting-pot inclusiveness that champions hard work and the pursuit of happiness. It is my belief that the loss of this enthusiasm, partially due to misguided liberal policy, is a major contributing factor to our current divisiveness.

Famous WWII Iwo Jima Photo

Suffice it to say that fascism has appealing qualities. Its nationalist appeal can bind together a nation for great purposes; I envision an ambitious future leader in the United States, for example, who appeals to our nation's innovative history for the purpose of ushering in a new era of technological achievement, bringing us farther into the frontiers of space. Fascism's romanticism of war and conflict could rejuvenate our military leaders, encouraging more decisive action needed to bring a faster end to the elongated crises plaguing the world. Its authoritarian crackdown on democracy would serve to counter the rapidly-expanding liberal policies that have bred division and internal chaos. Wherever egalitarian policies have outlived their usefulness, tempered fascism could be used to restore the balance, a palingenesis (rebirth) of nations.

On the other hand, the anti-intellectualism present in fascism is anathema to higher education and free thinking. Nowhere was this more evident in the human capital flight in German universities during Nazi rule, particularly the University of Göttingen. A purge of great intelligentsia (Einstein, Fermi, Freud, etc) reduced world-renowned institutions to schools of Nazi indoctrination. Indeed, extreme conservatism or far-right thought is generally linked to poorly-educated individuals or those of lower IQ, a phenomenon that I have personally observed during the unprecedented success of Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Additionally, the consistent push for war is resource-intensive, with prolonged engagement being unsustainable. Indeed, Nazi Germany operated solely for the purpose of conquest, bringing it to utter economic ruin on all fronts. A lack of sustainability similarly comes from the tyrannical methods imposed by its leaders; dictatorships generally do not survive successions and require persistent crackdowns on dissent. Though dictatorial power can be used effectively and relatively justly, historical examples of such are rare.

I conclude that if fascism is to have political usefulness, it cannot be more than an intermediary force between regimes. Its lack of sustainability and potential for unchecked damage to those outside of the national interest is evidence of such. It has great power to revive decades of political inertia within a nation, but such power threatens to burn its movement out if not properly transformed within a certain time frame. If fascism is have any place in the future, it should be to destroy the vestiges of a lethargic, corrupt state and use its authoritarian policies to set new ones in place. It is possible that even new democratic regimes can be born in the fires of fascism, with proper leadership.

Thus...what is fascism? It's a nationalist awakening, a call to a nation's citizenry to bind together for the purposes of restoring past glory and ensuring future dominance through war. It seeks to implement national hierarchies and ensures security and stability through authoritarian measures, under autocratic leadership. Its people consider themselves exceptional, either through historical and cultural accomplishment or by racial superiority. Fascism is a complex philosophy, its history rich and cannot be made synonymous with its fundamental elements. When one utters "fascist" they must be referring to what has been described. If not, they are to be intellectually discredited.

Happy March, everyone.