The Elfin Blog

While sitting in my political ideologies class the other day (I am a grad student) my teacher told the class, after delivering a rather informative lecture on the tenets of fascism, that it was his least favorite lecture to give because he felt like he was espousing this point of view. He sounded apologetic. My first thought was that he shouldn’t feel like he’s promoting fascism just because he’s teaching people about it. After all, how is anyone going to learn about it if no one makes information about it readily available? Then it occurred to me that this was, after four years of college and year of grad school, the first time anyone had taken up more than five minutes of class time to explain what fascism was all about, and I should mention that he had changed our reading schedules to allow more time to read about socialism, and canceled the readings on fascism altogether. It seems that this teacher was not the first to feel as though he or she were promoting fascism by even mentioning it in class, let alone discussing it in any detail. Does the word fascism have such power, does it carry with it such a negative connotation that people are afraid to discuss it? Is it because people hear the word ‘fascism’ and automatically think Nazism? Are we so programmed to fear the words and effects of these ideas that we won’t even discuss them in a college level classroom? Perhaps if we understood what these ideologies are or were about, then we would really understand what is wrong with them, as opposed to simply fearing them based on a vague notion of what these ideas may be. With this in mind, a brief overview of the ideas behind fascism and Nazism follows. Hopefully, with greater understanding, people can have better conversations about these topics and attempt to make better sense of the fascist based neo-nazi and white power movements that are apparently gaining strength in this country.

Fascism as an ideology emerged after World War I as a reaction to the leading political ideologies of the time, liberalism and socialism. According to fascism both liberalism, with its emphasis on individualism, and socialism, by stressing conflict between the social classes, pit the members of society against each other, thus creating an weak state. The state can only be strong when all members and classes of society unite behind a single party and supreme leader. This was the ideological core of fascism as it developed in Italy under Benito Mussolini (1883 -1945) and under Adolf Hitler (1889 -1945) in Germany (Ball & Dagger, 1999, p.315).

It is important to note that fascism is a 20th century ideology and is a revolt against the ideas and values that have dominated Western politics since the French Revolution. Fascists are basically against every major idea behind liberalism, socialism, and anything that arose out of the Enlightenment. For fascists, freedom is defined as complete submission to the state. Progress is only possible through struggle and war. And because fascism rejects the basic ideas of the Enlightenment, it is not a rational philosophy, but favors action instead. With this in mind, we will now briefly examine the basic ideas of fascism and Nazism.

Anti-rationalism or Irrationalism:

In the late 1800’s some social theorists began to question the ideals of the Enlightenment. Of these thinkers, a man named George Sorel wrote a book called Reflections on Violence which focused on the significance of political myths. According to Sorel, these myths were not objective reflections of political reality, but simply expressions of the will. They are emotionally based. Even if an idea does not make rational sense, said Sorel, if enough people believe it, then it can work. Fascism used this as a basis to promote itself. According to fascism, the really important truths of life defy rational thought. The source of higher truth is instinct, rather than rationality, as the Enlightenment thinkers would have us believe. A good fascist leader simply knows instinctively what is right, and makes his or her decisions that way, as opposed to using reason. A leader of a fascist state will not rise to the top out of luck though. They must win power through struggle.

Struggle:

To the extent that struggle plays a large part in the fascist philosophy, the Social Darwinists had a fairly large influence. Struggle to the fascist is natural, both at home and in the international arena. Only struggle and constant competition promote human progress according to fascist doctrine. War is, in fact, an ultimate goal of the fascist state. Hitler described war as “…an unalterable law of the whole of life.” As a result of the necessity of struggle and war, fascism opposes sympathy, caring, kindness, and other principles based on conventional morality because they only promote weakness, and should therefore be eliminated. (One example of this kind of thinking put into action was the sterilization, and later execution, of the physically and mentally handicapped in Germany under Hitler’s rule). Finally, it was thought that the national identity arose out of struggle, and struggle was therefore important to the existence of the state.

Elitism:

According to fascism the rule of the elite class is inevitable, and therefore neither liberal democracy nor socialism are possible (according to elite theorists). Fascists felt that elite rule was natural and desirable, and those with the rare qualities of leadership would rise to the top (by struggling and vying for power). The fascist leader did not derive power from a constitution, but was the embodiment of the people. Mussolini said a leader was “…the living sum of untold souls striving for a goal.” In short, the elite class was desired and needed because they would lead the people to greatness.

Fascism and the State:

The fascist concept of the state was most prevalent in Italian fascism, although it can be seen in the German version as well. In Italy, Mussolini sought to create a national consciousness by using the power of the state. According to fascism, the state is the focal point of human existence, and all citizens should give the state absolute obedience. Only the state gave people their identity, and only through the state could people achieve what Mussolini called the “higher life.” (Mussolini never really went into any detail as what this “higher life” entailed). Mussolini also argued that the state drew its personality from the personality and will of each individual in the state and then developed its own unique personality and will. Therefore, thought Mussolini, the state has the greater will and should dominate the individuals that live in it. The will of the state then becomes the measure of value and wisdom for its people. Mussolini attempted to form a totalitarian state, in which every aspect of society is controlled by the state. Mussolini and other Italian fascists thought the state could be used to modernize Italy, and they promoted technology and industrial life. Economically, corporation was important to the state. Fascists opposed a free market because it resulted in individuals working for their own gain. In theory, fascists also opposed central planning, although this is pretty much what developed in Italy.

Okay. So far we’ve looked at the basic principles that combine to form the fascist ideology. Every version of fascism will include the ideas listed above in some form or another. These ideas are a bit far to the right in the ideological spectrum certainly, but I believe that the one part of some forms of fascism that really upsets people is the fascist concept of race. This is where we begin to diverge from pure fascism to the form that was embodied by National Socialism, or Nazism, in Germany under Adolf Hitler.

Race and Fascism:

It is important to note that not every form of fascism involves racism. Italian fascism did not necessarily involve racism, and although Mussolini passed anti-Semitic laws, he did so to please Hitler, not as an idea from his concept of fascism. So where did Hitler get his ideas about race? Not a tremendously original thinker, Hitler got most of his racial theory from a man named Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau (1816 -1882) who argued in his Essay on the Inequality of Human Races (1853 -1855) “that the mingling of races led, and must continue to lead, to the downfall of great civilizations.” (Ball & Dagger, 1999, p.317). Gobineau said the highest white race was the Aryan race, a nomadic people. The Aryans had, over the course of history, imposed their will on inferior peoples and established new civilizations. However, this race had a tendency to inter-marry and weaken their bloodline. Gobineau, a French diplomat, argued that the purest strain of Aryans left were the German people, and therefore had an advantage over everyone else. The Germans would only be able to maintain this advantage, though, if they maintained racial purity. Although Hitler got quite a few of his ideas about race from Gobineau, anti-Semitism is much older than the 19th century.

Anti-Semitism dates back to the middle ages, where its origins were theological. The Jews were seen as being responsible for the death of Christ, and were denying divinity, and thus were endangering their own souls. For this reason they were shunned. The nature of anti-Semitism changed, though, in the 1800’s with the development of the so-called science of race. Jews came to be thought of as a race, rather than a religious or cultural group. Gobineau viewed Jews as fundamentally uncreative.

Another man, Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855 - 1927), the nephew of the British Prime Minister, shared Gobineau’s views. Chamberlain called the highest race the Teutons, who were again the German people. He argued that the Teutons were responsible for all the cultural development in the world, while the Jews were physically, morally, and spiritually degenerate. History, then, was a struggle between these two groups of people.

The ideas of these two men had a large impact on Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany’s defeat in World War One. He also claimed they were responsible for an international conspiracy to overthrow the German people. These views were a part of Hitler’s racial theory.

Hitler thought that every person in the world fell into one of three racial groups. First there were the Aryans, or the master race. The Aryans were the founders of culture. The Aryan race included not only the German people, but also the English, Dutch, and Scandinavian people. The next racial group were the bearers of culture. People in this group weren’t creative, but they made good use of German ideas, and therefore allowed culture to continue. Members of this category included Asians, Slavic people, and people of Latin origin. Finally, people in the third group were the culture destroying races. The people in this grouping were considered to be sub-human, and were responsible for the decline of great civilizations. This group consisted of Jews, blacks, and gypsies. Members of this last group were seen as enemies of the German people.

Hitler said that the German people needed to win the struggle against the evils of the world. This entailed an aggressive foreign policy that sought to pursue a racial empire headed by Germany. Under this policy, Jews were thought to deserve persecution because they destroyed culture, and were enemies of the German state. As a result of this the Nazis implemented the Final Solution in 1941. About six million Jewish people were killed, as well as approximately three million other people, most of whom were considered to be culture destroying peoples or enemies of the state.

Conclusion:

Hopefully this little piece has been informative. With a greater understanding of the basic ideas of fascism and National Socialism, people can have better conversations about the slowly growing Neo-Nazi movements in the world, as well as be able to think more critically about these ideologies in general. In the 1930’s fascism must have looked like a pretty good idea for a weakened Italy and Germany, who were in serious economic decline. In Germany, Hitler was able to use the Jewish people as scapegoats for many hard-to-explain problems facing the country. Fortunately, with greater knowledge of these ideologies and the past, we can learn from the mistakes of others and not allow hate for the sake of political convenience to consume us.

Sources:

Ball, T. & Dagger, R. (1999) Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader. 3rd Ed. Longman. New York.

Lecture Notes from a lecture delivered 11/4/99 at The Ohio State University by J. Pigg, who knows a lot more about this than I do.

Copyright 1999 by Tom Kersey. All rights reserved. Give credit where credit is due, oh young university students. Oh yeah, and I’m not a grad student anymore. I graduated in 2000, which you won’t get to do if you plagiarize.