I think
Like all sound political conceptions, Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within. It has therefore a form correlated to contingencies of time and space; but it has also an ideal content which makes it an expression of truth in the higher region of the history of thought. There is no way of exercising a spiritual influence in the world as a human will dominating the will of others, unless one has a conception both of the transient and the specific reality on which that action is to be exercised, and of the permanent and universal reality in which the transient dwells and has its being. To know men one must know man; and to know man one must be acquainted with reality and its laws. There can be no conception of the State which is not fundamentally a conception of life: philosophy or intuition, system of ideas evolving within the framework of logic or concentrated in a vision or a faith, but always, at least potentially, an organic conception of the world.
Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. 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.
The Fascist State , as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man. Its functions cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it. It is no mere mechanical device for defining the sphere within which the individual may duly exercise his supposed rights. The Fascist State is an inwardly accepted standard and rule of conduct, a discipline of the whole person; it permeates the will no less than the intellect
After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. 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. 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. -- Benito Mussolini,
The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932
I keep getting criticized for calling Trump and the GOP fascist because the situation in the 1920s and 1930s that gave rise to Mussolini and fascism are quite different from the situation today. Despite that, my reading of Mussolini’s 1932 description of fascism, “
The Doctrine of Fascism” is that there is enough overlap with then and now to be comfortable using the fascist and neo-fascist labels for Trump, GOP elites and most of his deceived supporters. But what do I know? I'm just a simple boy from the Midwest.
Anyway, it is good to consider counter arguments. It helps keep the mind open and sharp.
Boston University Today magazine published an article last February,
Are Trump Republicans Fascists?, based on an interview with BU history professor Johnathan Zatlin. He teaches Comparative European Fascism, a class that focuses on Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and similar regimes characterized by violence, racism, and repression. He argues that modern Republicans are not fascist.
1. Could the Republican Party be described as either fascist or fascist-leaning?
Zatlin: From the historian’s perspective, fascism was a response to problems after 1918—the collapse of multiethnic empires, economic crises—that we don’t have today. If we’re experiencing crises, they’re crises that only superficially resemble what was going on in the interwar period: high inflation, the pandemic [of] the Spanish flu. What we’ve been experiencing the last couple of years are just very different situations. And we don’t have a four-year-long war that killed millions and traumatized a whole generation of young people who found it hard to be integrated back into society and work 9-to-5 jobs, then later experienced mass employment and a Depression lasting years. That, plus weak democratic traditions, led many Europeans to conclude that democracy brought crisis and poverty, and that only authoritarian regimes could ensure prosperity and stability.
Fascism was a response to long-term trends and what was going on after 1918. What you see today, what Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are saying, is completely unoriginal. It is an attempt to resurrect those responses in the interwar period to democratic and liberal rule. It’s not clear to me that you can call them fascists, since fascism was a historical phenomenon. Simply because you think violence is good, and you think racism is good, doesn’t make you a fascist.
There’s a libertarian strand of American politics, going back to 1776, that is used to interpret January 6 as a moment of positive antiauthoritarianism. If you think about Rosa Parks defying bad law, there’s nothing violent about that. Almost all January 6 insurrectionists—I wouldn’t call [them] fascists, because fascists are people who were involved in the interwar period. But there’s no question that they’re violent antidemocrats who are also violently racist. And the Republican Party is in danger of becoming the party of violence, antidemocracy, and racism. If there is any kind of similarity with the interwar period, it’s that you have conservatives willing to collaborate for political reasons with people who are often violent and racist and antidemocratic.
Germaine: Sure, if one defines fascism as a 20th century “historical phenomenon” that involved “people who were involved in the interwar period,” then by golly, Trump and supporters and his party are not fascist. This is definitely not the 20th century, I'm almost certain of that. So, if that is the definition of fascism, then this is a case closed matter. Is that the end of it? No.
One thing to consider is that Mussolini did not define fascism that way. What if one defines fascists as a group of people at any time in history who (1) are comfortable with violence, racism, and repression, and (2) are hard core nationalists, let’s call them something like America Firsters, (3) believes in rule by a few or one person and is explicitly anti-democratic, for example characterized by hostile to free and fair elections, and (4) use decades of ruthless, sophisticated divisive propaganda to the appearance of and widespread false belief in crises akin to those of the early 20th century?
By that definition, Trump, his supporters and his party sound an awful lot like fascists. Or, is Germaine delusional?
Let's move on to one more Q&A with Zatlin.
2. Some observers argue that local Republican officials and Republican judges thwarted Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, so we aren’t headed for autocracy. Any validity to that argument?
Zatlin: If you look at the interwar period, there’s no question that the civil service—especially in Germany, where democracy was linked to economic crises and the defeat of the [First World] War—was opposed to democracy. And that’s simply not the case in the United States. I don’t think that has anything to do with Republicans, actually; I think it’s that we’ve all been taught that democracy is a really important value.
That said, the last president did try—and it seems Republican parties locally as well as on the state level are trying—to put public officials into office who don’t have democracy as a value, who believe violence is a legitimate part of public discourse, which it obviously isn’t. It’s a form of politics that is deeply disturbing, because it means the Republican Party has allied itself with antidemocratic values, violence, and racism.
Germaine: This bears repeating: “it means the Republican Party has allied itself with antidemocratic values, violence, and racism.”
Gosh, if one ignores Zatlin’s time in history limits on fascism, that sounds an awful lot like fascism as Zatlin himself characterizes it. At least both Zatlin and Mussolini agree that fascism is antidemocratic. In his essay, Mussolini seemed to think that fascism was a timeless and natural thing, at least for 20th century and later societies. He did not specify any time when fascism would poop out and simply go away. He thought it was the best way to do things.
A final thought. Google something like “the definition of fascism” and the hits include
this from Wikipedia:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that “trying to define ‘fascism’ is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.” Each different group described as fascist has at least some unique elements, and many definitions of fascism have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.
Trump, the GOP elites and most of the rank and file are undeniably autocratic, far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, deeply concerned about the imminent demise of the White race (and its replacement with those nasty non-White people), and hell-bent on forcibly suppressing political opposition by rigging elections. Jeez, that sounds an awful lot like fascism.
Regardless, I'll probably stop using the label fascist (already stopped with neo-fascist) and go with milquetoast like autocratic, kleptocratic, mendacious, corrupt, Christian theocratic and/or etc.
Q: Is Germaine full of crap, or is there maybe reasonable validity to his belief that Trump, GOP elites and most of the (deceived) rank and file are fascist, or at least neo-fascist whatever the hell that is?
