"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."[1]
When most people think of fascist ideology, they think of an isolated movement that started in the mid-to-late 19th century and that died by 1945. However, fascism has intellectual roots that go back very far in history. Contrary to popular belief, fascism is not dead either. I contend that certain ideas contained within fascism are not unique to fascism at all, and that fascism is really just a collection of old ideas, cleverly repackaged and processed. Throughout my explanation of fascist ideology, comparisons will be made with past history and thinkers. This paper will explore the intellectual roots of fascism and show that fascism, as we know it was neither new in the 20th century.
The major fascist philosophers, with the exception of Nietzsche, were all alive during the fascist movements (however, Nietzsche’s sister actively promoted her brother’s work and talked with Hitler and Mussolini about his books).[2] Of the Italian Fascists, Giovanni Gentile (the true author of The Doctrine of Fascism) is the primary writer. Friedrich Nietzsche is certainly a "prototypical Nazi."
Martin Heidegger’s role in the Nazi thought development has been highly contested, but I feel that some of his ideas are certainly seen in Nazism. In addition, Heidegger credited Nietzsche as an important influence upon his work.[3] Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May of 1933, and as the Rector of Freiburg University, he implemented many reforms and advocated the Nazi Party strongly. He made many strong speeches in favor of the Nazis,[4] and he never formally renounced in actions after World War II. Although he offered to be the official philosopher of Nazi Germany, he was turned down. By 1934, he had fallen out of favor and retreated from the political arena. He later claimed his membership in the Nazi Part was done not out of support for the Nazis, but out of his own self-interests.[5] However, I feel that there is enough fascism in his thoughts to classify him as, at the very least, an influence upon them.
Fascist ideology is very hard to specifically define. The Italians were much more intellectually rigorous and their texts were more understandable than the Nazis writings. There is no German equivalent to The Doctrine of Fascism. Although Mein Kampf does serve as the blueprint for Nazism, it isn’t founded upon any reason whatsoever. Mein Kampf makes wild proclamations and is vague. Mein Kampf states certain objectives, such as the removal of Jews from Europe, but it is not very specific as to the means to obtain these goals.
A stumbling block in the search for a definitive "fascist ideology" is the different historical paths of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis, our only gauge of fascist ideology in action. Racism was certainly a major part of Nazism, but how important was it to the Italians? Although Italy enacted racial laws, theirs seem to be an "offering" to Hitler, because they were not as strict and they were enacted relatively late. In some sense, the racism of the Nazis can be equated with the nationalism of the Fascists, because Hitler saw the Jews and other "undesirables" as separate races, whereas Mussolini made no such distinctions.[6] In addition, there was much more organized resistance against Mussolini than there was against Hitler. In the later years of World War II, the Italians overthrew and executed Mussolini, whereas Hitler remained in power, despite the progress (or lack of which) of the war. Germany was also much more belligerent than Italy, although this may be attributed to Italy’s poor results in their Ethiopian campaign.
What common threads can we find in this ideological and historical confusion? Nationalism is key to fascism. The fascists were also obsessed with youth and the young. Traditionalism was also a major part of fascism. The fascists wanted a return to traditional social role for men and women in response to the changes of the modern world. In addition, both Hitler and Mussolini desired a return to their countries’ moments of glory; Mussolini proclaimed a New Rome, and Hitler began the Third Reich. Violence seems to be an ingredient in fascism. This violence seems to result in self-destruction, both in theory and in practice. However, violence is the one exception. No philosopher that I can think of has ever espoused needless violence. Fascism was highly masculine, with the female role being that of mother and housewife. Finally, fascism was neither liberal nor conservative, and opposed much of both, but it was certainly dedicated to a totalitarian government.
Nationalism was one of the defining characteristics of fascism, but it did not originate with the fascists. Nationalism had been an important factor in the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution. Furthermore, nationalism was one of the driving forces behind Bismarck’s unification of Germany. Nationalism was espoused by the fascists as a counter to the globalization endorsed by the Communists. Fascists, however, took nationalism to a new extreme, going as far as saying that not only was the state the expression of the people, but that the citizens themselves were special in a way that made them superior to others. Hitler’s Aryans and Mussolini’s Romans were ideas both based upon distorted images of the past.
This idea is very similar to an idea of Aristotle’s. Aristotle said that the basis of a city-state (the equivalent of a nation) was the constitution. The constitution was the summation of the laws, customs, and traditions of the citizens. Because of this, the basic political nature of each city-state was based upon the character of the citizens.[7] Hitler and Mussolini espoused similar views, stating that the superior character of their countries’ citizens made their countries superior to other nations. Mussolini claimed:
[Fascism] sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.[8]
Not only is this consistent with Aristotle’s beliefs regarding the constitution, strains of Plato run through this statement as well. Plato declared that in the ideal state, private property would be abolished and that the citizens would all work for the greater good.[9]
Nationalism fills Nietzsche’s works as well. He was immensely Hitleresque in his descriptions of the "German character." In critiquing a piece by Wagner, he says:
[It evokes] a certain German powerfulness and overfullness of the soul which is not afraid to hide itself among the refinements of decay … a true. Genuine token of the German soul, which is at once young and aged, over-mellow and still too rich in future. This kind of music best expresses what I consider true of the Germans: they are of the day before yesterday and the day after tomorrow – they have as yet no today.[10]
Although Aristotle rejected Plato’s pseudo-Communism,[11] Aristotle also believed that serving the state was the primary duty of citizens. He says, "whoever is entitled to participate in an office involving deliberation or decision is, we can now say, a citizen in this city; and the city is the multitude of such persons that is adequate with a view to a self-sufficient life, to speak simply."[12] In fact, Aristotle went as far as to say that slavery is necessary to the state, because the use of the mentally inferior and uneducated as slaves would free the citizens to be able to serve the state as judges, rulers, and soldiers. Similarly, Plato declared that people were separated into three classes, based upon the "metal in their souls" (meant to mean their intellect, wisdom, and spirit). Those of the basest metals would be the workers, while those of the best metals would be the rulers. Indeed, great harm would befall the city if someone of one class would do the work of a different class.[13] In Aristotle’s ideal state, an aristocracy of those of noble character would be the rulers.[14]
In fact, these rulers of noble character are the middle classes, according to Aristotle. This is in agreement with the fascists. Fascism was primarily a middle class movement. The middle class was concerned about the growing influence of Communism in the lower classes while feeling the economic squeeze of the post-war economy. The upper classes did not suffer as much as the middle class did in the depression, and they did not support the fascist movements as much.
The fascists’ worship of youth was based upon the ideas of a young warrior class. They envisioned having a state consisting of a strong military, and this idea was drawn from the experiences of The Great War. Mussolini said it best when he declared, "it is you, the young of Italy, the young of the workplace and the universities, the young in years and in spirit, the young who belong to the generation which destiny has charged with ‘making’ history, it is you that I hail with a cry of greeting" that would be the agents of change.[15]
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, also made a case for the power of youth, rather indirectly. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes states that the only way to save men from the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life that exists under the State of Nature is no have a strong central authority that rules with an iron fist. He states that "the passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them."[16] The fascists certainly promised and delivered these inducements for internal stability. Mussolini and Hitler used harsh laws and unfair courts to place their citizens in a state of fear of the state. In addition, they were also able to revive the economies of their countries sufficiently to keep the citizens happy.
Ironically, although fascist movements are mass movements, fascist ideology looks down upon the masses. Heidegger, for one, was "opposed to the conditions of modern industrial society, its ‘mass’ culture and technological modes of thought."[17] Heidegger saw the modernity as an "enslaving force." He feared that mass culture would destroy the individual, and caused mediocrity. Nietzsche’s influence upon Heidegger is very apparent, even in his vocabulary.[18]
Nietzsche proposed that there was a certain type of man who was superior to other people. This "superman" is destined for great things, and is allowed (and expected) to break laws and the rules of society in order to achieve his goals. The word Nietzsche uses for this "superman" is ubermensch, which means "above man" when literally translated. This is an apt description for what Nietzsche thinks this person should be; the ubermensch is morally and intellectually above others. However, Nietzsche claims that the masses will destroy the ubermensch. They will tear him down and kill him. The ubermensch knows this, but will not stray from his destiny.[19]
The idea of the ubermensch certainly played a role in Hitler’s conception of what he aspired to. He saw the Jews as the converse of the ubermensch, they were the race he dubbed the untermensch ("sub men"). Hitler saw the "true German race" (the Aryans) as a race of supermen. They were intellectually and physically superior to the Jews, and any other race. And Hitler himself was the supreme leader of the Aryan race, and would create a 1000-year Aryan empire.
In both Italy and Germany, the fascists aspired to transform the young men into the "New Man". The "New Man" would execute the will of the state – the creation of empire – through the use of violence. Mussolini promised another Roman Empire, and stated, "[t]he Fatherland is no illusion! It is the sweetest, greatest, most human, most divine of realities! No! Italy did not exhaust itself creating its first and second civilization, but is already creating a third … We will create it … with physical effort, with the spirit, with blood and with life."[20] In the process, an internal cultural revolution would occur, destroying the degenerate institutions that had sprung up since The Great War, and replacing them with traditional values. In Italy, "[t]he old parties, the old men who carry on with the exploitation of the political Italy of Tomorrow will be swept aside."[21]
An interesting historical note is the idea of kings throughout history. After the Christianizing of Europe, kings were seen as the worldly representatives of God. They had a divine right to rule. During the era of the Holy Roman Empire (which Hitler referred to as the First Reich, or First Empire), one European ruler would be declared to be the "Defender of the Faith," a ruler entrusted with the defense of the whole of Christendom. In other countries the idea of the ruler being divine or of divine descent also exists. For example, the Japanese emperor was considered to be a god.
Hitler later carried on these ideas by declaring Germany to be the Eastern fortress against the barbarian hordes. With his historical references, Hitler may have seen himself as being the new Defender of the Faith. This idea still lives on in the new white supremacist and white separatist movements in Europe and in the United States. These groups see themselves as Christian warriors fighting the heretic Jews and homosexuals, as well as Catholics and "racially inferior blacks." In Mein Kampf, Hitler declared that part of the "Jewish Menace" was that the Jews were able to survive under even the most difficult times by adapting himself appropriately. He also stated that the Jews were in a position to take over the world.[22] Nietzsche echoed these same sentiments:
"The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to prevail under the worst conditions (better even than under favorable ones), by means of virtues which one would like to stamp as vices – thanks above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before ‘modern ideas’ … that the Jews could, if they wanted – or if they were compelled, as the anti-Semites seem to want – even now predominate, indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are not planning and working towards that is equally certain."[23]
Although Nietzsche was not anti-Semitic, someone who is fearful of a "Zionist plot" can construe what he says as a warning.
Fascism strove to bring about a cultural revolution, part of which would involve the transformation of gender roles. Fascism wanted the man to be the fighter, worker, and breadwinner, and the woman to be a mother and housewife. These were ideas that have been embraced by many, not just philosophers. But Aristotle actually discusses the role women should have in society. Aristotle says that the relationship between men and women is the same as the relationship between master and slave.[24] In addition, Aristotle’s description of what marriage should be stresses the role of women: all he talks about is the need for healthy children. Aristotle states that young people should not marry, because "among all animals the issue of the young is incomplete, likely to bear females, and small of figure, so this same thing must necessarily result in the case of human being as well." Another problem with a young woman marrying is that "they are held to be more licentious if that have practiced intercourse when young." Due to these factors, Aristotle recommends that a marriage should only occur between a woman of age eighteen and a man of age thirty-seven. Aristotle also claims that deformed or retarded children should be killed, and any children that are conceived beyond the legal limit should be aborted.[25]
A love of nature was a large part of Nazism. The Hitler Youth spent a large amount of time hiking, camping, playing outdoor sports, and so forth.[26] Many other philosophers have expressed this love of nature as well. Heidegger was a proponent of the beauty of nature. As opposed to the modern society, Heidegger promoted "conservative ruralism, rooted in a vision of the ‘agrarian past.’"[27] Heidegger was deeply influenced by the work of Aristotle, and extended Aristotle’s metaphysics to include the subject of existence.[28] Heidegger’s analysis of the "unique German soul" led him to theories that said that the land of Germany, not German blood, was responsible for the special German spirit.[29] Although this is not entirely in line with Hitler’s theories of race, it is in agreement with the fascists’ nationalism and desire to return to the earth.
The Doctrine of Fascism declares, "Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority." Instead, "Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."[30] Fascism was not just a way of governing; it was to be a way of life. In this way, fascism binds itself to nationalism and the concept of citizenship. Mussolini’s opposition to democracy was identical to Aristotle’s opposition to democracy.[31] The fascists despised mass culture and democracy for the same reasons. "The Fascist state organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential."[32]
Plato, Aristotle, and Gauthier said the same things. Plato declared that it was better for each person to have restricted liberty for the better whole of society. He also said that to promote a happy society, restrictions upon the arts and media would be necessary.[33] Aristotle claimed that the state did not exist to provide liberties or happiness to individuals, but spiritual well being.[34] And Gauthier stated that after a certain point, an increase in personal liberties for individuals would have such an effect that people would end up impinging upon each other, and so liberty must be curtailed to promote maximum liberty.[35]
The fascists were a new movement in the 20th century. However, none of their ideas were new. Mussolini recognized the importance of past thinkers. He had been running within intellectual circles since before The Great War. Hitler despised intellectuals. Both men demanded action, not thought. Hitler was almost incapable of reason; of this I am convinced. I feel that Mussolini was much more cunning and logical. The "Persistence of Fascism" has not ended with the demise of Hitler and Mussolini. In the United States and Europe, there are still thousands of "neo-Nazis," white supremacists, white separatists (those who wish to create "white nations" separate from the nations of other ethnic groups), "neo-fascists" and more. Major politicians such as David Duke and Pat Buchanan spout Fascist and Nazi ideology, and some even have ties to the Ku Klux Klan and the white power movement. Currently, in both Germany and America, the middle class has expressed a desire to return to "traditional values" and "America/Germany first." Italy has a Fascist party once again, and it is gaining momentum.[36] The ideas behind fascism are, once again, not new. I would say that many of them are universal ideas, ideas that have or will eventually crop up in any culture (similar to the infinite monkeys writing on infinite typewriters for an infinite period of time observation). I’d like to close with a quote from Mussolini:
It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, if only historically, with those that preceded it and those which will follow it.[37]
Citations for the ancient philosophical texts do not follow page numbers. Instead, the citations are based upon a standard edition of the original work. A long time ago (the 1800s, I believe), a fellow compiled each ancient text into one standard edition, in the original language. It was at the time that the structure was given to them, missing words were filled it, and so forth. Many of the textual organizations had to be guess, due to their physically fragmented nature. In texts whose structure came through intact (Aristotle), the numbers refer to book, chapter, and paragraph of the standard text. With others (such as Plato), the texts are reference by book, page number (of the standard edition), and paragraph or column (of the standard edition). By following these rules, a citation always refers to the same place in the text, no matter what edition or language it is in.
[1] Mussolini, Benito. The Doctrine of Fascism. p. 1
[2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nietzsche, Friedrich Robert Wicks. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/
[3] Wicks
[4] Collins, Jeff and Selina, Howard. Introducing Heidegger. New York: Totem Books. 1998. pp. 96 - 100.
Although I have tried throughout this essay to reference only the original authors or more "intellectual" examinations of their works, Heidegger presents such a challenge to even the most well-read and intelligent that it is necessary to use a less in-depth resource regarding his works.
[5] Collins and Selina, pp. 106 - 107
[6] In class discussion, Comparative Fascism, Fall 1999
[7] Aristotle. Politics. Wicks
[8] Mussolini, Benito. The Doctrine of Fascism. p. 8
[9] Plato. Republic. V.462.b – V.462.c
[10] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. VIII.240
[11] Aristotle. Politics. II.3
[12] Aristotle. Politics. III.1
[13] Plato. Republic. IV.434.b
[14] Aristotle. Politics. IV.11
[15] Mussolini, Benito. "The War as a Revolutionary Event"
[16] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1.13
[17] Collins and Selina. p. 10
[18] Collins and Selina. p. 10
[19] Wicks
[20] Mussolini, Benito. "Fascism as the Creator of the Third Italian Civilization"
[21] Mussolini, Benito. "Trenchnocracy"
[22] Course packet. pp.37- 41
[23] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. VIII.251
[24] Aristotle. Politics. I.5
[25] Aristotle. Politics. VII.16
[26] In class discussion, Comparative Fascism, Fall 1999
[27] Collins and Selina. p. 10
[28] Collins and Selina. pp. 28-29
[29] Collins and Selina. p. 101
[30] Mussolini. The Doctrine of Fascism. p. 11
[31] Mussolini. The Doctrine of Fascism. pp. 20 – 22 and Aristotle. Politics. VI.1 – VI.4
[32] Mussolini. The Doctrine of Fascism. p. 30
[33] Plato. Republic. II.378 and III.401
[34] Aristotle. Politics. VII.2
[35] Gauthier, David. Three Against Justice: The Foole, the Sensible Knave, and the Lydian Shepard. p. 14 – 15 and Figure 1
[36] In class discussion, Comparative Fascism, Fall 1999
[37] Mussolini. The Doctrine of Fascism. p. 26
I have loved working with computers since I was a kid. I specialized in software development, but I also do a lot of systems administration and some network engineering. Currently, my development interests are in C#, parallel processing, and exploring business usage of dynamic and functional languages. In addition to my day job, I write for TechRepublic, primarily in the "Programming and Development" area, and ForMortals. I am currently (when time permits) working on a book that aims to teach new developers everything about how to write software, other than how to program in and of itself. In addition, I do a bit of software development under the banner of my own company, Titanium Crowbar Industries
I love learning about history and philosophy (I doubled majored in those subjects in college) as well. The essays on this site regarding those topics were all written by me in college and high school. I also am extremely interested in physical fitness, and devote a substantial amount of my time to weight lifting. I am currently focusing on lifting heavy weights and I have participated in a few powerlifting meets. Currently, my non-technical readings have focused on various religious ideas and fitness. I am a big fan of Phillip K. Dick and Frank Herbert, and both of those authors have shaped my worldview greatly.
You can also find me on Facebook.