Fascism and ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Politics series on Fascism

Definition Definitions of fascism Varieties and derivatives of fascism Italian fascism Nazism Neo-Fascism Rexism Falangism Estado Novo Ustaše Clerical fascism Austrofascism Crypto-fascism Japanese fascism Greek fascism Brazilian Integralism Iron Guard Fascist political parties and movements Fascism as an international phenomenon List of fascist movements by country Fascism in history Fascio March on Rome Fascist Italy Nazi Germany Italian Social Republic 4th of August Regime Related subjects Adolf Hitler Anti-fascism Benito Mussolini Black Brigades Blackshirts Class collaboration Corporatism Economics of fascism Fascism and ideology Fascist symbolism Fascist unification rhetoric Grand Council of Fascism Roman salute National Bolshevism National syndicalism Neo-Fascism Neo-Nazism Social fascism Third Position

Fascism Portal Politics Portal  v • d • e

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

There are numerous debates concerning fascism and ideology and where fascism fits on the political spectrum. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves.

Contents 1 Difficulties in defining 'fascism' 2 Fascism and the political spectrum 3 Fascism and Nazism 4 Fascism and conservatism 5 Fascism and totalitarianism 6 Fascism, capitalism and socialism 7 Which governments were fascist? 8 Neo-fascism 9 See also 10 References 11 General bibliography 11.1 Bibliography on Fascist ideology 11.2 Bibliography on international fascism 12 Further reading 13 External links

[edit] Difficulties in defining 'fascism'

Main article: Definitions of fascism

Of the political ideologies considered important in recent history, fascism is one of the most difficult to define. The consensus suggests that fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but not every authoritarian ideology is fascist. It is often said that fascism is right-wing authoritarianism, but this is not very specific, since the term "right-wing" itself is vague and controversial. Various scholars have sought to define fascism, and a list of such definitions can be found in the article definitions of fascism. Some, such as George Orwell, have called "fascism" nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents.^[1]

These difficulties arise because there have been few self-identified fascists. Originally, "fascism" referred to a political movement that existed in a single country (Italy) for less than 30 years and ruled the country from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Clearly, if the definition is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has little significance outside of Italian politics. But the term usually refers to a variety of nationalist movements that existed in Europe during the 1920s and 30s - most notably German Nazism and clerical fascism - which are deemed important because they were largely responsible for World War II. However, most of these movements rejected the label of "fascism" and, indeed, claimed to be unrelated to each other. Each typically claimed to be derived from the specific traditions of its country of birth.

This poses a challenge to any attempt to describe the relationship between fascism and other ideologies, since "fascism" itself is more of a category of similar political movements than a unified ideology.

Adding to the challenge, a great variety of different political leaders across the world have been described as "fascists" by their opponents in the decades after 1945, and there are also a number of fringe groups that claim to follow the tradition of pre-1945 fascists (these are usually called neo-fascists). To avoid confusion, the present article focuses on political movements described as "fascist" prior to World War II, while touching only briefly on post-1945 issues. In addition, most of the fascist views discussed in this article are only shared by some, not all, political movements identified as fascist.

[edit] Fascism and the political spectrum

A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes. The traditional (and most widely used) political spectrum consists of a single axis going from "left" to "right".

The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right. Fascists themselves sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether (see International Third Position). They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term "leftism" for their enemies.

In The Doctrine of Fascism, an essay signed by Benito Mussolini which was meant to convey the basic principles of Italian Fascism, it is stated:

“

Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.[2]

”

After World War II, the only relevant self-proclaimed fascist party in Italy, the Italian Social Movement, called itself "National Right".

However, many scholars of fascism, including Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber, are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neo-fascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

• Laqueuer (1996): "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223.

• Eatwell (1996) talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39.

• Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right-wing ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201.

• Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." ([1964] 1982), p. 8.

According to these scholars, as well as Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970), there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the "fascist minimum", but, nonetheless, fascism, especially once in power, has historically attracted support primarily from the political right.

The left influences in fascism are claimed to originate in the fact that several prominent theorists of fascism began their political careers as socialists, syndicalists, anarchists, or a combination thereof. Benito Mussolini himself was a prominent member of the Italian Socialist Party in his youth. He spent some years writing for a socialist newspaper before World War I, but his support for the war when it broke out and his strong feelings of Italian nationalism caused him to reject socialism. He spent the war years without a definite political cause, and later began setting the foundations for what would become the fascist movement. By the time he gained power, many of his old comrades on the left were the first targets of his political police. Fascist philosophers such as Robert Michels, Sergio Panunzio, and Giovanni Gentile were former syndicalists; Gabriele D'Annunzio was a former anarchist and Alceste de Ambris had been influenced by anarcho-syndicalism. Hubert Lagardelle, who worked together with George Sorel earlier, and was editor of the 'neo-syndicalist' Plans in 1931, became a Vichy labour minister. Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor have argued that syndicalism played an important role in shaping early Italian Fascism.

The definitions of "left" and "right" are themselves quite fluid. There are a number of conservative and libertarian scholars who argue that fascism was actually a left-wing movement - among them Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and John T. Flynn. Their argument is based on a view of the political spectrum that equates "left" with support for increased government power and "right" with opposition to the same. Under this view, fascism would be left-wing and anarchism, for example, would be right-wing. However, there are many other competing interpretations of the left-right spectrum.

In recent decades, a large number of multi-axis political charts have emerged, in an attempt to correct the perceived shortcomings of the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. Most of these charts use two axes that are meant to measure two independent variables, though some add a third axis as well. Depending on the variables used, fascism has been placed in various positions on these charts. The Eysenck model considers that fascism lies at the intersection of moderate conservatism with extreme tough-mindedness. The political compass marks fascism as extremely authoritarian in its social outlook but only moderately right-wing in its economic policies. The Nolan chart places fascism in the extreme populist corner, slightly offset towards conservatism. And on the Pournelle chart, fascism appears as the combination of strong statism and strong irrationalism.

[edit] Fascism and Nazism

Nazism, the political movement led by Adolf Hitler in Germany, is widely viewed as a form of fascism. The Nazis shared the extreme nationalism, militarism, corporatism and anti-communism of the original Italian Fascists, and Hitler initially admired Mussolini, going as far as to copy the Roman salute used by Italian Fascists and make it the basis of the Nazi salute. However, the Nazis added racism and anti-Semitism to the original fascist ideas. The Italian Fascists were not interested in racism at first; nevertheless, they eventually began to pass anti-Semitic laws at the request of their German allies.

For these reasons, racism and anti-Semitism are not seen as necessary elements of fascism, though fascists are held to be particularly willing to adopt these views under the right conditions.

Italian Fascism and German Nazism were loyal allies in World War II, but this had not always been so. In the early 1930s there were tensions between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany over the increasing possibility of an Austria-Germany merger (Anschluss), which would create a more powerful Greater Germany. In 1934, the Austrofascist Chancellor of Austria, Englebert Dolfuss, was assassinated by Austrian Nazis, who acted on behalf of Hitler.

Furthermore, the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who is often considered a fascist, remained neutral in World War II. Hitler had supported Franco in his rise to power during the Spanish Civil War, and Franco was sympathetic to the Axis, but he refused Hitler's pleas for military assistance. This situation, together with the period of hostility between Italy and Germany noted above, is sometimes used to support the view that fascist regimes are not natural allies, and that they each tend to follow their own separate interests.

[edit] Fascism and conservatism

One of the many controversies regarding the nature of fascism is its relationship to traditional authority and conservative ideology. Fascists often claimed to defend the social order, traditional values, national culture and civilization itself, against the forces of modernity (particularly liberalism and socialism). At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.^[3] Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this apparent contradiction, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."^[4]

World War I produced a great deal of social change in Europe and led to the dissolution of most traditional monarchies, including the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia. Conservatism, which drew its strongest supporters from the political, economic and intellectual elites in pre-war Europe, found itself in crisis. The established elites in Central and Eastern Europe were weakened or rendered powerless by the introduction of universal suffrage, the collapse of traditional social hierarchies and the creation of nation-states in place of the old multinational empires. At the same time, many segments of the population - particularly the rural peasantry and the skilled professionals - felt threatened by the prospect of industrialization, increased social mobility or the creation of a welfare state. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, many also felt there was a real possibility that the working class might rise up in a communist insurrection. Normally, those segments of the population would have rallied behind traditional conservatism, but with traditional conservative parties severely weakened in the aftermath of the war, there was a political vacuum on the right.^[5]

This political vacuum was filled by the rising fascist movements. They gained power and support from older conservative classes, and in some cases received direct approval from the traditional conservative parties.^[6] The conservative British newspaper The Daily Mail published a lead article in 1934 under the title "The Blackshirts have what the Conservatives need".^[7] The rise to power of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis was largely funded and supported by aristocratic landlords, wealthy industrialists, army officers, and other groups with strong conservative leanings. The fascists gathered this support by successfully presenting themselves as the last line of defense against liberal democracy, land reform, demilitarization and the socialization of the means of production. ^[8] Thus, many traditional conservatives were persuaded that fascism was the only realistic alternative to liberalism and socialism. A French businessman remarked in 1935, "better Hitler than Léon Blum". ^[9]

Fascism did not rely solely on the support of traditional conservative elites. It was also a mass movement, drawing its rank-and-file members from the general population, particularly the lower middle class, skilled professionals, and the peasantry. Many of these people did not come from conservative backgrounds; some of them had been strongly influenced by classical liberalism.^[10] To its voters, fascism presented itself as a form of new and even revolutionary conservatism that could reconcile the interests of the elite with those of the common man. Fascist ideology emphasized the concept of class collaboration, which held that social inequality and hierarchy could be beneficial to rich and poor alike. The fascist model of the corporate state was decidedly different from traditional monarchy, yet claimed to be based on the same fundamental principles.

Adolf Hitler expressed the Nazi view of politics, in 1937, as follows:

“

The main plank in our program is to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood.[11]

”

[edit] Fascism and totalitarianism

Main article: Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a term used in political science to refer to an ideology or organization that aims to control every aspect of life. For technological reasons, totalitarianism became an issue only recently. Before the 20th century, communications were not fast enough to allow a central government to collect information on a large number of its citizens in real time, the mass media was not developed enough to allow the existence of all-pervasive propaganda, and weapons were not effective enough to allow a relatively small number of armed soldiers to control a much bigger unarmed population. In the 20th century those technological barriers fell, and totalitarian government became a possibility.

Many authors have argued that totalitarian governments existed in the 20th century, though there is disagreement on which governments were totalitarian and which ideologies created them. Nazism and Stalinism are the two ideologies most often considered to be totalitarian, and Hitler and Stalin are the two people most often given as examples of totalitarian leaders. They both held absolute power in their countries and had personality cults built around them. They both used similar means - extreme forms of censorship, police state tactics, and mass murder. In the early 1920s, Joseph Goebbels and Otto Strasser regarded Stalinism as a Russian form of Nazism and wanted to form an alliance with the Soviet Union.^[12] However, Hitler rejected their proposal at a Nazi Party meeting in February 1926. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did form a mutually beneficial non-aggression pact just before the Second World War, but Germany later broke the agreement and invaded the Soviet Union.

Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), was the first author to give a lengthy description of a form of government called "totalitarianism", and she asserted that the governments of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union fell under this category. However, she believed that Fascist Italy had not been totalitarian, but merely a traditional form of dictatorship which did not submit the state to the party. Other authors, such as Karl Popper, included Fascist Italy in their list of totalitarian governments.

Eric Hoffer claims that mass movements like Communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further argues that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious, yet imaginary, future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. Individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and a "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.^[13]

There is an ongoing debate on whether all fascist governments and Communist states can be considered totalitarian, or whether only some of them fit this description. It has been argued, for example, that the Soviet Union ceased to be totalitarian soon after Stalin's death. There are also critics of the notion of totalitarianism, who argue that the label "totalitarian" is too vague and tries to bring together governments that use similar methods but have little else in common. Primo Levi, for instance, argued that there was an important distinction between the policies of Nazi Germany and those of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China: while they all had their idea of what kind of parasitic classes or races society ought to be rid of, and they all used similar means to dispose of them, Levi saw that they identified their targets by very different criteria. The Nazis assigned a place given by birth (since one is born into a certain race), while the Soviets and Chinese determined their enemies according to their social position (which people may change within their life). Therefore, in Levi's view, revolutionary communists would accept the son of a wealthy capitalist as a productive member of society if he agreed to change his original social position and oppose capitalism; but to the Nazis, one born a Jew will always remain a Jew, and he is a parasite who must be disposed of.

[edit] Fascism, capitalism and socialism

Fascism itself, as an ideology, is not concerned with economics, and fascist governments have often sought the advice of professional economists who were not fascists. For instance, Hjalmar Schacht, the first Minister of Economics of Nazi Germany, was never a member of the Nazi Party. Nevertheless, there has been much debate surrounding the economic policies supported by fascists, and whether they were capitalist, socialist, or something else entirely.

Fascists themselves usually claimed to reject traditional forms of both capitalism and socialism. They argued that the implementation of fascist ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration. They believed that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists)^[14], but they also argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). In essence, fascists supported state-enforced inequality, which is opposed by liberal capitalists because it is state-enforced and opposed by socialists because it is inequality.

However, many opponents of fascism contend that fascist economic policies were not unique as the fascists claimed, but rather fell within the bounds of existing economic systems.

The term "Nazism" is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazis described their views as "socialist", though they strongly rejected all previous forms of socialism and particularly opposed Marxism and communism, calling them "Jewish ideologies". Whether the word "socialism" in "National Socialism" was an honest description or merely propaganda meant to attract the votes of workers is a matter of debate, and different authors have reached different conclusions. Conan Fischer argues that the Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective "socialist", but they believed it to be inseparable from the adjective "national" and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights".^[15] On the other hand, Henry A. Turner argues that Hitler was a convinced anti-socialist and that the Nazis were merely nationalists using the adjective "socialist" out of convenience.^[16]

The Nazi Party did not have a clear economic program, and different groups within the Party had different and often contradictory views regarding economic policy. Some claimed to be on the side of workers, others claimed to be on the side of business, and there were many who said different things at different times.^[17] Hitler tolerated this confusion because he personally believed that the economy was unimportant^[18] and because he hoped that he could gather support from opposing interest groups if the Nazis told each group what they wanted to hear.^[19]

At first, Hitler tried to provide a definition for the "socialism" of "National Socialism" that would make a socialist identical to a nationalist. Thus, in a speech given in 1922, Hitler said:

“

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation, whoever in addition has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, to mean that nothing in the world surpasses in his eyes this German people and land, land and people - that man is a socialist.[20]

”

Also in 1922, Hitler explained his use of the words "national" and "social" by claiming that they referred to the same concept; that any support for "the people" (implied by the word "social") had to come in the form of support for a specific nation or national community:

“

'National' and 'Social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it National Socialist. We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.[21]

”

Hitler did not believe that "humanity" was a meaningful concept. In his view, different nations had opposing interests that could only be resolved by armed conflict. He believed that any kind of policy was always in the interest of one nation or another - never in the interests of several nations at once. Thus, he did not believe that it was possible to support the common interests of humanity, as the Marxist socialists claimed to do, because he argued that such common interests did not exist.^[22]

According to historian Henry A. Turner, Hitler grew more cynical later in life, abandoning his attempt to redefine socialism and expressing regret for having integrated the word "Socialist" into the Party name. At a meeting of Nazi leaders in 1929, Hitler said:

“

Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether. [...] What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.[23]

”

Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the same social class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view: they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. For example, Hitler frequently made calls for unity among all Germans regardless of class,^[24] while arguing that inequality was natural.^[25] Support for Nazism was to be found in all segments of the population - approximately 40 percent of NSDAP members and voters came from the working class, while the majority came from the middle class and consisted largely of white-collar employees.

Some commentators argue that there is a link between fascism and socialism. For example, Zeev Sternhell argues that fascism contained technocratic and managerial elements rooted in a national, anti-Marxist socialism, and that it sought "to adapt socialism to modern conditions".^[26] Sternhell also argues that fascism "never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things".^[27]

Fascists often expressed their support for private enterprise. However, they also asserted the right of the government to use coercive power, if necessary, to force private owners to act in accordance with the "national interest". David S. Pena argues that the Italian fascists used this doctrine to command the Italian economy while maintaining private property.^[28]. The Italian Charter of Labour, introduced by the fascists, contained the following statement:

“

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.[29]

”

Libertarian economists of the Austrian School define "socialism" as an ideology which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized,^[30] and argue that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were socialist countries according to this definition. Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises claims that the transfer of the means of production from private to state ownership does not have to be formal, but that "if the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State." Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, Fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Also, Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.

Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist, because they exercise what they believed to be excessive control over the means or production. The accuracy of that description depends on one's definition of "socialism". As noted above, Austrian economists equate socialism with economic statism. However, this definition is rejected by all self-described socialists; they typically only support state interventions that are seen as promoting equality or advancing the interests of the working class. They are particularly opposed to the government granting favors to big business. Some socialists (e.g. libertarian socialists) oppose the state altogether.

Meanwhile, other commentators argue that fascist economic policies were essentially capitalist - perhaps even more so than the policies of other nations in the same time period. These views are usually based on the fact that fascism had a very close relationship with big business: fascist leaders often received significant financial support from business leaders and passed laws to the benefit of large companies. Fascists also banned strikes and trade unions, and imprisoned or executed socialist leaders. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy started a war against the Soviet Union with the aim of destroying communism.

Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew and condemned Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy, pledging to block its rise in Germany. He believed that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These actions prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against communism. When the Nazis worked in close collaboration with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working class, this was seen by most socialists as a highly capitalist economic policy. The economic interventions of the Nazi government, which were often designed to consolidate social inequality, were likewise seen as capitalist by those on the political left. The high tariffs and trade barriers imposed by the Nazi government had been a common feature of conservative economic policy in Europe for several centuries.

Industries and trusts were not nationalized in Nazi Germany, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisfied their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben.

Georgi Dimitrov developed the idea promoted by the Communist International that fascism is "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

Fascists themselves, and some of their supporters, have made statements advocating private property, individual initiative, and market economics. In 1923, soon after he was appointed as Prime Minister, Benito Mussolini promised that "the government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy." However, once Mussolini acquired a firmer hold of power after 1926, "laissez-faire was progressively abandoned in in favour of government intervention, free trade was replaced by protection[ism] and economic objectives were increasingly couched in exhortations and military terminology."^[31] During the first four years of the new regime, from 1922 to 1925, Mussolini allowed Finance Minister Alberto De Stefani to pursue a generally laissez-faire economic policy.^[32] Some state assets were privatized, and inheritance tax was abolished along with other direct taxes.^[33] However, De Stefani was replaced with Giuseppe Volpi in 1925, and from then on laissez-faire and free trade were progressively abandoned in favor of corporatism. The Italian government increasingly promoted monopolies and partnerships between private companies and the state, and Benito Mussolini continued to make statements in support of private property and private enterprise, claiming that his principles had not changed. For instance, in 1934, he proclaimed that "Corporative economy respects the principle of private property. Private property completes human personality."^[34] By 1939, Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises after the Soviet Union.^[35]

Regarding the issue of free market economic arrangements, Italian Fascists made ambiguous and sometimes contradictory statements. On the one hand, Italian Fascist politician Alfredo Rocco stressed the primacy of "economic liberty" in the Italian form of fascism:

“

Fascism maintains that in the ordinary run of events economic liberty serves the social purposes best; that it is profitable to entrust to individual initiative the task of economic development both as to production and as to distribution; that in the economic world individual ambition is the most effective means for obtaining the best social results with the least effort.[36]

”

On the other hand, Benito Mussolini stated in The Doctrine of Fascism that fascism is opposed to economic liberalism:

“

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ... The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.

”

[edit] Which governments were fascist?

Main article: Fascism as an international phenomenon

As noted above, fascism is not well defined. As a result, the identification of specific countries and governments as "fascist" is nearly always controversial. The only two examples of fascist regimes that can be considered entirely uncontroversial are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Besides those two, a variety of other countries have been considered fascist by their supporters or opponents in the years leading up to and including World War II. Among these countries were Imperial Japan, Spain under Francisco Franco, Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, Croatia under the Ustaše, Hungary under Miklós Horthy, and Romania under the Iron Guard.

After World War II, when the term "fascism" became highly pejorative, countries were occasionally called "fascist" only by their opponents.

[edit] Neo-fascism

Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neo-fascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page:

• Neo-Fascism
• Neo-Nazism
• Neofascism and religion
• Dominionism

For information related to neo-fascism in the United States, see also: Christian Identity; Creativity Movement; National Alliance; American Nazi Party; William Luther Pierce; George Lincoln Rockwell. For information related to neo-fascism in Europe, see: Alain de Benoist; Nouvelle Droite; GRECE.

[edit] See also

• Fascism
• Definitions of fascism
• Economics of fascism
• Fascio (usage 1890s to World War I)
• Doctrine of Fascism
• The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle
• George Seldes, early reporter of US fascism.
• Horst-Wessel-Lied, a German song that encapsulates much of Fascist ideology.
• Fascist symbolism
• Japanese nationalism, Japanese radical Right-Nationalist ideology
• The New Deal and corporatism

[edit] References

1. ^ George Orwell: ‘What is Fascism?’
2. ^ "The Doctrine of Fascism," Benito Mussolini or Giovanni Gentile, 1932.
3. ^ Joseph A. Leighton, "Social Philosophies in Conflict", D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937. pg. 32
4. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 2
5. ^ Kevin Passmore, "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction", Oxford University Press, 2002. Chapter 6.
6. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 2
7. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 1
8. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 4
9. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 5
10. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 5
11. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 9
12. ^ The Rise of the Nazis, Conan Fischer, Manchester University Press (2002), ISBN 0-7190-6067-2, p. 60
13. ^ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2002), ISBN 0060505915, p.61, 163
14. ^ "The Doctrine of Fascism". Enciclopedia Italiana. (1932). Rome: Istituto Giovanni Treccani. "[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men"
15. ^ The Rise of the Nazis, Conan Fischer, Manchester University Press (2002), ISBN 0-7190-6067-2, p.53
16. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. p.60-61 & 76
17. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 60-69
18. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 71
19. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 83
20. ^ Joseph A. Leighton, "Social Philosophies in Conflict", D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937. pg 32
21. ^ "The speeches of Adolf Hitler April 1922-August 1939", speech made on April 12, 1922 in Munich
22. ^ John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 9
23. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 77
24. ^ The Rise of the Nazis, Conan Fischer, Manchester University Press (2002), ISBN 0-7190-6067-2, p.154
25. ^ "In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter IV
26. ^ Zeev Sternhell, Fascist Ideology, in Walter Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader's Guide, Berkeley: University of California Press (1976), p. 315-76.
27. ^ Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", Princeton University Press, 1994. pg 7
28. ^ David S. Pena, Economic Barbarism and Managerialism, Greenwood Press (2000), ISBN 031331469, p.38-39
29. ^ Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome, 'Ardita' Publishers. p. 135
30. ^ Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Yale University Press edition (1951), Preface to the second German edition
31. ^ Patricia Knight, Mussolini and Fascism, Routledge 2003 page 64
32. ^ William G. Welk, "Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment", Harvard University Press, 1938. pg 163
33. ^ William G. Welk, "Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment", Harvard University Press, 1938. pg 160
34. ^ Benito Mussolini, quoted in The Corporate State in Action (pg. 115) by Carl T. Schmidt, Oxford University Press, 1939.
35. ^ Patricia Knight, Mussolini and Fascism, Routledge (UK), ISBN 0-415-27921-6, p. 64-65
36. ^ Alfredo Rocco, International Conciliation, 1926, pg. 404.

[edit] General bibliography

• De Felice, Renzo Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press, 1977 ISBN 0-674-45962-8.
• Hughes, H. Stuart. 1953. The United States and Italy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 0-299-14874-2
• Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.

[edit] Bibliography on Fascist ideology

• De Felice, Renzo Fascism : an informal introduction to its theory and practice, an interview with Michael Ledeen, New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Books, 1976 ISBN 0-87855-190-5.
• Laqueur, Walter. 1966. Fascism: Past, Present, Future, New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
• Griffin, Roger. 2000. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.
• Schapiro, J. Salwyn. 1949. Liberalism and The Challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France (1815-1870). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Laclau, Ernesto. 1977. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London: NLB/Atlantic Highlands Humanities Press.
• Sternhell, Zeev with Mario Sznajder and Maia Asheri. [1989] 1994. The Birth of Fascist Ideology, From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution., Trans. David Maisei. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Fritzsche, Peter. 1990. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505780-5
• Gentile, Emilio. 2002. Fascismo. Storia ed interpretazione . Roma-Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli.

[edit] Bibliography on international fascism

• Coogan, Kevin. 1999. Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Autonomedia.
• Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Weber, Eugen. [1964] 1982. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, (Contains chapters on fascist movements in different countries.)

[edit] Further reading

• Seldes, George. 1935. Sawdust Caesar: The Untold History of Mussolini and Fascism. New York and London: Harper and Brothers.
• Reich, Wilhelm. 1970. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
• Gentile, Emilo. 2003. The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-97692-0
• Black, Edwin. 2001. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation Crown. ISBN 0-609-60799-5

[edit] External links

• The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini (complete text)
• The Political Economy of Fascism - From Dave Renton's anti-fascist website
• Fascism and Zionism - From The Hagshama Department - World Zionist Organization
• Fascism Part I - Understanding Fascism and Anti-Semitism
• Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt - Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics of Fascism, originally published 1995.
• Site of an Italian fascist party Italian and German languages
• Site dedicated to the period of fascism in Greece (1936-1941)
• Text of the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
• Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler by Jacques R. Pauwels