It is now time for comparing fascism to other styles of government. With the bogus idea that fascism was a leftist political movement dispelled in the last post, let us examine the aspects of fascism that make it different from other political movements. I will do so by discussing the ways that it differed ideologically from other political philosophies. Then I’ll describe what fascists disliked about them.
The fundamental thing to remember in comparing fascism is that in fascism, the power of the state (or nation, or government; the terms are interchangeable) is all-important. The power of the nation outranks all other concerns. In comparison, the good of the individual means nothing. The needs of the individual simply have no value if they contradict the needs of the state.
Fascists believed that individuals would prosper under their philosophy, of course. They believed their actions would create happiness for people. It’s just that for fascists this was a by-product of the success of the state. Personal happiness was not a goal people should pursue for its own sake.
Comparing Fascism to Socialism
This is probably the most obvious feature that differentiates fascism from socialism. One of socialism’s key beliefs is that the power or intervention of the state is necessary to protect the individual and make his or her life better. (There are many variants of socialism, and theory and practice often differ. I’ll stick here to how the idea works in theory. Describing the practice of socialism in all its forms would take its own long series of blog posts.) Whether this belief arises from a fear of the market failings of capitalism or from a belief that cooperative action is sometimes superior to individual action, socialists believe that individuals require government action or protection to best ensure individual happiness. The key idea here is the reason for the government action. In socialism, it is the happiness of the individual (or good of the group, which leads to individual happiness). In fascism, it is the power and glory of the state.
Click Here to Subscribe to My History Blog!
Another significant difference between the two ideologies is their outlook. Socialism is international, while fascism is intensely nationalistic. For socialists, the needs of the working class are similar, regardless of the nation where the workers live. Not so with fascism. Fascism makes strong, indeed unceasing, appeals to national history and national culture. The concept of “blood and soil” didn’t begin with fascism, but fascists took it to its extreme. As the fiendish German propagandist Joseph Goebbels put the matter in 1933, “It is not enough to reconcile people more or less to our regime, to move them toward a position of neutrality toward us, we would rather work on people until they are addicted to us.” Likewise, some Romanian fascists wore packets of Romanian soil under their uniforms next to their hearts. In Britain, its fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, wrote books with nationalistic titles such as Britain First and The Greater Britain.
Click Here to Subscribe to My History Blog!
Comparing Fascism to Communism
I’ll continue this short attempt at comparing fascism to other philosophies by pointing out that socialists (like communists) believe in the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. Communists want to abolish the state entirely to win this struggle. Socialists prefer to control the state and run it for the benefit of the working class. Fascists desire neither of these outcomes. They desire erasing the class struggle entirely by uniting all classes in a quest for national glory and national destiny. This is partly why fascists directed much of their violence against socialists, socially-minded religious political parties, and labor unions.
The reasons why fascists disliked communism should, I hope, be obvious by now. In theory, at any rate, communism is both international and calls for the eventual abolition of the state. Both are anathema to fascism. Fascists disdained anarchism for the same reasons.
Comparing Fascism to Liberalism
To close this series of comparisons, fascists hated liberalism for many reasons as well. The liberalism of the early 20th century believed in such things as market capitalism, constitutional, democratic government, and human progress. (Again, I’m simplifying a lot here for the sake of ever finishing this post. Just keep in mind that the liberalism of the early 20th century is not an exact match with what Americans in 2022 mean when they use the word.) As with socialism, the goal was that liberals believed these things best calculated to produce individual happiness. They simply favored a different path to that goal than the socialists. I’ll dive deeper into the relationship between fascism and capitalism in the next blog post, but for now suffice it to say that capitalism and fascism disagreed on end goals. Capitalists believe that a market economy promotes individual welfare in the aggregate. For fascists individual welfare is not the point. They care mainly about achieving more power for the state.
It is in the idea of democratically elected government based on the will of the people that liberalism and fascism differ most sharply, however. Any attempt at comparing fascism to liberalism must account for this. A core belief of fascism is the existence of a great, charismatic leader who embodies the will of the people or the will of the nation. There is no need for elections to choose such a leader, and once in power, the idea of removing the great leader through elections was impermissible. If the leader represented the national will, it was impossible for the leader to be wrong. Therefore, there could be no reason to remove such a person.
Fascism and Leadership
It is true that Hitler and the Nazis rose to power through elections in Germany. After they achieved power, however, democracy died. Granted, the government nodded toward the people occasionally by conducting plebiscites. This provided window dressing for the idea that the leader represented the national will. However, it was a national will already whipped into a frenzy by state propaganda. In addition, the state could always modify unfavorable results to suit its needs.
Likewise, fascism offered few checks on the power of its leaders once they gained power. This is not to say that all fascist leaders dispensed with parliaments entirely. Even the kings of medieval Europe needed people to carry out their decisions, after all. Fascists recognized that maintaining some bureaucracy and organization was useful. The concept of a separation of powers within government, however, was a foreign one for fascists.
Furthermore, fascist governments lacked what we typically refer to as a loyal opposition. This is the idea that whatever party or group is not currently in power can continue to hold its ideas without facing reprisals from the party in power. The unspoken understanding is that both are loyal to the country but merely have different ideas of how to advance the country’s best interests. In fascism, anyone acting contrarily to the will of the leader was, by definition, going against the national will, and therefore behaving treasonously.
I hope this effort at comparing fascism to other styles of government has helped. Fascism had many differences with each philosophy described here. Often, the difference were major ones. Only through comparing fascism to these other ideas can we understand what made it a unique way to approach governing a nation.
Please Subscribe!
If you enjoyed this blog, please consider signing up to follow it by scrolling down or clicking here, and recommending it to your friends. As always, I welcome constructive and polite discussion in the comments section. Thank you!