What fascism is and what it is not
"Fascism" (perhaps "fascist") is a political mudslinging word1. In this mode it is of little interest to us, although the roots of the conflict over its definition are enlightening: in the Cold War Western world the left could call the anti-communist right "fascist" and the right equated communism to fascism. On a superficial level these accusations appeared to the speaker to have some justification, but ultimately the over-use of the word led to a dilution of its understanding. The historian has enshrined one of his goals as "objectivity", something which he believes conferred by distance. Yet can such a distance ever be attained in discussing something such as fascism? Like fascism itself, our views are coloured by unconscious and unacknowledged biases and presuppositions.
Fascism is full of inherent contradictions. It is supposedly the doctrine of mobilizing the masses - yet it is anti-democratic; it enshrines the machismo - yet it appeals to women; it is authoritarian (or even totalitarian) yet it organizes rebellion. Simply examining what fascists said they were doing and the values they said they enshrined in isolation from what they actually did is futile. Dismissing the whole infernal thing merely as an irrational blip and pretending the movement sprung from the ether and hopefully will return there is rather a way of avoiding the issue than dealing with it. The other extreme - pretending the concept can be explained by a single characteristic and then proceeding to dismiss all contradictory evidence as a "blip" - is just as useless.
Marxist historians see history as class struggle - and believe that modern society is defined by its split into two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie own the means of production and the proletariat are employed in their use but own none - the rest are lumped conveniently into the "petty bourgeoisie", who try and seek their best interests in a middle road between labour and capital. As Marxians only acknowledge one type of radicalism - Communism2 - they have viewed fascism as reactionary and stressed its links to capitalism. They said that fascism was a natural result of class struggle, something which was bound to emerge when traditional authoritarian conservative dictatorships proved inadequate to crush burgeoning Communism. Their argument that fascism was primarily a movement to defend the interest of capitalists led them to relegate all its other properties to secondary importance or explain them in the context of their first presupposition. Imperialistic territorial expansion and racism within were held to be ploys to divert people's attention outwards and diffuse tension between the reactionary classes. Nationalism supplanted class interests and so destroyed international socialism, thus the international socialist concluded that fascism must be capitalistic.
Another perspective stresses the reactionary properties of fascism and stresses the importance of the feudal élites in encouraging fascism. This is only subtly different to the Marxist theory but is perhaps more far-reaching in its implications. As with the Marxist theory it suggests the élites were capable of manipulating the petty bourgeoisie at will and that the latter were largely merely subjected to the machinations of the former. Whilst it is true that traditional conservative élites (the gentry in Tsarist Russia, agrarian landowners in the Italian Po Valley) often courted fascism, the movement itself frequently violated traditional conservative values (the family, the Church, the government bureaucracy). Thus fascism cannot be understood as merely being the most extreme expression of traditional conservatism. But it is true that the conservative feudal élites frequently found the fascists much more appealing than the international socialists, and thus they patronised them: the Union of the Russian People, commonly known as the Black Hundreds, had tacit government support and received government money.
Perhaps the most broadly-encompassing definition explains fascism in terms of being totalitarian nationalism. Whilst this view does much to explain the fascist ideology it is weak on the causes of the fascist movement, something which the materialist approaches described above are strong on. The proponent of this view is forced to recognise the differences between different permutations of fascism (the racial Utopia of Nazi Germany and the nationalism-for-itself of fascist Italy, for instance). But it is this definition which seems to explain the movement well, and the acknowledgement that ultra-nationalism is the most dominant factor in shaping fascist ideology does much to advance our understanding of it. This does nothing to help us understand the origins of this ultra-nationalism or why it should win support from disparate classes. A debate also emerges over whether fascism is revolutionary or conservative. An informed conclusion seems to be that it was primarily neither, and it would pick and choose elements of each to advance some other cause. Its opposition to competing "isms" (feminism, capitalism, Communism) stemmed from the fact they placed one thing or another above the nation: and the perfect fascist man could have no care but the nation.
Democractic socialism (which has emerged as the guiding ideology in the Western World) was seen as degenerate and weak. Democracy, it was feared, would lead to mediocrity in government. Communism was unacceptable because it placed class interests against those of the nation (and was hopelessly entwined with the democratic movement). And whilst conservatives expressed support for the fascist movement (it was preferable to the socialists) they eventually became its victims. The greed of big business was condemned as decadent and opposed to national interests - and the regulation and trade unions which they had hoped to avoid were eventually foisted onto them. The property rights that conservatives esteemed so highly were by no means protected by the fascist governments when to do so would undermine "national unity". And while authoritarian conservatism seeks to defend its values through the army, the police and the Church, the fascist movement generally has a "manly" vanguard doing what it feels the authorities are incapable of doing. Thus we have the Black Hundreds in Tsarist Russia, the Sturmabteilung in Nazi Germany and the Italian squadristi.
To summarise more cogently the above: Fascism attempts to mobilise the masses in favour of a government by a small élite, who are drawn from the masses. Traditional authoritarian conservatism attempted to rule through existing power structures, but fascism supplanted these with its own nationally-minded mobilisation organisations. It did not respect conservatism insofar as conservative interests were opposed to "national unity". Similarly, it rejected socialism for undermining the national interest. It sought to over-ride class interests, unlike Communism. Its dominant characteristic is ultra-nationalism, be this defined biologically or geographically.
Neo-fascism and national populism
The infamy of the régimes of Hitler and Mussolini means that no political party today that hopes for any sort of legitimacy can call itself "fascist". Yet there are parties in our midst today that bear many of the hallmarks of yesteryear's fascist parties, even if they try to present a more "moderate" front. A cursory examination of their platforms quickly reveals the racialist and neo-fascist thinking behind it. In the United Kingdom, the British National Party (BNP) bases its platform on right-wing populism taken to the extreme. Thus, they have taken up such objectives as opposing European integration, installing tougher asylum laws and taking a "zero tolerance" approach to crime.
It is particularly telling that the BNP won Council seats (in Burnley) where the Conservative Party's vote had collapsed. The BNP hopes to appeal to orthodox conservatives by presenting a moderate platform, yet it can also appeal to disaffected conservatives who believe their old Party does not go far enough (cf. the old fascist movement's supporters believing the authorities could not defend them from the Socialists or Jews). Thus we see that neo-fascism and conservative share some goals and appeal to some of the same groups, but by looking at the BNP's platform we can see that they "think" very differently. This difference in antecedent thinking is ultimately what leads to the difference in the extremity of views between the far-right and the conservative.
Whilst the BNP specifically deny being racist, their platform makes it clear that they think in terms of race and believe in differences between races. They oppose mixed marriages because "all species and races of this planet are beautiful and must be preserved" - it logically follows that their particular goal in running Great Britain would be to preserve the "British races". It defines the nation in terms of race and glorifies the history of the "British races", saying it stretches back 40,000 years: races which have come here since then (Saxons, Vikings, Irish) and have "been assimilated" are also acceptable. They oppose European integration and ownership of domestic British media by foreign companies, because this would allow the influence of other races to effect Britain. Similarly, they are worried about the influence of homosexuals over the military establishment and the government bureaucracy. In fact, as with fascists of old, they do not respect traditional conservative interests where this is opposed to "national unity", with "nation" defined in biological terms.
It is this thinking in terms of race which makes national populists distinct from conservatives, whom generally think in terms of pragmatism or at least make an effort to define their position in terms of such. Whilst the neo-fascist platform borrows from conservatism (as it borrows from the "left" in some respects, attacking for instance the traditional conservative interest of "big business") what makes them neo-fascists is their racialist thinking. National populism and the glorification of the nation and the race are powerful pulls in areas of disaffection with the government's asylum or assimilation policy.
1. "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" - Politics and the English Language, George Orwell.
2. Communism, or international socialism, is what fascism opposed, not socialism as an economic system. Totalitarianism is necessarily socialist, and "National Socialism" means exactly what it says: socialism within one nation.