Of all the major terms in twentieth-century political usage, fascism has tended to remain one of the most vague. At the popular level, it has become during the past two generations little more than a derogatory epithet employed to denigrate a bewildering variety of otherwise mutually contradictory political phenomena. It has been applied at one time or another to virtually every single form of twentieth-century radicalism or authoritarianism, as well as many more moderate phenomena. More specifically, in terms of political regimes, there has developed since the 1930s a broad tendency to refer to any form of right-wing authoritarian system that is not specifically socialist as fascist. In this usage the Italian regime of Benito Mussolini is used as terminological prototype for all non-Marxist or non-socialist authoritarian systems, however they may differ from Italian Fascism or among themselves.
Rigorous scholarly and historical definition of fascism, however, refers to the concrete historical phenomena of the European fascist movements that emerged between the two world wars, first in the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist movements founded in 1919–20 and then among their numerous counterparts in many European countries. An adequate political and historical definition of fascism must define common unique characteristics of all the fascist movements in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s while at the same time differentiating them from other political phenomena. Such a criterial definition must specify the typical fascist negations, fascist doctrine and goals, and the uniqueness of fascist style and organization.
The uniqueness of fascism lay in its opposition to nearly all the existing political sectors, left, right and centre. It was anti-liberal, anti-communist (as well as anti-socialist in the social democratic sense), and anti-conservative, though willing to undertake temporary alliances with other groups, primarily rightist.
In their ideology and political goals, fascist movements represented the most intense and radical form of nationalism known to modern Europe. They aimed at the creation of a new kind of nationalist authoritarian state that was not merely based on traditional principles or models. Though fascist groups differed considerably among themselves on economic goals, they all hoped to organize some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, diversely called national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. All fascist movements aimed either at national imperial expansion or at least at a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers to enhance its strength and prestige. Their doctrines rested on a philosophical basis of idealism and voluntarism, and normally involved the attempt to create a new form of modern, self-determined secular culture.
Fascist uniqueness was particularly expressed through the movements’ style and organization Great emphasis was placed on the aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols and political choreography, relying especially on romantic and mystical aspects. Fascist movements all attempted to achieve mass mobilization, together with the militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia. Unlike some other types of radicals, fascists placed strong positive evaluation on the use of violence, and strongly stressed the masculine principle and male dominance. Though they espoused an organic concept of society, they vigorously championed a new elitism and exalted youth above other phases of life. In leadership, fascist movements exhibited a specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command (the Führerprinzip, in German National Socialist parlance).
Radical rightist groups shared some of the fascists’ political goals, just as revolutionary leftist movements exhibited some of their stylistic and organizational characteristics. The uniqueness of the fascists, however, lay in their rejection of the cultural and economic conservatism, and the particular social elitism of the right, just as they rejected the internationalism, nominal egalitarianism and materialist socialism of the left. The historical uniqueness of fascism can be better grasped once it is realized that significant political movements sharing all—not merely some—of these common characteristics existed only in Europe during the years 1919–45.
Fascists claimed to represent all classes of national society, particularly the broad masses. Marxists and some others, conversely, claimed that they were no more than the tool of the most violent, monopolistic and reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie. Both of these extreme interpretations are not supported by empirical evidence. In their earliest phase, fascist movements drew their followers from among former military personnel and small sectors of the radical intelligentsia, in some cases university students. Though some fascist movements enjoyed a degree of backing from the upper bourgeoisie, the broadest sector of fascist support, comparatively speaking, was provided by the lower middle class. Since this was one of the largest strata in European society during the 1920s and 1930s, the same might also have been said for various other political groups. In both Italy and Germany, a notable minority of party members were drawn from among urban workers. In Hungary and Romania primary social backing came from university students and poor peasants, and there was also considerable agrarian support in some parts of Italy.
A bewildering variety of theories and interpretations have been advanced since 1923 to explain fascism. Among them are, first, theories of socioeconomic causation of various kinds, primarily of Marxist inspiration; second, concepts of psychocultural motivation related to social psychology and personality and social structures; third, the application of modernization theory, which posits fascism as a phase in modern development; fourth, the theory of totalitarianism, which interprets fascism as one aspect of the broader phenomenon of twentieth-century totalitarianism; and finally, historicist interpretations, which attempt multi-causal explanation in terms of the major dimensions of central European historical development in the early twentieth century.
The only fascist movements to establish independent regimes of their own were those of Benito Mussolini (1922–43) and Adolf Hitler (1933–45), and only in the latter case did the movement’s leader achieve complete power over the state. The other countries in which fascist movements were strongest were Austria (Austrian National Socialists), Hungary (Arrow Cross), Romania (Iron Guard) and Spain (Spanish Phalanx). In general, fascism had most appeal in countries defeated or destabilized by the effects of the First World War. Though fascist movements appeared in every single European country during these years (and also, very faintly, in the countries of the western hemisphere and Japan, paralleled by more vigorous expression in South Africa), very few of them enjoyed any degree of success. In nearly all countries anti-fascists were generally much more numerous than fascists. The extreme radicalism and calls to war and violence of the fascists limited their appeal, as did the non-rationalist, voluntarist nature of their doctrines. The great expansion of military power by Hitler’s Germany was mainly responsible for the broader influence and historical importance achieved by fascism for a few years. Similarly, the complete defeat of Germany and Italy in the war condemned fascism to such total political destruction and historical discredit that all attempts at revival have enjoyed only miniscule support since 1945.
Stanley G.Payne
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Further reading
Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism, London.
Laqueur, W. (ed.) (1976), Fascism: A Reader’s Guide, Berkeley, CA.
Larsen, S.U. et al. (eds) (1980) Who were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism, Bergen-Oslo.
Payne, S.G. (1980) Fascism: Comparison and Definition, Madison, WI.
