- for the most part, you should rely on Alan Cassels’ Fascism for analysis of fascism. In this lecture, we shall highlight a few aspects or elaborate some aspects which are not discussed in detail in Cassels. The biggest example of the latter is ‘corporatism’ which had practically nothing to do with business; it is a social and political theory.
- fascism affected almost every European society and there were such movements in all countries including Britain. However, in countries with long established democratic (or at least non-authoritarian) political traditions—such as Britain, France, Netherlands, and the Nordic countries—such movements remained relatively small and had no chance of achieving power. Nevertheless, they were visible; e.g., Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was able to organise a couple of large marches and protests, capitalising on discontent about unemployment and other social issues in the depression.
- the phenomena of fascism are difficult for us to to deal with, partly because they are still so close to us but also because of our revulsion against the extremes and barbarism to which fascism led in National Socialism—Nazism.
Explanations and interpretations
- attempts to understand and explain fascism have produced a wide variety of explanations, including some that are contradictory. Partly, this is because there were significant variations in the form fascism took in different countries. Some elements of fascism were common, and we should try to define what those common elements were. This is important because there were other groups who were conservative (often Catholic) and also dissatisfied with existing society and the trends in modern society, but who were not fascists. Thus, we should be able to distinguish these groups from the fascists; however, these groups were also frequently duped by the fascists because the fascists were harping on many of the same themes that were exercising the conservatives.
- fascism was primarily a revolt against existing society; however, much of east, central and southern Europe was still not far advanced in industrialisation while northern and western Europe were. Thus, the concrete aspects against which fascists were reacting could be very different and the alternatives towards which they were striving (at least implicitly) could be different also.
- however, interpretations of fascism are also affected by the ideology of the analyst depending on whether the person is conservative, liberal or socialist. There is a tendency to attribute fascism to one’s ideological opponents and their failures.
Were these movements a throwback to ultra-conservatism?
- some elements of fascism do suggest this: the emphasis on rigid hierarchy, although not the traditional social classes but within the fascist movement; strong authoritarian leadership from the top down; the idea that the masses need to be ruled with a firm hand by an all powerful leader; the demand for unquestioning obedience of the mass of the population.
- on the other hand, in fascism there was nothing of the conservative craving for order, stability and the preservation of what is. Fascists were disorderly and bent on breaking down and destroying what existed; virtually the last thing fascists wanted was stability. Stability would prevent the upending of the domestic and international orders that fascists aimed to achieve.
Were they a unique outgrowth of World War I?
ex-soldiers provided much of the rank and file membership of the fascist and Nazi groups. It is argued that they were part of a lost generation unable to adapt back into civilian life, especially with high unemployment, and looking to recapture the comradeship which they had experienced in the trenches. This feeling of being changed and alienated from civilian life is captured in All Quiet on the Western Front.
Those who were children in Germany during the war and experienced the great hunger were forever insecure; especially during the depression, they were looking for someone who would provide them with security and certainty. Hitler and the Nazis promised that security.
Were they the natural development of capitalist and industrial society—the revolt of those being hurt?
- a number of marxist and socialist explanations fall into this category:
most often the argument is that those attracted to fascism and Nazism were the petty bourgeoisie (lower middle class); they were shopkeepers and small businessmen caught between big business and big labour or minor civil servants whose small wealth and pensions had been wiped out by the great inflation.
Marx had argued that at a certain stage of capitalist development there was a real chance of ‘caesarism’ emerging. The fascist dictators seemed to fit that description.
some non-marxists saw fascism as something that could happen in a certain phase of industrial development—an irruption like acne in adolescence; once past this phase, fascism became much less likely.
Does fascism reveal something very dark and sinister about human nature? About the possibilities for evil which lurk beneath the surface of all our minds?
- while this question has an “only the Shadow knows” flavour about it, it embodies the belief of many conservative critiques or even of many psychological approaches influenced by Freud. Civilised behaviour is only a veneer; if that veneer and the normal restraints are ripped away, then brutality and baser instincts come to the fore. The shock of World War 1, the great inflation and the great depression had ripped away the veneer.
Was fascism a consequence of the weaknesses and failures of liberalism?
- this argument is closely connected with the previous one. It was argued that fascism showed the fallacy of liberalism. Too much freedom was a bad thing; most people couldn’t handle it. Freedom became licence.
- or it could be argued that freedom frightened people; they could not wait to surrender their freedom to dictatorial demigods. The majority of people are easily led and manipulated by demagogues
Was fascism the natural culmination of certain ideological and philosophical traditions?
- some scholars went back as far as Plato or Roman despotism to argue that the tradition of autocratic dictators was a very old one in western civilisation. They would also examine more recent developments in German philosophy, some of which we have discussed briefly.
Was fascism mostly a revolt against modern industrial society?
- denunciations of modern, industrial society, of liberalism and of socialism were frequent and shrill. At the same time, there was a great deal of nostalgia for simpler times. People were, the argument goes, overwhelmed by the scale, by the complexity of modern society with multiple loyalties and obligations.
Were fascist movements expressions of a larger phenomenon—totalitarianism?
- some scholars were struck by the similarities between the fascist dictatorships and the extreme dictatorship imposed on the Soviet Union by Josef Stalin. Both kinds of dictatorship were trying to mould humans into an ideological ideal—‘socialist man’ or the dedicated servant of the ‘nation’. Both used repression and terror as major means in trying to force the transformation.
- these are some of the interpretations that have been put forward. It is not necessary to restrict oneself to one interpretation.
- Cassels in fact argues that fascism was like the god, Janus, with 2 heads—one looking forward and one looking backwards. The kind of fascism which emerged depended upon the state of industrialisation.
- in countries where industrialisation was lagging (such as Italy and in east, central Europe), there was a perceived need to get on with it and to get industrialised. In these countries, fascists put themselves forward as energetic, vigorous and forward-looking. Their critique of society usually included denunciations of this failure; what they said and implied was that they (the fascists) were capable of supplying the energy, drive and momentum to get this done. Thus, one of the appeals of fascism in these countries was the promise to modernise and invigorate society.
- however, in societies that were already industrialised (Germany and northern Europe), there was much more disenchantment and criticism of industrialisation and urbanisation. There was in fact a great deal of alienation, even loathing of many of these aspects. In these societies, fascism tended to be much more backward looking, back to the ‘good old days’, playing on nostalgia for an idealised past.
- however, in his analyses of Italy and Germany as examples of these 2 facets of fascism, Cassels notes that the 2 elements were present in both examples. Mussolini made frequent and deliberate references to the greatness of Imperial Rome and about again making the Mediterranean Sea an ‘Italian lake’.
- Hitler and the Nazis made overwhelming use of the latest technology, especially military technology (they were in love with the latest weaponry). The Nazis massively exploited the latest mass media—newspapers before coming to power and then radio and movies after. Most spectacular was their use of the airplane; this enabled Hitler to visit many more areas during election campaigns. Use of the airplane also conveyed very powerful impressions. The airplane was new and spectacular. Most people had never flown in one; people who travelled in airplanes were regarded as a bit larger than life to do something so daring.
- however, in personal and social relationships, fascists strongly denounced modern society and extolled former times. Relationships between the fascist dictators and their hierarchical followings tended to be modelled on feudal relationships. Loyalties were personal; followers had to pledge personal fealty to Il Duce or der Führer who offered personal obligations and support in return. Hitler demanded a personal oath of allegiance, not only from party members and officials, but also from all military and all civil servants (including teachers and professors, postmen, railway workers, even clergymen), ultimately all of society.
- certainly, Nazism drew support from the long trend to outdoors groups, the wandervogel and youth groups, which from the late 19th C had condemned modernism, industrialism, etc; they extolled the idea of nature and the joys of communing with nature.
- thus, fascist movements tended to have contradictory elements, both between movements as well as within movements.
Why were men moved to act in the ways they did (women too were caught up in the nationalist fervour, but fascism embodied an extreme machismo orientation which usually reduced women to the role of producing sons who would grow up to be soldiers)?
- some of the behaviours were bizarre and ridiculous (e.g, the uniforms, the fascist salutes, the strutting of the dictators and Mussolini as the great athlete). Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” made great fun of many aspects, but those involved were (literally) deadly serious.
What was the appeal and significance of specific characteristics of fascist movements?
- some of the specific characteristics seem to be integral to the appeal of the fascist movements. The intellectual content of fascist ideology was very thin and in many cases not of too great importance in attracting followers. It may be that these features were not just means to an end, but they may also have been ends in themselves for many members of fascist organisations.
leader cults—worship of the all-powerful, all-knowing leader;
torch light parades; few things are better at breaking down the autonomy of the individual, rousing the emotions, or facilitating manipulation of people than dancing flames in the night;
uniforms and the conformity which they reinforced;
strict hierarchies (are we humans like dogs and other species which require rigid pecking orders in their social organisation?);
the emphasis on action and ‘moral’ stamina,
the emphasis on marching and other physical fitness activities outdoors as a means to avoid the soft, easy living that leads to decadence.
N.B. fascism looks very different to us. We know what fascism led to—the most destructive and bloodiest war in human history and the abomination of the Holocaust; even our side was brutalised and committed horrid things—e.g., Japanese Canadians were uprooted from their homes and locked up in detention camps, Dresden was completely destroyed even though it had no military targets or significance, an act to terrorise and 2 Japanese cities were destroyed by nuclear weapons.
- however, many people at the time saw fascism as hope and the dawning of a better day. The final image in the movie “Cabaret” captures this diametrically opposite meaning very well where the young boy in a Hitler Youth uniform is singing a sweet, sentimental little song, “Tomorrow Belongs to Me”. We feel the icy cold of evil.
Analysing Fascism as an Ideology
- earlier in the year we put forward a framework for analysing ideologies:
1. What is their critique of existing society?
2. What is their vision of an ideal society?
3. What is their plan of action to change society? How do they propose to get from what is to what they think should be?
1. Critique of existing society
- fascists really threw themselves into this. They disliked and loathed almost everything about existing society: they hated democracy, hated pluralism, hated liberalism and laisser-faire, absolutely abhorred socialism, denounced permissive behaviour, decadence, soft living, internationalism, etc. etc.
- their denunciations were not based on complete or consistent theory. They did not worry about inconsistency or contradictions. In fact, this was a source of strength. They could focus on denunciations without bothering to explain why. This allowed them to attract support or at least acquiescence from many groups; in other words, anyone who disliked some aspect of existing society was vulnerable to being duped.
- this was especially true of conservative groups who disliked democracy and liberalism (let alone socialism) and religious groups (especially conservative Catholics) who disliked the free and easy behaviours that emerged in the post- WW1 era (flappers, homosexuals, drug culture, etc.); such groups helped the Nazis to power in Germany and made deals with Mussolini’s fascists in Italy.
- while spending most of their time attacking and denouncing society, fascists remained rather vague about how things would be changed. This allowed dissident and alienated groups to fill in what they wanted. Such people had a tendency to assume that what they wanted would be put in place of the hated arrangements which the fascists were promising to eliminate. German Catholics never felt the full brunt of Hitler’s wrath although somewhat belatedly, some Catholics did begin to speak out against Nazi actions. After one such episode, Hitler informed his coterie privately that once he had finished with Jews and communists, the Catholic Church would be next on his list!
2. Vision of an ideal society
- initially, this was not clearly defined or perhaps even existed. Nor is it easy to get at. As we have noted already, fascists specifically rejected morality and consistency claiming that these were evidence of weakness; such thinking was probably a result of social darwinism and perhaps the influence of Nietzsche.
- as a result, fascists did not take their party platforms very seriously; a lot of stuff was simply put in there because they hoped that those planks had popular appeal. Party platforms are not very reliable as indications of fascist beliefs or intentions. In power, fascists felt completely uninhibited to do whatever they wanted, including the exact opposite of their platforms.
- the Italian fascist platform made a lot of promises to the workers. Nevertheless, Mussolini’s goons had a lot of fun and made money acting as strike breakers. Later, real trade unions were abolished and fascist unions were put in their place. The fascist leaders completely sold out the workers and were notorious for taking bribes from employers.
- the early Nazi programme had a number of anti-capitalist and pro-worker planks which were never taken seriously by anyone, least of all by Hitler. Later, they were all dropped; in power the Nazis quickly destroyed trade unions and any independent worker organisations. While the Nazis certainly got large numbers of the unemployed back to work and set up the Strength Through Joy programme of vacations for workers, by the late 1930s real wages of workers were deteriorating as money wages were held down while prices were rising.
- Italian fascists were anti-clerical in their pronouncements, even promising to confiscate a lot of church property. However, in 1929, Mussolini made the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican. Not only did the fascists not confiscate church lands but the agreement gave the Vatican important powers, including an absolute veto over the law in areas such as family law. Mussolini gave the Church more power than it had ever had since unification and the creation of the Italian state in the 1870s. It was only recently that Italy finally changed its laws to allow divorce and then abortion.
- eventually, both fascist movements produced something that more or less fills the bill in regard to how they would like things to be—corporatism for Mussolini and racial purification for the Nazis; however, these visions always remained a bit fuzzy. We shall examine both.
Corporatism
- the term has nothing to do with our modern use in referring to private enterprise companies or corporations for carrying on business and commercial activities. Instead, the term is derived from the medieval use where it was applied to incorporated associations such as trade guilds or to the governing bodies of cities and towns. This last is still around as some municipal governments are named “The Corporation of the City of ________.”
- corporatism itself was a social and political theory that was developed by conservative thinkers, especially Catholic intellectuals. One of the most important of these intellectuals was Giovanni Gentile; he had a great influence on Mussolini.
- the proponents of corporatism looked back to medieval society for a model. They argued that medieval society had been ‘organic’ and integrated. Their ‘corporations’ were an attempt to create analogous structures to those in medieval societies, but ones which would be adapted to the increased scale and complexity of modern nation/states.
- corporatism was rooted in a deep unhappiness with liberal societies and political systems and what they seemed to lead to; proponents were very unhappy with mass democracy. They had a number of concerns and criticisms of liberal society and of socialist alternatives:
horizontal divisions and conflicts in society (i.e., class divisions);
- laisser faire liberalism emphasised individual self-interest and condoned selfishness and greed. It fostered disparities in wealth; this aggravated class divisions and increased class conflict as a by-product.
- socialism (and revolutionary marxism especially) focused even more on class conflict as an explanation of history and saw class war as the means for overthrowing capitalism. Revolutionary socialists seemed intent on intensifying class conflict as a means of provoking revolution.
- proponents of corporatism wanted to find an alternative which would reduce class hostility and conflict, an alternative which would reduce the exclusive focus on differences and clashes of interests between classes and economic groups and allow recognition of common interests. For example, the existing system did not adequately allow employers and employees to recognise that both had an interest in the success of their business; if their conflict destroyed the business, both were losers. Thus, they wanted to find a way to create vertical links to cut across the horizontal class divisions in society.
the liberal democratic system was faulty in a number of respects.
- geographical constituencies tended to intermix and homogenise different economic and social interests; as a result, minority interests might easily be squeezed out, especially in a ‘first past the post’ system. Upper class interests tended to be submerged entirely by numbers. The system also gave politicians an opportunity to gerrymander and manipulate boundaries for political advantage.
- conservative thinkers wanted a political system that gave political power more in accordance with ability and status rather than simply according to numbers—i.e., distrusted the domination of the masses. The Church itself was authoritarian.
ethical concerns. They rejected the selfishness and egotism of liberal individualism; they rejected socialism’s proposed elimination of all classes and all interests in favour of the proletariat and its interest. As well, they abhorred the ‘godlessness’ and atheism of communism.
- they recognised that something had to be done to deal with the social and economic problems of slums, poverty, etc. of industrialised and urbanised modern society. They hoped to do this by rebuilding a sense of responsibility and charity in those who dominated in wealth and power in society. In effect, they saw paternalism of employers as a way to alleviate these problems; the Church would emphasise moral duty and the appropriate vertical social structures in place (i.e., the ‘corporations’) would allow the employers and the privileged to be in touch with their employees.
- this was probably the most airy-fairy aspect of the ideology. It was based upon an idealised picture of the extent of paternalism in the medieval guilds and town structures. It was even more idealistic to believe that paternalism would be able to deal satisfactorily with the social problems and deficiencies of complex modern societies.
- corporatism also appealed to many nationalists because they shared many concerns and in some respects had similar goals to those of the Catholic intellectuals.
- nationalists too were concerned to build ‘organic unity’ of the ‘nation’. Thus, the socialists’ emphasis on class conflict was very divisive and its internationalism was unacceptable and even intolerable. Liberalism too shared these deficiencies. By emphasising communities of interests, corporatism could be seen as contributing to greater unity of the nation.
- a number of economists and intellectuals were also attracted to corporatism. Especially in Italy, they were disillusioned with the liberal state and economy. There were considerable concerns about failures of economic system—including high unemployment, inflation, and gross inequalities of income and standards of living.
- the politicians were perceived to be massively corrupt and there was a desire to replace ‘politicians’ with ‘experts’ as the main deciders of policies. There was a desire to get away from mass democracy and demagogic politicians.
Medieval Towns and Society
- the government of towns was rather different from our modern approach. The town council was composed of representatives of incorporated associations—trade guilds. The representatives on the council were appointed by the guilds and represented members of the guilds rather than the people in territorial constituencies; i.e., councillors represented economic interest groups..
- each guild was an association of everyone engaged in a particular economic activity (e.g., guilds for shoemakers, candle makers, cabinetmakers, silversmiths, tinsmiths, blacksmiths, weavers, etc.).
- there were 3 classifications of members in each guild:
masters; these were tradesmen who were certified as having mastered the skills of the trade, usually by demonstrating their competence with the completion of a ‘masterpiece’.
journeymen—individuals who had completed the apprenticeship and were competent in the basic skills of the trade; they were paid employees.
apprentices—beginners who were engaged in learning the trade from a master. Usually unpaid although they might receive room and board. Often, it was necessary to pay a master a fee for this apprenticeship. Apprenticeship lasted for 7 or more years and often started when boys were still quite young—10-14 years.
- only masters were allowed to set up their own businesses and they were the employers of journeymen and apprentices.
- in the early days, the social distance might not have too great between those in the different classifications. Masters might live on the same premises as the business with the workshop in the ground floor and living quarters above. In these circumstances, apprentices and even unmarried journeymen might live and board with the master’s family. The master might show a good deal of concern for the welfare of his employees. This model of paternalism is what the proponents of corporatism seemed to have in mind.
- however, when masters as businessmen got richer, they tended to move their families to more upscale residences and the social distances could grow quite large.
- the guilds had the power to regulate many aspects of their particular economic activity. No one could set up a business in the particular trade without being a master in the guild and getting permission. Regulations were often extensive, setting quality standards, wage levels and conditions of work (including hours of work). Guilds were almost always dominated by the masters
- what the proponents of corporatism liked about the medieval system was its vertical organisation; they argued that the guilds cut across class lines and integrated all classes in a particular economic activity together. Everyone involved in that trade had an interest in the success of that trade and membership in a single association enabled them to recognise this commonality of interests. This contrasted with the modern system of separate trade unions and employer associations which produced horizontal divisions and focused all attention on conflicts and differences of interest; in this approach, common interests were ignored or drowned out.
- furthermore, they believed that in the guilds, paternalism ensured that the welfare of the employees was attended to.
- in this rosy and romanticised perception, the guilds were happy and integrated. Masters lived similarly to or even with employees; masters were paternalistic (literally acting as fathers to their apprentices) looking after their employees’ welfare.
- in some cases, the situation might approximate this perception, but in a great many cases, the situation was not even remotely like this. The masters used their control of the guilds to dictate wages, conditions of work, etc. As the guilds controlled representation on town councils, the police and courts could be used to enforce the rules laid down in the guilds by the masters and to enforce discipline on employees. Masters also usually wanted to control the number of competitors and restricted entry into mastership, which was often closed to all except the sons of masters.
- in fact, with no right to strike, grievances were expressed in riots and outbreaks of serious violence. Thus, it does not seem that guilds and medieval corporations represented the example and model that the Church and the proponents of corporatism claimed. Furthermore, the idea that the paternalism of upper and managerial classes could meet the needs and solve the serious problems of modern, urban, industrial society seems more than a little farfetched.
- Corporatism was not an attempt to revive the guilds, but rather it attempted to use the guilds as a model for a new type of organisation that would provide the same functions of integrating different classes and allowing common interests to be recognised. The modern nation/state was much more complex and much larger in scale; the proposed ‘corporations’ would have to be national and comprehensive in scale.
- each corporation was to involve everyone in a particular industry or economic activity, e.g., agriculture, banking and finance, education, etc. etc. When the scheme was first tried in the 1920s in Italy, there were only a handful of corporations set up. When a fuller implementation was put in place in beginning in 1929, there were over 30 ‘corporations’ set up.
- to implement corporatism politically, the old parliament was replaced by the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations. Only a portion of the members of the Chamber were elected by the corporations. The new political system did not really open up political activity. Other political parties had been driven out and abolished in the 1920s; the Fascist Party still dominated.
- within the corporations themselves, there was a 3 part representation: employers/mangers, workers’ representatives and Fascist Party members. The Fascists supposedly represented the interests of general society and of consumers.
- real trade unions had been abolished and replaced by Fascist trade unions. However, Fascist trade union leaders felt little or no responsibility for defending workers’ rights. They usually sided with the owner/managers, often in return for bribes and kickbacks. Fascist Party representatives often reacted in the same way. As a result, the corporations, which had the power to set wages, etc., became instruments through which the interests of the owner/managers were supported to the detriment of the workers. Not surprisingly after the way workers got shafted in Italy under corporatism, the term has become a dirty word among trade unionists everywhere.
- in theory, political parties should be irrelevant in a corporatist system. There would be a number of specific interest groups represented. Presumably, decision-making would be based on negotiations and compromises among the interest groups (this is, in fact, how most legislation gets passed in the U.S. Congress; each congressional bill requires the construction of a coalition with paid lobbyists doing much of the work of building coalitions for or against particular proposed laws. Very frequently, these coalitions cut across the political parties.).
- in Italy, there was too much opposition in the Fascist Party to allow full implementation. As a result, the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations was a compromise.
- it is hard to see that any of the objectives of the proponents of corporatism were achieved in Italy.
the corporations did not produce a flowering of paternalistic behaviour and concern by the owner/manger class. In fact, the workers got shafted as real wages declined (money wages were held down while inflation increased). When the system was destroyed in World War 2, the workers emerged even more militant than they had been before.
not only did the system not end corruption (one of the main criticisms of the liberal regime that fascism replaced), but in fact corruption became far worse.
- some political scientists argue that corporatism was only implemented partially and superficially. Thus, they say that it was not given a fair trial and that it is still a valid theory.
- however, the theory was based on a rosy view of the medieval model that was not, in the majority of cases, a very accurate one. Medieval and early modern cities were not always the happy, integrated, ‘organic’ communities that proponents of corporatism postulated. There was often a good deal of violence and repression—i.e., not unlike fascist and corporatist Italy.
- although the theory was discussed extensively by Catholic intellectuals elsewhere (including in Vichy France), no other attempts were made to implement it elsewhere. It was so discredited by the Italian fascist experiment that it disappeared as a practical approach and has become nothing more than an historical relic (i.e., more or less confined to ‘the dustbin of history’—the garbage pail). [In the 1970s when the Trudeau government was introducing wage and price controls, it proposed setting up Tripartite committees composed of representatives from business, labour and government; each committee would involve a particular area of the economy and would try to iron out problems and disputes arising from the implementation of wage and price controls. However, organised labour quickly argued that this was ‘corporatism’ and refused to have anything to do with the committees.]