Defining “Fascism”
by Jason GodeskySome time ago, Dr. Lawrence Britt’s “14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism” made its rounds about the blogosphere. It appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2, and from there took the internets by storm. It seems that Britt’s careful analysis of the characteristics of fascism seemed to fit the Bush administration perfectly! When the article made it to MetaFilter, Dan Hartung wrote a thorough debunking of it, noting, “t’s ahistorical in more than a few key respects, and reads tellingly as if the author totted up some trends he dislikes in modern America and then cobbled them into a list of characteristics of fascism.” Tellingly, it’s almost impossible to find a Curriculum Vita on Dr. Britt’s work, or any professional affiliations he has–as if the man were simply made up as part of a ruse to score some political points.
“Fascism” once meant something, but since World War II, it has simply become a byword in the American mind for “bad government.” Sometimes we remember that it is a creature of the right (though even that not always), and that it is authoritarian. But we forget that fascism is an actual political philosophy, with beliefs and arguments all its own. We have plenty of words for “bad government,” but only one word for this particular philosophy–”fascism.” If we lose that, then we lose the ability to recognize it when it arises, and the ability to counter it before it gains too much power.
Or is the confusion by design, for precisely that reason?
In August 2003, David Neiwert wrote, “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis,” which included a section on defining “fascism.” He wrote:
Defining Fascism is a very slippery business. I spent most of a graduate seminar a decade ago studying and dissecting this question. There is no agreed upon and authoritative one-sentence definition for Fascism. In fact, fighting over one is a still-healthy cottage industry that provides employment for plenty of historians and political scientists. My own take on it is to emphasize two points that lead to this slipperiness.
The first is a point you already made: Fascism is mostly reactive in nature. It is more defined by what it is against than by what it is. First and foremost, it is anti-liberal. This is not necessarily the same thing as being conservative. We too often define political positions as a scale between two polar opposites, when reality is broader and sloppier than that. So, while Fascism is a thing of the right, it is not just extremism beyond normal conservatism. Next, it is anti-pluralist, which usually means nationalist, racist, and/or unilateralist. Fascists don’t like to share.
Second, it is not just one thing. There have been many forms of Fascism. The popular image of Fascism is simply Nazism. Some scholars debate whether Nazism is one variety of Fascism or a separate (though related) phenomenon. I lean toward the variety school. During its heyday in the thirties, there were scores of Fascist parties in over a dozen countries. These evolved from earlier political movements and some survive in successor movements. The use of pronouns like proto-, post-, and neo- helps a little in sorting them out, but only a little. One reason for its persistence is its mutability. Most political societies can produce a fascism.
Today, Ran Prieur pointed me to an article that also argues that Bush is a fascist, though making the point more honestly than “Dr. Britt.” However, the article also contains an article by Umberto Eco from a decade ago, long before 9/11 and the current state of affairs, which provides us with a much better list of criteria for defining fascism.
- The truth is revealed once and only once.
- Parliamentary democracy is by definition rotten because it doesn’t represent the voice of the people, which is that of the sublime leader.
- Doctrine outpoints reason, and science is always suspect.
- Critical thought is the province of degenerate intellectuals, who betray the culture and subvert traditional values.
- The national identity is provided by the nation’s enemies.
- Argument is tantamount to treason.
- Perpetually at war, the state must govern with the instruments of fear.
- Citizens do not act; they play the supporting role of “the people” in the grand opera that is the state.
It’s still not a solid definition, but it’s a lot better than “Dr. Britt’s 14 points.”
Didn’t Mussolini say that fascism is basically “corporateerism”? If he did General Smedly Butler would agree with him.
Comment by Peter — 22 October 2005 @ 2:18 PM
Specifically, he said:
— Benito Mussolini, “What is Fascism?” 1932
But I wouldn’t consider Mussolini the kind of rigorous political philosopher we should consult for something like this. After all, he wasn’t exactly impartial on the matter. Moreover, such “corporatism” should not be confused with the kind of corporate protectionism we see in the contemporary United States. As Dan Hartung put it in his refutation to Britt linked above:
Or, to quote Mussolini again: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 October 2005 @ 2:43 PM
In regards to understanding what fascism is, and is not, you may be interested to look at Robert Paxton’s “Anatomy of Fascism”.
Cheers,
Casey
Comment by Casey — 13 January 2006 @ 4:20 PM
Dr Britt’s background is the corporate world (Xerox, Mobil, etc.) according to this interview: http://rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3136
Comment by mwrb — 10 February 2006 @ 7:46 PM
Oh, so Britt is, in fact, an actual person? No wonder it’s so hard to find any credentials for him, though–by the looks of it, he doesn’t really have any. I doubt Allied Chemical, Mobil, or Xerox Corp pay him to study fascism full-time, making his doctorate (whatever it’s in) most likely irrelevant, and his experience unlikely to be any greater than, say, mine.
Dr. Laura has a doctorate, too–in physical education.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 February 2006 @ 12:42 AM
Fascism is quite simply this:
The Corporate manipulation over any Government body.
The ONLY way to prevent corporate manipulation of any government body…
1.Enact mandatory term limits for Congressmen,and the Senators.
2.A mandatory life sentence (or death) to any U.S.Government official(s)who are found subverting the general welfare of the American people for personal,and (or) Corporate interests.
When the CSA (Confederate States Of America) lost the Civil War to the USA (Union States Of America)…this was the beginning of end of a truly “Free” American society.Slavery was used to “wash” the true nature of the Civil War conflict.Web search this:”Constitution vs. Confederacy”.The motivation behind the Civil War was to expand Federal power…and it did!
John D. Rockefeller said this:”I don’t want to own anything - I want to control everything”.
Comment by Captain America — 16 May 2008 @ 12:51 PM
Actually, that is a sure way to GUARANTEE manipulation of the government. Term limits cause the decision making power to move down a layer from the elected officials to the hired bureaucracy.
While the Civil War wasn’t about freeing the slaves, it wasn’t directly about expanding Federal power, either. It was about saving the Union (The whole union, not just the North). If Lincoln had allowed the South to secede then the threat of secession would have been available to every state in every dispute from then on. We would end up with 10-50 independent countries that would be easily manipulated into conflict by much stronger European powers (See…The Balkans, The middle east and Africa). Ben Franklin said with regard to the Constitution that “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” and that is the idea behind the Civil War.
–
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 20 May 2008 @ 8:18 AM