Given the ubiquity of this term, I think it worth contemplating what, if anything, is new with “Fascism”. First, read what Mussollini had to say about it here.
Several points. One, he understood himself as counteracting the decadence of Italy.
Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.
This is the “he made the trains run on time” element of it.
He calls, in effect, for perpetual war, in service of Empire, in effect the police of the Romans themselves: “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.”
He rejects Marxian notions of history:
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
What is he saying here? What he is saying is that individuals can make a difference, but only certain individuals, certain exceptional individuals.
Before dilating on this point more, what does he have to say about the State?
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….
…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….
What is interesting about all this is that Mussollini was himself formerly a Communist.
He is rejecting impersonal historical forces, but still retaining an understanding of an impersonal State, which exists as a whole, as an element in the historical process. So in effect he is replacing class warfare with overt imperialism, but still finding no place for the self organization of a Liberal society, saying that it merely “records” results instead of creating them.
But there is no such thing as an impersonal State any more than there are impersonal economic forces. Both Fascism and Communism depend, fundamentally, on a reification of “forces” which consist ENTIRELY in the aggregate motion of actual human beings. Both doctrines appeal to intellectuals precisely they abstract very complex systems into simple, easily cognized narratives that are WRONG.
The cart is before the horse. They want certain things to be true, so they work very hard to make them true, to put people who believe what they believe into positions where they can DICTATE history
Mussollini was able to wage war (ineffectively). Communists can kill members of unapproved classes. But neither action reflects “history”. There is no “State”.
I’m repeating myself. This is light thinking here, done on a day dedicated to relaxation. I am not thinking to the point of pain, which is what I do when I take up topics in earnest.
The question, though, is this: what is new, with this term “Fascism”? Consider the concept of proscription. It was used in the 1790’s in France, and it was used in 82 B.C. by Sulla.
What is the difference between a Fascist dictator, and a dictator like Sulla? Plainly, Mussollini had someone like Sulla in mind.
That leaders would seek to rule by fiat, and torture and kill political opponents is likely as old as history. So is the glorification of war, and the desire to get stuff by stealing it from others. Sulla, for example, took the possessions of his political enemies just like the Nazis stole the possessions of the Jews, and the Bolsheviks and their descendants stole the possessions of THEIR political opponents.
As I see it, this is the old battle of Good versus Evil, the creation of happiness ex nihilo versus the effort to conquer happiness by conquering others, to master resentment by transmuting it into actual violence.
We all live short lives, do we not, permeated by confusion? There are no letters in the sky to guide us, nor a physical book that fell from the sky to tell us what to do. And if there were, how could we be certain those words should be followed? Can we, in the end, be guided by something other than a goal we have in mind, combined with practical observation leading to consistent correllations between desired end and the means of accomplishing it?
Do Fascists really want misery? Some of the leaders, yes, but misery they inflict on others.
What most people want, though, is a sense of purpose, of knowing what to do, and having a place to live, to call home–which includes not primarily a physical place, but a mental and emotional place where rest is possible. Most people want to be understood, they want to feel valued, and to know what to do so that they will be valued. They need to know what the rules are. Mussollini invoked holiness and nobility. Translated, these mean “rules”.
A boat afloat at sea with no anchor, no sail, and no rudder is a lonely place. So much faith is needed to imagine a desirable end. So it occurs to some minds to impose an end, to imagine everyone else is as adrift as they feel themselves to be, and to impose for them–against their will, since they don’t know, on this reading, what is good for them (or they lack the will to pursure it)–a set of circumstances that they will be compelled to inhabit as a home.
Anti-Individualism NECESSARILY implies autocracy, to a greater or lesser extent–certainly inequality. Individualism means that rights, including the right to perception, inhere in all people equally. No one is above the law.
To invert this, as for example Keynes does in “End of Laissez Faire”, and imply that the locus of rights and power is other than in concrete organic beings we call in-dividuals, is necessarily to say that some people have more rights than others. Those within the State have more power than those external to the State.
Anti-Individualism is, then, necessarily injustice, if we define justice as all people being equal before the law.
Oh, this is getting a bit deep for me today. I’ll circle around again eventually, in my own time and way.