What Is Fascism? A Philosophical Prolegomenon.

Is fascism a phenomenon that resembles such natural kinds as protons, platypuses, or diamonds or is it more like the color red, which fades into pinks, purples, grays, white, or black with never anything like a boundary? To discharge the metaphors, is it possible to choose among and combine in almost any imaginable way the elements of being antidemocratic, leader-cultish, hostile to the rule of law and civil liberties, racist, misogynistic, nationalistic, militaristic, anti-rational, religiously intolerant, propagandizing, inegalitarian, politically violent, and fostering of coziness between the state and business and of the opposite between state and any organization of employees?

That none of these evils is obviously incompatible with any other might suggest that as a conceptual matter there can be unlimited diversity in right-wing regimes and movements. If this were the end of the story it would not make too much difference exactly where we draw the arbitrary line as to what is to be called “fascism” and what authoritarian forms get other names.

It might also be, however, that real world dynamics exclude or make unlikely some of the potential right-wing combinations.  A multidimensional (real world) probability map of the characteristics might show lumpiness. In particular, there might be a higher probability lump in which are located the regimes of Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler. It is not difficult to project from the writings of Ivan Ilyan that his “Christian fascism” would fall within this same region. This latter fact has some importance in that Putin sees Russia and the world through Ilyan’s eyes.

If among the authoritarian regimes and movements, now actual or dangerously possible, a significant number belong to such a fascist family group, then it will be salient what we do and don’t call “fascist” because it will be important to understand the common features of the family members, the dynamics by which why they have succeeded or threaten to succeed, and the ways to oppose them.

For this reason, it is worth proceeding, at least tentatively, on the assumption that there is an inherent logic and structure to fascisms past present and future. This is an assumption that Timothy Snyder appears to share even though his analysis, which I quote here, is initially offered only for the infamous 20^th century exemplars:

The fascism of the 1920s and 1930s, Ilyin’s era, had three core features; it celebrated will and violence over reason and law; it proposed a leader with a mystical connection to his people; and it characterized globalization as a conspiracy rather than as a set of problems. Revived today in conditions of inequality as a politics of eternity, fascism serves oligarchs as a catalyst for transitions away from public discussion and towards political fiction; away from meaningful voting and towards fake democracy; away from the rule of law and towards personalist regimes.  The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, p. 16 .

Snyder’s identification of features is illuminating, although whether they are they the core features could be debated. I tend to think he relies a little too much on a history of ideas methodology.

Fascism is, after all, a form or phase of capitalism. Fascist movements have arisen in response to strains within capitalism. They have appealed to segments of the population that suffered from those strains. Some of those segments led, others followed, and some resisted the fascist movements. There were similarities, but also differences, for example, in the degree, timing, and form of support from business and from religious institutions. Some similarities among historical fascisms were doubtless coincidental. Others must have been crucial on our provisional assumption that fascism is a kind.

Getting to the bottom of what, if anything, was and is crucial to real world fascism, requires examining the past and present with serious attention to the underlying economics and sociology as well as the politics and ideology. As ever in attempting to understand complex phenomena, there is data gathering, theorizing, and confronting theory with the data and one theory with another.

I have not read enough, and likely have not yet found the right things to read, to know how far this enterprise has gotten. As a result, although I am confident enough that Putin’s regime is fascist and that some of Trump’s followers are, I am unclear whether China is, or Bolsonaro, or the MAGA movement as a whole. In these cases, learning more about China, Bolsonaro, or MAGA might not clear things up. The problem is more with fascism, than with the putative instances.

(Trump is a difficult case for a different reason. Having years ago had a little direct and a little more indirect contact with the Trump world, I am pretty sure that no genuine politics should be ascribed to Trump. He is all opportunism, all ego. He lies not only about facts but about values. Anyone who thinks he is really anti-abortion, for example, is just plain gullible. He is pro-Trump, and that is the end of it. All this is not to say that he is incapable of leading an authoritarian movement. He might be the leader of fascists without having even the principles of a fascist.)

Given the current state of the US and the world, it is important and may well be vital, that we have more, deeper, and more accessible discussions of fascism. If it is a kind, even if not so tight a kind as are protons or platypuses, it will have an internal logic which, if widely understood, would facilitate appropriate responses, perhaps even successful responses.

In the midst of the US 2016 presidential campaign, I suggested that, although there was good reason to have some fears about resurgent fascism, we should be careful not to overuse the word “fascism.”  “Much use at all,” I wrote, “would be overuse.” (https://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/2016/02/fear-of-fascism-and-fear-of-fascism.htm.) Things have changed. I still think we should be careful not to use the word “fascism” promiscuously, but now its use has become mandatory. Fascism, its description, analysis, denunciation, and programs in opposition should be at the top of the agenda.