The Unhelpful Taboo of Fascism

The First Discourseman

This isn’t meant to be clickbait, or an attempt to probe the boundaries of free speech and thought. Like most overused terms- particularly when they’re overused as an insult- definitions quickly become obscured and relegated to the side-lines, when they should be the starting point of discussion. ‘Fascist’ must be one of the internet’s favourite insults- almost synonymous with Hitler and with Nazism- but is also a regular rhetorical device of the progressive left (here’s Owen Jones asking whether Britain is ‘sliding into fascism’). One cannot hear the word fascist without thinking of anti-Semitism, vitriol, violence, perhaps evil in its most unadulterated form.

Needless to say, relatively few stop and consider the intellectual underpinnings of the ideology, or why it had (and still has) such an appeal. By defining it, the uglier side of fascism can be separated from its more valuable insights, but equally importantly it makes fascism identifiable. Like the boy who cried wolf, far-left pundits have described everything from stricter immigration policy to ham-fisted efforts of the British government to preserve national identity as evidence of imminent fascist takeover. Truth be told, the British government is too incompetent and listless to mount a fascist takeover even if it wanted to. The current Conservative government, socially and fiscally liberal, minimally nationalist and lacking clear vision for the future, could hardly be further from fascism.

To attempt a brief definition, fascism is concerned above all else with the nation state. To that end, it prioritises war and expansion, control of the economy, creation of national myth and protection of its internal identity. Bound up in that is an admiration of great men, particularly of military and national leaders. By making the state the central and final purpose, it concerns itself with the aesthetics of life, seeking to forge a certain type of person and community. On the flipside, fascism often contains racial hierarchies, extreme suppression of resistance, close control of citizens’ lives, and other classic hallmarks of dictatorships.

The initial point to emphasise about it is its roots in continental European romanticism. Despite the numerous attempts to generalise how any country might slide into fascism, fascism in Italy and Germany operated under very specific circumstances. An important requirement is developing shared national myth- the Roman Empire for Italy was based on a reality of sorts, whereas in Germany there was a decidedly fictional element to the cultural history invoked. Romanticism, nationalism and fascism share a belief in the nation state as the ideal political and cultural unit, fascism merely takes it to the extreme. In nineteenth-century Italy, liberal-international statesman Mazzini was a very far cry from Mussolini, but he inadvertently sowed seeds of fascism through his panegyrics to the Italian state. Similarly the first Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, was no fascist, but his rhetoric of ‘blood and iron’ and his expansionist tendencies went a long way to shaping Germany’s eventual slide into fascism half a century later.

For anyone convinced of the nation state’s value in operating as the highest form of functional political association, their sympathies may lie with the importance of national myth. For European thinkers versed in the romantic and nationalist philosophies of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, fascism became the corollary and endpoint of an anti-rational, anti-liberal, ardently nationalist set of values. There is a retrotopian element to fascism which, however unfounded, speaks to something deep in the human psyche. Liberal democracies avoid questions of how citizens ought to live, and shut off any pursuit of the good life through the vehicle of the state, thus unintentionally open the door wide for ideologies like fascism to find a home.

Often it is assumed dictators arise against the wishes of the population, and with only their own interests in mind. But conservatives and liberals made their own defences of authoritative leaders, often with valid premises, which again reveal the logic of fascism, both historically and theoretically. Max Weber, a conservative liberal academic, spoke at great length of the importance of leaders who could overcome the bureaucracy and intransigence of the modern state. In many ways the opposite of the American system of government, conservatives and nationalists have often exalted the leader able to rise above mediocrity and invigorate a nation overcome with bureaucratic ennui. It’s a trend that continues today- Orban and Putin, however much we like to think otherwise, are popular. There’s not the clamour for a free press and fair elections that we assume there is, because many people would rather see their country’s glory and honour restored, or a distinct national culture preserved, than concern themselves with election fraud. Again, fascism takes the idea to the extreme, but the almost mystical quality of powerful leaders who can do something, was and is an understandable desire.

A strong leader is closely linked to the most overlooked and alluring element of fascism: the cultivation of aesthetics, morals and genius. Regardless of the ability to achieve these goals, there is something instinctively attractive about a society that seeks to advance civilisation itself. Similarly, fascism’s retrotopian element emphasises family values and the archetypes of masculinity and femininity. In Germany, the exaltation of Aryan looks was just one part of a society that valued aesthetics and bound up beauty, culture and politics inextricably. As a result, the biological, hierarchical component of Nazism also emerged, highlighting the dangers of making culture, nation, aesthetics and politics equivalent in some way. However, for Germans in the 1930s, and perhaps for many disaffected groups now, there is a sense that dignity has been lost and a gaping hole has been opened, into which fascist ideology slots neatly.

In encompassing many economic values of the left too, it has the potential to overlap and supersede other creeds like communism. In both instances the state becomes the central economic force, only fascism offers so much more. Its rhetoric of restoring glory and producing high culture operates on a visceral level, whereas the dry logic of communism strips it of any thrill. Fringe, avant-garde politics has always been edgy, but fascism has a unique charm and glamour.

For those who refuse to understand it or engage with it, fascism will always be the ideology of racists, misogynists and nationalists. And in practice it may inevitably, eventually lead to the horrors of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy by its own internal logic. But it is not hard to understand its appeal, or see the truth it contains; in doing so we can try to protect ourselves from its worst tendencies. The malaise of the modern nation-state makes it ripe for destruction. Pundits catastrophised when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, leaping to label it ‘fascist’: but like nervous quiz-show contestants, the ‘fascist’ buzzer is pressed so liberally that few will be able to observe or comprehend its genuine manifestation. Fascism needs rescuing from its intellectual taboo- it is more than the ideology of the Nazi Party and its diagnosis of modernity is a helpful one. But more importantly it needs to be addressed in a serious way, to rescue it from lexical oblivion and guard against its more insidious tendencies.