Unpicking Fascism: A Response to The First Discourseman

The Second Discourseman

The First Discourseman recently wrote an article in which he sought to establish an understanding of fascism beyond its contemporary usage as a slur against right-wing politics. He did so successfully – too successfully, perhaps. As he unpicked fascism as being ‘concerned above all else with the nation state’, including the ‘creation of national myth’ and ‘admiration of great men’, I wondered whether progressive Internet warriors might be on the money after all.

True, the current government is at heart liberal, but in its conquest of the Red Wall it is increasingly adopting patriotic attitudes and left-wing economic policies which seem to echo my friend’s nuanced description of fascism. So are we under the grip of Nazis? Of course not. The reality is that we are considering a spectrum, which broadly speaking concerns the view of the nation state; fascism hogs the nationalistic end of the scale. As we travel along this spectrum, we meet much which is admirable, and the far end of the road besmirches these waypoints no more than the spectre of communism invalidates all socialist thinking. But, just as with communism, the sight of fascism looming ahead should cause us to walk with measured pace. 

To give a concrete example, it is of course ridiculous to call Nigel Farage a Nazi; but it is not ridiculous to recognise that he has values common with fascism, to consider the outcome of those ideals in history, and so to be wary of the man. Equally, one may decide that Farage’s politics are to one’s taste, and are not so extreme that they must be associated with fascism’s dark past. I have not said much of substance here, except to emphasise The First Discourseman’s point that it is unhelpful for fascism to be a taboo term, since its extremity can be a useful tool for both critiquing and more deeply understanding nationalism⁽¹⁾. Such a tool is important, with large swathes of national opinion – and, however performatively, the government – heading in a populist direction.  

Thus far I have been guarded and much too kind to my fellow blogger. After what I have said so far, could fascism be a mere tool for political thinking? Both recent history and current trends suggest it is something much more potent. In that case, does it need ‘rescuing’, simply to be separated from ‘its more insidious tendencies’, to quote The First Discourseman? From my traditionalist, patriotic viewpoint, such an approach is plausible; and yet I would not touch fascism with a bargepole. (If you are wondering, this is a highly original statement, for which I should be applauded). 

Plausible is indeed the word – fascism is just some vague area further down the scale of nationalism, within sight of where I currently stand. At this point, I wish to veer wildly off-piste and bring in the apostle Paul’s defence of his preaching to the Corinthians, in which he declares that his teaching of the gospel was not in ‘plausible words of wisdom’. From what I can gather, the Greek word translated ‘plausible’ may just mean persuasive, but it does have the sense of credibility, of a message which is reasonable and logical; Paul spurns such a message in favour of the ‘folly’ of the cross. This has nothing to do with fascism – well, almost nothing – but Paul’s approach is useful. Plausibility is not sufficient; in our case, cold reason alone cannot extricate fascism from the evil done in its name. 

And as it happens, Paul’s defence does have further relevance here. He characterises the cross as not just foolish (by human assessments), but also as weak: ‘God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong’. The Alpha and the Omega, Jesus Christ, took frail flesh and died a humiliating death. This is the antithesis of fascism, which glorifies strength and despises weakness. The historian Tom Holland argues, in his and Dominic Sandbrook’s excellent podcast on fascism, that it is in fact an almost uniquely anti-Christian ideology because of this view of weakness (see also Holland’s article on Nazism). Sure, fascism may be plausible, but it is profoundly contrary to the way in which the Lord Jesus calls us to follow him. 

Furthermore, it is this central aspect of fascism that led to the horrors with which it is associated. The Holocaust was not something that just happened to be committed by fascists; it was an inherently fascist genocide, the extermination of those seen as sub-human infiltrators of the Aryan race. And it is one that occurred in living memory. 

So as a vivid, meaningful depiction of traditionalist and nationalist values, discussion of fascism is useful to both their adherents and their critics. As an ideology to be seriously considered? You can chew the meat and spit out the bones if you like, but I’d say this is one case where societal convention is spot on, and the carcass should be chucked straight in the bin.

1. Here and elsewhere I use the word ‘nationalism’ in a broad sense, as a category which compasses simple patriotism right through to explicit xenophobia.