Jump to content

Fascism and ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 138.162.5.12 (talk) at 19:32, 8 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There are numerous debates concerning fascism and ideology and where fascism fits on the political spectrum. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves.

Since the end of World War II, there has been considerable stigma associated with fascism, and few political groups in the past 60 years have openly identified themselves as fascist. As a result, fascism is often used as a term of abuse, a label used by people of all political views to insult their enemies (usually an Ad hominem). This has spilled over into debates concerning the ideological nature of fascism, with adherents of some ideologies trying to draw parallels between fascism and their own ideological opponents. A common fallacy is Reductio ad Hitlerum, which is any argument along the lines of "Hitler (or fascism) supported X, therefore X must be evil". See also Godwin's Law. For the reasons outlined above, claims of a relationship between fascism and certain other ideologies (including those cited in this article) must be treated with caution.

Difficulties arising from the definition

Main article: Definitions of fascism

Of all the political ideologies considered to be important in recent history, fascism is perhaps the most difficult to define. There is a general consensus that fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but not every authoritarian ideology is fascist. It is often said that fascism is right-wing authoritarianism, but this is not very specific, since the term "right-wing" itself is vague and subject to controversy. Various scholars have sought to define fascism, and a list of such definitions can be found in the article definitions of fascism. Some, such as George Orwell, have stated that "fascism" has become nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents.

All these difficulties arise from the fact that there have been relatively few self-identified fascists. In its original meaning, "fascism" referred to a political movement that existed in a single country (Italy) for less than 30 years, and ruled the country from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Clearly, if the definition of fascism is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has very little significance outside of Italian politics. But the term is most often used to refer to a variety of nationalist movements that existed in Europe during the 1920s and 30s - most notably German Nazism and clerical fascism - which are deemed important because they were largely responsible for World War II and the Holocaust. However, most of these movements rejected the label of "fascism" and, indeed, claimed to be unrelated to each other. Each of them typically claimed to be derived from the specific traditions of its country of birth.

This poses a challenge to any attempt to describe the relationship between fascism and other ideologies, since "fascism" itself is more of a category of similar political movements than a unified ideology.

Adding to the challenge, a great variety of different political leaders across the world have been described as "fascists" by their opponents in the decades after 1945, and there are also a number of small fringe groups that claim to follow the tradition of pre-1945 fascists (these are usually called neo-fascists). To avoid confusion, the present article focuses on political movements described as "fascist" prior to World War II, while touching only briefly on post-1945 issues. In addition, most of the fascist views discussed in this article are only shared by some, not all, political movements identified as fascist.

Fascism and the political spectrum

A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes. The traditional (and most widely used) political spectrum consists of a single axis going from "left" to "right".

The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right. Fascists themselves sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether (see International Third Position). They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term "leftism" for their enemies.

In The Doctrine of Fascism, an essay signed by Benito Mussolini which was meant to convey the basic principles of Italian Fascism, it is stated:

Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.[1]

After World War II, the only relevant self-proclaimed fascist party in Italy, the Italian Social Movement, called itself "National Right".

However, many scholars of fascism, including Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber, are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neo-fascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

  • Laqueuer (1996): "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223.
  • Eatwell (1996) talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39.
  • Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right-wing ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201.
  • Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." ([1964] 1982), p. 8.

According to these scholars, as well as Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970), there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the "fascist minimum", but, nonetheless, fascism, especially once in power, has historically attracted support primarily from the political right.

The left influences in fascism are claimed to originate in the fact that several prominent theorists of fascism began their political careers as syndicalists, anarchists, or a combination thereof. Philosophers such as Robert Michels, Sergio Panunzio, and Giovanni Gentile were former syndicalists; Gabriele D'Annunzio was a former anarchist and Alceste de Ambris had been influenced by anarcho-syndicalism. Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor have argued that syndicalism played an important role in shaping early Italian Fascism. Benito Mussolini himself was fond of radical politics in his youth but could not settle on a specific ideology. He spent some years writing for a socialist newspaper before World War I, but his support for the war when it broke out and his strong feelings of Italian nationalism caused him to reject socialism. He spent the war years without a definite political cause, and later began setting the foundations for what would become the fascist movement. By the time he gained power, many of his old comrades on the left were the first targets of his political police.

The definitions of "left" and "right" are themselves quite fluid. There are a number of conservative and libertarian scholars who argue that fascism was actually a left-wing movement - among them Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and John T. Flynn. Their argument is based on a view of the political spectrum that equates "left" with support for increased government power and "right" with opposition to the same. Under this view, fascism would be left-wing and anarchism, for example, would be right-wing. However, there are many other competing interpretations of the left-right spectrum.

In recent decades, a large number of multi-axis political charts have emerged, in an attempt to correct the perceived shortcomings of the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. Most of these charts use two axes that are meant to measure two independent variables, though some add a third axis as well. Depending on the variables used, fascism has been placed in various positions on these charts. The Eysenck model considers that fascism lies at the intersection of moderate conservatism with extreme tough-mindedness. The political compass marks fascism as extremely authoritarian in its social outlook but only moderately right-wing in its economic policies. The Nolan chart places fascism in the extreme populist corner, slightly offset towards conservatism. And on the Pournelle chart, fascism appears as the combination of strong statism and strong irrationalism.

Fascism and totalitarianism

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases this has taken the form of arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism. They condemn both groups as dictatorships and totalitarian police states. They argue that communist states have had much in common with fascist states, in matters ranging from militarism to censorship. In addition, both Hitler and Stalin committed mass murder of their country's civilians who did not fit in with their plans. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

Hannah Arendt asserts that Nazism and Stalinism are two forms of totalitarianism, and that "totalitarian movements use socialism and racism by emptying them of their utilitarian content, the interests of a class or nation." (The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, page 348). Arendt, however, excludes Italian Fascism from that classification, claiming that it was a traditional form of dictatorship which didn't submit the state to the party (see the second section on Imperialism).

Most other authors have included Fascism in the definition of totalitarianism, among them Karl Popper and others. However, neither Arendt nor Popper challenged the prevailing perception of communism being on the left and fascism on the right.

Proponents of communism argue that the Marxist concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is not the same as the fascist concept of dictatorship. Dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to mean workers' democracy: dictatorship by the working class, rather than the dictatorship by the capitalist class that Karl Marx claimed existed in the capitalist societies of his time.

They claim that this concept was distorted under Stalin, in a deviation from Marxism, to mean dictatorship by the General Secretary over the Party and the working class. Opponents of Communism, however, argue that the Soviet Union was already dictatorial under Lenin.

According to David Nolan's Nolan chart, "fascism" occupies a place on the political spectrum as the capitalist equivalent of communism, wherein a system that supports "economic liberty" is constrained by its social controls such that it becomes totalitarian.

Fascism, Nazism, socialism, collectivism, and corporatism

Italian Fascism clearly had roots in socialist circles, and Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers Party", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as socialist. Thus, a number of people believe that Nazism were forms of socialism, or that there are similarities between fascism and socialism or communism. This connection has been rejected to by virtually all who consider themselves socialist in any sense other than "national socialism", then and now.

Much depends on the definition that one chooses to give to the term "socialism". Definitions of socialism can range from the very restrictive to the very broad; for instance, some libertarian writers use the word "socialism" to mean any state interference in the economy, regardless of the ideology behind it.

Critique by the Austrian School

Nazism is seen as a variant of socialism by the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Nobel prize winner Friedrich Hayek. In Omnipotent Government, von Mises lays out the case that the National Socialists were simply one of many possible forms of "socialism in practice," the Soviets another. They both pursued similar goals, including controlling their internal prices and wages (autarky), but the Germans simply didn't have the resources. Since the Germans had already learned the hard way in WWI that colonialism would not work, their only alternative was to absorb their neighbors. This line of argument is supported by the prognostication laid out in the "Eastern Policy" chapter in Mein Kampf.

Hayek argues that the differences between nazism and totalitarian forms of socialism, such as Stalinism, are rhetorical rather than actual. In particular, he states that the economic preferences of the nazis mirrored those of the socialists and communists. For example, all three put in place capital controls, wage and price controls as means of controlling the economy (and, subsequently, the people as Hayek's Road To Serfdom claimed). He found the distinctions to be nothing more than rhetorical differences in the justifications for why these economic preferences are put in place: to protect the lower class in class warfare, or to protect the interest of the state. Such rhetorical differences are therefore said to be negligible compared to the outcomes of the state economic control used by the three ideologies.

Hayek argued in The Road to Serfdom that central planning, as Hayek believed was required in any socialist nation, led inevitably toward totalitarianism. He claimed that Nazism was the logical outcome of central planning, not an aberration. One of the supports of his argument is the socialist pedigree of many of Hitler's intellectual forerunners, including Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Werner Sombart, and others[1].

In 1947, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises published a short book entitled Planned Chaos. He asserted that fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships and that both had been committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. He argued that Mussolini's major heresy from Marxist orthodoxy had been his strong endorsement of Italian entry into World War I on the Allied side. (Mussolini aimed to "liberate" Italian-speaking areas under Austrian control in the Alps.)

Response to Austrian School

Under an ideological definition of Socialism — for example one stating that only a system adhering to the principles of Marxism can qualify as socialist — there is a well-defined gap between Nazism and socialism. Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialism, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

For socialists who consider democracy a core tenet of socialism, Nazism is often seen as a polar opposite of their views. Primo Levi argued that there was an important distinction between the policies of Nazi Germany and those of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China: while they were all arguably totalitarian, and all had their idea of what kind of parasitic classes or races society ought to be rid of, Levi saw the Nazis assigning a place given by birth (since one is born into a certain race), while the Soviets and Chinese determined their enemies according to their social position (which people may change within their life). There are many other philosophical differences betwen Nazism and Marxism.

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly before their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the leader principle or Führerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler, thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after 1933. This is compared to the behavior of certain Communist states such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China.

Critics of this view point out that Mussolini imprisoned Antonio Gramsci from 1926 until 1934, after Gramsci, a leader of the Italian Communist Party and leading Marxist intellectual, tried to create a common front among the political left and the workers, in order to resist and overthrow fascism. Other Italian Communist leaders like Palmiro Togliatti went into exile and fought for the Republic in Spain.

Collectivism and corporatism

While fascist states generally allowed private property at least in name, many libertarian economists see similarities between the state intervention in fascist economies and that of socialist or even communist nations. Some economists like the Objectivist George Reisman argue that the National Socialist economy was "de facto socialism" due to extensive governmental control over nominal private property, noting especially the presence of wage and price controls. [2] Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, however, argue that the view that private property in the Nazi economy existed in name only is incorrect. They hold that while there was substantial central planning of private industry, the severity of the restrictions did not arise to the level of rendering private property a mere formality. Buchheim and Scherner describe the system as a "state-directed private ownership economy." [3] Thomas R. Eddlem, a journalist with the John Birch Society, argues that private property in a fascist economy is "simply heavy government regulation and control of what is only nominally private property." [4].

Under an economic definition — for example one stating that socialism is any economic system based on extensive central planning of the economy and public ownership over the means of production — the distinction becomes less clear. Advocates of the view that Nazism was a typical instance of socialism often hold a broad definition of socialism; for example, they may argue that many forms of economic interventionism by the government necessarily constitute socialist policy. In contrast, socialists sometimes describe this as state capitalism.

Industries and trusts were not nationalised in Nazi Germany, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. The Nazis did however demand 'voluntary' contributions from these private companies which were more often than not paid.

Nevertheless, efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state-owned concerns such as Volkswagen. The Nazis also engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the Autobahn system. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes, much like the labour practices of State Communism. The Nazi war economy, large public works projects, demand for total employment, and state interventions such as the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 [5] involved strong state intervention in the economy.


Critics of corporatism (ranging from libertarian economists Mises, Flynn, and Hayek to socialists such as Gabriel Kolko and anarchists such as Kevin Carson), argue that fascism is in some ways similar or even identical to corporatism.[6].

Fascism and the United States

(More contemporary forms of fascism are discussed on the page Neo-Fascism).

While some people hold the view that there are certain fascist elements operating within the United States, very few scholars would call the U.S. a fascist country. Nonetheless, cases have been made both for and against this allegation, typically from those on the left and right of the political spectrum. Most of the discussion about 'American fascism' concerns America during the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, a time when fascism was on the rise throughout Europe and became a popularly known political phenomenon, resulting in comparisons between the United States and fascist nations such as Italy. Kolko, for example, saw some parallels between Mussolini, Hitler, and Roosevelt. In 1954, however, Richard Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR’s N.R.A. and fascist corporatism.[7]

Primarily from the political left are those who point to the Business Plot, which was an alleged attempt to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt by military coup, allegedly because the widespread popularity of the New Deal threatened the interests of the industrial and financial elite. The Business Plot became popularly known following 1933, when retired General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee that he had been approached by a group of wealthy business interests, led by the Du Pont and J. P. Morgan industrial empires, to orchestrate a fascist coup against Roosevelt. The Fascist sympathies and support for Germany and Italy of many of the richest families in America and payments to William Randolph Hearst for favorable articles in the American press were mentioned in American ambassador to Germany William Dodd's letters to FDR. The idea of fascism developing in the United States was presented in the 1935 satirical novel It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis and more recently in the 2004 Phillip Roth novel The Plot Against America.

On the other hand, some on political right, particularly libertarians and supporters of the free market, argue that particularly during Roosevelt's successive terms in Government introduced fascism to America. This view is nearly entirely based on an anti-statist criticism of the New Deal, which makes socialism, fascism and any form of state intervention ideologically equivalent (Comparisons are drawn between the cartelisation of Italian industry by Mussolini and the 'cartelisation' of American industry by Roosevelt under the National Recovery Act, which was ruled as an unconstitutional usurption of Legislative power by the Executive Branch.) Critics of Roosevelt's economic policy like John T. Flynn saw major links between the 'generic' fascism and a large number of policies of the United States. President Ronald Reagan argued that many New Dealers admired Benito Mussolini's Fascism.[8] The fascist economic model of corporatism, however, promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to classic socialism.

Historical view from the Right

Some libertarians and conservatives argue that the U.S. has been imposing a fascist system of government since the New Deal. The central argument is that while similar to state socialism in its authoritarianism, fascism prefers state control over ostensibly private property rather than nationalization as carried out by Roosevelt. According to Joseph R. Stromberg:

"More recently, historians have taken a second look at the actual structural parallels in these corporatist experiments. While it is now generally agreed that corporatism survived the demise of fascism, it can also be asked whether fascism survived its supposed death."

In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in "As We Go Marching," where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to what he called uncomfortably similar American policies.

For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were:
  • 1) unrestrained government;
  • 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
  • 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
  • 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
  • 5) state control of the financial sector;
  • 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
  • 7) militarism, and
  • 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62).
Flynn then argued that these all existed under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258).

"Pragmatic American liberalism had produced 'a genteel fascism' without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas." - Joseph R. Stromberg, Fascism: Déjà Vu All Over Again

Since 1959 the John Birch Society has promoted the idea that the New Deal was a form of collectivism borrowed from fascism and leading toward communism, often wrapping the package in conspiracy theory. For example, William P. Hoar says the "economics of Fascist Italy were...imported into this country by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose C.C.C., W.P.A., PWA. and other Depression-era schemes proved so damaging." He quotes President Herbert Hoover criticizing FDR's programs, in his memoirs, as being fascist: "Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933 .... [these ideas] were adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. During the campaign of 1932, Henry I. Harriman, president of that body, urged that I agree to support these proposals, informing me that Mr. Roosevelt had agreed to do so. I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini's corporate state' and refused to agree to any of it. He informed me that in view of my attitude, the business world would support Roosevelt with money and influence. That for the most part proved true." Hoar says, "As was the case in corporate socialist Italy, and Germany, American corporations were financing and organizing corporate socialism right here in the United States in an effort to consolidate and control, i.e., monopolize, the wealth and productivity of the American economy for themselves. This was the essence of the New Deal."(Hoar, William P. Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History, Western Islands, 1985, p. 127)

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President of the United States, he expressly adopted a variety of measures to see which would work; including several which their proponents felt would be inconsistent with each other. One of these programs was the National Recovery Administration, which, with its codes and industry organizations, bore a certain resemblance, as an economic institution, to Mussolini's syndicalism. This was a commonplace comparison at the time, and not necessarily a critical one; even Winston Churchill had moderately praised Mussolini. In partisan [9] or eccentric moments, this might be extended to political likeness. When the NRA was found unconstitutional, many within the New Deal, including Adolf Berle and Harold Ickes, did not regret its passing.[10] In the 1960s historians generally maintained that the NRA was a composite based on input from only Americans--it was modeled after the 1917 War Industries Board of Woodrow Wilson; Hawley found no European models whatever. (Ellis Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly 1966, ch 1) Hugh Johnson, from that board, had helped draft the NRA and was its first head, but he vehemently denied any Italian inspiration.

Historian Benjamin Alpers concludes [Alpers 35]:

A second major source of the decline of dictatorial rhetoric following the spring of 1933 was the disenchantment of American business with the Italian economic model. Much conservative business support for a dictator or a "semi-dictator" had been related to the idea of establishing a corporative state in the United States..... The last gasp of support for Mussolini's solution to the problems of labor and management may have been the publication of Fortune magazine's special issue on the fascist state in July 1934. Business approval of government intervention in capital-labor relations had begun to wear off as the business community began to actually experience it under the NRA; it discovered that such an arrangement, at least in its American incarnation, meant state involvement in business, not self-government by wealth....After 1935, business journals began to equate fascism with communism, denouncing both the Italian system and the NRA as "state socialism." At exactly the same moment liberal supporters of Roosevelt began to deny the similarity between the NRA and fascism.

Some Austrian School economists have since made similar claims about other aspects of the New Deal; for example, Sheldon Richman's sentence on the AAA [11] This line of argument has also been adopted by Bosnian Serb spokesman and historian, Srđa Trifković who says that "Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust," the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not pejorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor." [12] Other historians who have analyzed the origins of the AAA in depth have discovered no inspiration from Europe. (Theodore Saloutos, The American Farmer and the New Deal (1982)].

Critics of New Deal policies who make the comparison with fascism do not always argue that these policies acquired their roots in European fascism but held significant economic preferences shared by European fascism. However, as the New Deal did not share all of the cultural and nationalistic sentiments of European regimes, the resulting ideology in America had its own peculiarities.

These matters are further discussed in the New Deal entry.

References

  1. ^ From an earlier essay, collected in Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 65.
  2. ^ For example, Reply to Press Inquiry, Palo Alto May 15, 1935
  3. ^ See, inter alia, Harold L. Ickes Autobiography of a Curmudgeon 1943
  4. ^ Eddlem, Thomas R. Introduction. And Not a Shot is Fired by Jan Kozak, Appleton, WI: Robert Welch University Press, 1999.
  5. ^ Richman, Sheldon Fascism Concise Encyclopedia of Economics 1993, 2002.
  6. ^ Trifkovic, Srdja. FDR and Mussolini Chronicles magazine, August 2000.
  7. ^ Buchheim, Christoph and Scherner, Jonas. The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry University of Mannheim, Germany.
  8. ^ "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism". New York Times. December 22, 1981. p. 12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Sources

  • Richard M. Ebeling, When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America
  • Richard M. Ebeling, Don't Blame the Thermometer for the Fever Freeman Magazine, 1999. This article refers to the NRA, not the rest of the New Deal
  • John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth, by , San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes, 1998. [ISBN 0930073274]Book Review
  • John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, Doran, 1944).
  • Friedrich A. Hayek, (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, [includes Ludwig Von Mises as contributor] (London: Routledge, 1935).
  • Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1944).
  • Ludwig Von Mises, Omnipotent Government, the Rise of the Total State and Total War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944).
  • Ludwig Von Mises, Planned Chaos (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y: Foundation for Economic Education, 1947).
  • Ludwig Von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, (Princeton, N.J: Van Nostrand. 1956).
  • Lawrence Reed, Great Myths of the Great Depression Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
  • Hans F. Sennholz, “The Great Depression,” The Freeman (April 1975): 212-213; quoted in Lawrence W. Reed, “Great Myths of the Great Depression” above.
  • FDR Scandal Page
  • Fireside Chat on Reorganization of the Judiciary, March 9 1937.

Fascism and Conservatism

There is some controversy about the ideological impact of the conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Roman Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in World War II ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco regime and Portugal's Estado Novo in the 1970s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism was further weakened.

Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in America who support the military and even call for increased military spending. Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives. Left-wing activists and intellectuals often claim that, like Hitler, Neoconservatives see the military as a paradigm for problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or unethical).

The relationship of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents, much as that between communism to left-wing ideologies is for liberals. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920s to 1940s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which was a member of the governing coalition under ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.

Fascism and police state regimes

The fascist states from the period between the two world wars were police states as were many post-WWII communist states. Conversely, there have been multi-party socialist states that have not been police states, and non-socialist states that have been police states.

Examples of police states in modern times, outside of the Communist world, include:

Neo-Fascism

Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neofascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page:

See also

References

General bibliography

  • De Felice, Renzo Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press, 1977 ISBN 0674459628.
  • Hughes, H. Stuart. 1953. The United States and Italy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 0299148742
  • Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.

Bibliography on Fascist ideology

  • De Felice, Renzo Fascism : an informal introduction to its theory and practice, an interview with Michael Ledeen, New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Books, 1976 ISBN 0878551905.
  • Laqueur, Walter. 1966. Fascism: Past, Present, Future, New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Griffin, Roger. 2000. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.
  • Schapiro, J. Salwyn. 1949. Liberalism and The Challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France (1815-1870). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Laclau, Ernesto. 1977. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London: NLB/Atlantic Highlands Humanities Press.
  • Sternhell, Zeev with Mario Sznajder and Maia Asheri. [1989] 1994. The Birth of Fascist Ideology, From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution., Trans. David Maisei. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1990. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195057805
  • Gentile, Emilio. 2002. Fascismo. Storia ed interpretazione . Roma-Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli.

Bibliography on international fascism

  • Coogan, Kevin. 1999. Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Autonomedia.
  • Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Weber, Eugen. [1964] 1982. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, (Contains chapters on fascist movements in different countries.)

Further reading

Conserative & Libertarian

Wikiquote has quotations related to Fascism and ideology.

Conservative & Libertarian

  1. ^ "The Doctrine of Fascism," Benito Mussolini or Giovanni Gentile, 1932.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fascism_and_ideology&oldid=68458290"