What Is Fascism, Anyway?

It's the vexed question that’s corrupting American politics

---

In his famed 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell observed that “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.” As usual, Mr. Orwell was well ahead of the curve. Not just the Ogre Trump but every Republican president and presidential candidate since Nixon has been reviled by American progressives as a Nazi and a fascist. The charge has become a staple of progressive rhetoric, and it raises a question: Exactly what is the comrades’ definition of fascism?

We have feminist icon and notable conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf to thank for supplying the answer in her 2007 book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which purported to prove that President George W. Bush & Co. were Nazis—not metaphorically but in the flesh. For the benefit of those progressives who might balk at reading a whole book, Wolf summarized her case in a list, “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps.” It ranges from 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy through 5. Harass citizens' groups to 10. Suspend the rule of law. Ms. Wolf’s attempt to link her ten steps to the policies and actions of the Bush Administration were, to put it as politely as possible, a bit of a stretch. But what about the list itself? Is it an accurate thumbnail description of fascism?

The answer is yes, that as far as it goes Wolf’s list is accurate enough. Surely no one would deny, for example, that 9. Dissent equals treason was a characteristic feature of German National Socialism. But come to think of it, the principle that dissent equals treason was hardly unique to National Socialism or to fascist regimes in general. The equation of dissent with treason was also central to Russian Bolshevism—and Stalin, no fascist, took it farther than Hitler ever did. Then there’s 2. Create a gulag. This can only be characterized as a careless choice of words on Wolf’s part, since once again it’s associated with the Worker’s Paradise, not the Greater German Reich.

And that’s the trouble with Wolf’s list: It’s vague and general, hence useless as an analytical tool. In whole or in part, her ten steps to fascism are applicable to any regime of an authoritarian character, from Fascist Italy to Communist North Korea. This takes us back to Orwell’s observation that the very word, fascism, has been leeched of meaning. But if it’s not reducible to a bullet-pointed list, what is the definition of fascism? The answer, I believe, is that abstract definitions like Wolf’s tell you little about fascism. You should consult history instead, and there you will find the record of various fascisms, which though they have some points in common also exhibit striking differences.

Let’s compare and contrast Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany. Yes, the two regimes had points in common: a charismatic leader at the head of a militant and militaristic movement, an ethos of blood-and-soil nationalism, a deep hatred of liberal democracy and traditional institutions, and above all the exultation of violence. In practice, however, they were not much alike. In Fascist Italy, racial ideology played a secondary role; in Nazi Germany it was the dominant theme. Italian Fascism’s conception of nationalism was fairly conventional: Italy was to takes its rightful “place in the sun” by building up power and using it to create a modern Roman Empire based largely on colonial expansion in North Africa and the Middle East. But National Socialism’s racial ideology was far more radical. It rejected traditional conceptions of German nationalism, envisioning a transnational Eurasian state that would embody all peoples classed as “Aryans,” while reducing to second-class status, enslaving, or eliminating the rest.

Though Franco’s Spain is usually lumped in with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, its status as a fascist regime seems doubtful. Franco himself, an army general who led a military revolt against the Spanish Republican government, was not the charismatic leader of a mass party. His support came mostly from the traditional Right: large landowners, industrialists, military officers, the Catholic Church. The Spanish fascist party, the Falange Española Tradicionalist (Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx or FET) had only a few thousand members in 1936. Franco simply co-opted the FET, merged it with the far larger Carlist Comunión Tradicionalista and set it up as the political face of his regime. After the Civil War the Falange was declared to be Spain’s sole legal political party. But compared with Nazism or even Italian Fascism it exhibited scant ideological élan, and over the course of Franco’s rule the Falange declined in influence and membership.

Thus it seems wrong to describe as fascist an authoritarian regime that bases itself on a nation’s traditional elites. In many ways, indeed, traditional institutions of a conservative character are inimical to fascism. That was why the Nazi Party, channeling Hitler’s personal prejudices, despised and distrusted Germany’s conservative old guard and the institutions they dominated. Once they gained power the Nazis gradually undermined the independence of those traditional institutions—the Army, the judiciary, the state bureaucracy, big business—subordinating them to the developing Nazi party-state.

Nazism, no less than Communism, was a revolutionary movement, though based on racial rather than class categories. Like Communism, it preached the destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a new society. Italian Fascism shared some of these aspirations, but Mussolini’s regime developed along different, less radical lines. Rival power centers—the monarchy, the armed forces—remained intact, eventually to connive in his downfall. But in Nazi Germany Hitler largely succeeded in eliminating all competitors for power, so that when he and his regime fell they took the whole nation down with them.

Few of the people who launch charges of fascism against their political opponents are familiar with the record of historical fascisms, and this is the great weakness of Naomi Wolf’s ten-step recipe for fascism. It’s a specimen of the pseudo-academic drivel so often to be found on MSNBC or the op-ed page of The New York Times, based on memes and slogans instead of historical analysis.

But as the invaluable Mr. Orwell put it: Ignorance is Strength. If you don’t know anything about fascism, you can call George W. Bush or Donald Trump or Ann Coulter a fascist. You can compare ICE and the US Border Patrol to the SS. You can decry Fascist Amerikka and even denounce Israel as a fascist state—all this with a clear conscience, because you’re a complete ignoramus. That, indeed, is your strength.

The poison spread by such ignorant extremism—the rhetoric not only of dim-bulb progressives but of Trump and the MAGA crowd—is a leading cause of the moral and intellectual rot afflicting contemporary American politics. Calls for unity, bipartisanship, moderation, and compromise ring hollow indeed when they come from quarters where no difference can be found between Dick Cheney and Heinrich Himmler, or between Bernie Sanders and V.I. Lenin. This thought crossed my mind yesterday as I watched our ridiculous president blather on about “mega-MAGA extremism.” Way to maintain the standard, Joe…