What exactly defines fascism, and where does it fit within the broader spectrum of political philosophy? This question extends beyond the typical association with the far-right, as outlined by the Encyclopedia Britannica:
While fascist parties and movements displayed notable differences, they shared several core characteristics: extreme militaristic nationalism, disdain for electoral democracy and political liberalism, a belief in a natural social hierarchy governed by elites, and the aspiration to forge a Volksgemeinschaft (German for “people’s community”), where the needs of the individual yield to the greater good of the nation.
This description doesn’t quite align with the conventional left-right political spectrum. For instance, the mainstream left frequently embraces communitarian ideals, prioritizing national interests over individual preferences. Moreover, its commitment to democracy and classical liberalism appears somewhat tenuous at best. Apart from its populist factions, the mainstream left maintains a hierarchy between elected officials and expert bureaucrats on one side, and the general populace on the other. When we examine socialist models like those of Nicolás Maduro or the principles of communism, the practical distinctions between these systems and fascism seem to blur. The favored political supporters of both regimes may differ, yet often overlap, as evidenced by how easily the common populace rallies to strongman figures from both the extreme left and right, sometimes even flipping allegiances over time.
This shared ground between the far-right and far-left indicates that the traditional left-right dichotomy is insufficient. The two sides have more in common than meets the eye. A more accurate representation might be a circular model, where the extremes of left and right converge on a shared arc. Alternatively, it might be that a crucial dimension is absent from this discussion. This becomes evident when we consult historians who specialize in fascism regarding the foundation of its ideology.
Consider Alfredo Rocco, a law professor and confidant of Benito Mussolini. In a 1925 address entitled “The Political Doctrine of Fascism,” which Mussolini publicly supported, Rocco declared (as quoted in Carl Cohen, Ed., Communism, Fascism, and Democracy: The Theoretical Foundations, 1972):
For Liberalism, the individual is the ultimate goal, with society serving merely as a means; it is unimaginable that the individual, valued as an ultimate end, should be reduced to a mere tool. In contrast, Fascism posits that society is the goal, with individuals functioning as instruments, using them for its collective ends. (p. 323)
Individual rights are acknowledged only insofar as they align with state rights. In this elevation of duty, we find the highest ethical value of Fascism. (324)
Or, take Benito Mussolini’s own words from his 1932 article in the Enciclopedia Italiana on “The Doctrine of Fascism” (reproduced op. cit.):
In opposition to individualism, the Fascist perspective champions the State. … It stands in contrast to classical Liberalism, which arose in reaction to absolutism and fulfilled its historical purpose once the State became the conscience and will of the people. (330)
The State is the creator of the nation, endowing the people, unified in moral consciousness, with a will and, thus, an effective existence. … The State, as the universal ethical will, is the author of rights. (331)
Fascism could be characterized as an “organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” (336)
It is likely that this century will be defined by authority, a “Right” century, a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the era of the individual (Liberalism equates to individualism), we may anticipate this one to be the century of “collectivism” and, therefore, the State. (337)
In the context of liberalism, we think of the individual; in the context of Fascism, we think of the State. (338)
In his 1936 work published by the Dante Alighieri Society of Chicago, The Philosophy of Fascism, Mario Palmieri (possibly a pseudonym) referenced a notable fascist slogan (reproduced op. cit.):
All is in the State and for the State; nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (351)
Further along, he evokes the vision of Italy once again dreaming of glory, greatness, and empire. (357)
These quotes underscore a significant truth: both fascism and communism—along with varying degrees of left and right ideologies—negate individual autonomy in favor of collective decisions dictated by the state. Both extremes share a collectivist mindset and stand in opposition to the principles of classical liberalism and libertarianism. The divergence between collective and individual choices seems to be the defining rift in contemporary ideologies.
