Sunday, January 26, 2020

Original Fascism

Over the last decade, several countries around the world have elected right-wing governments. Opponents of these governments and concerned commentators have described the swing to the right as the rise of Fascism. I have often wondered whether this is an accurate description or hyperbolic alarmism on the part of liberal and left-leaning critics.

A big difficulty to note upfront  is that Fascism is notoriously hard to define precisely. Umberto Eco, the Italian philosopher and author (of The Name of the Rose fame), in a 1995 essay on Fascism, captures this well:
Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions. 
George Orwell noted, as early as 1944, that the term had already been applied to conservatives, socialists, communists, Trotskyists, Catholics, war resisters, war supporters, and anti-imperial nationalists. Today,  it retains that flexibility: the first insult that is hurled at anyone showing authoritarian tendencies is "fascist pig".

In order to use the phrase accurately, it seems worthwhile to explore the early history of the two cases that set the template: fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

Fascism first arose in Italy, around the time of the first world war, and came to the world's attention in the 1920s, when the Nationalist Fascist Party rose to  power.  It emerged as an offshoot of socialist politics in Italy, but turned rabidly anti-socialist and anti-marxist. It's economic platform kept changing. The term itself arises from the Italian word fascio, used in Italy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for a political group or league of workers. The word means  a bundle of sticks, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. The idea was that a bundle indicates strength in its unity.

In 1914, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria (League of Revolutionary Action), supporting Italian intervention in the first world war with the Italian nationalist goal of reclaiming lands with Italian speaking populations (such as Trieste and Dalmatia) from Austria-Hungary. In 1919, after the end of the war, the name was changed to Fasci italiani di combattimento (Italian league of combatants). The league gained the support of Italian war veterans, among them the Arditi (The Daring), shock troops used during the war. The black shirts worn by the Arditi were later adopted by Mussolini's paramilitary.  In November 1921, the league was renamed the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party). This was the organization that helped Mussolini to power in 1922 after the March on Rome.  Over the course of the next few years, Mussolini converted Italy into an ultra-nationalist, totalitarian and militaristic state, with himself as the dictator.

In Germany, a related ideology emerged in the aftermath of the first world war. In January 1919, the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party) was founded by Anton Drexler. The party's views were ultra-nationalist: it opposed the Treaty of Versailles, it believed in the superiority of Germans as part of an Aryan master race, and it was strongly antisemitic. Even though it was a small party, with fewer than 60 members, the German army grew suspicious, and sent Adolf Hitler to infiltrate it. He attracted the attention of the party leaders with his oratory and soon joined them. In early 1920, he became chief of propaganda for the party.  In February 1920, the party was renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party") or NSDAP. The term "Nazi" was a short form of of the German male name Ignatz and used as slang for a peasant,  or clumsy person. Political opponents shortened a part of the party's name, Nationalsozialistische, to the derogatory "Nazi".  Party members generally did not call themselves Nazis.

The party's program clearly laid out its major themes of extreme German nationalism and antisemitism. In 1921, Hitler became the sole and absolute leader of the party, and took the title of Führer ("leader"). In the same year, the paramilitary wing of the party, the Sturmabteilung ("Storm Detachment") or SA was formalized. It consisted of ex-soldiers and others used for protection at meetings as well as for violent attacks against other political parties and opponents. They wore brown uniforms, which led to them being called Braunhemden, or Brownshirts. In 1925, the Schutzstaffel ("Protection Squadron") or SS was established. The SA and SS were the organizations responsible for intimidation, violence, torture, murder, and eventually, genocide.

Germany's economic problems during 1921 to 1923 coincided with increasing membership of the Nazi party. Hitler and his party decided to mount a coup, starting with Munich in Bavaria, with the hope that the army would support their takeover of power. This did not happen, and Hitler was arrested in the aftermath of the failed attempt. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but served only nine months before being released in December 1924. During his prison term, he wrote his book, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle").

Over the next few years, the reconstituted Nazi party continued to grow significantly. It even participated in elections, but didn't do very well, getting only 2.6% of the vote in 1928. However, its vote share grew to 18.3% in 1930, its support rising due to the severe economic disruption caused by the Great Depression - from 1929 to 1933, nine million people were thrown out of work, and wages fell drastically. The Nazis blamed all of this on Jews and communists and promised economic revival and a return to German greatness. In the July 1932 elections, the Nazis won 37.4% of the vote. Since no party had obtained a majority, another round of elections were held in November 1932, with similar results. In January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. Following a fire at the Reichstag (Legislature) building in February 1933, the Nazis claimed that a communist conspiracy planned to overthrow the government. Hitler moved rapidly towards suspending civil liberties and dismantling any trace of democracy. The Enabling Act of March 1933 allowed him to rule via decree for four years. All other political parties were abolished in July 1933.  After the President's death in August 1934, Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor, thus becoming both head of state and head of government.

Both Fascism and Nazism led to aggressively expansionist military dictatorships. Today's right wing governments are unlike fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in those respects, but share other characteristics with the two primary exemplars of Fascism. I list some of these below:
  • Extreme nationalism
Central to both Italian Fascism and Nazism was a belief in national glory. They justified their territorial claims and military adventures with a purported need for "living space", using the  terms spazio vitale  and lebensraum respectively.
  • Group identification of enemies
The Nazis were rabidly antisemitic, and thought that the Jews were responsible for everything wrong with their world. The Italian fascists were not as rabid as the Nazis regarding the Jews, but they regarded all left-wing movements as their enemies. This had its roots in their belief that all socialist political movements opposed Italian intervention in World War I and Italian nationalism in general.
  • Employment of violence and intimidation
The fascists had their Blackshirts, the Nazis their Brownshirts.  During the years 1920 to 1922, the fascists carried out thousands of acts of intimidation and violence, which included beatings, killings, and humiliations (see this for a brief, but vivid description).  In Germany, the SA fought in the streets with political opponents, intimidated Jews, Roma, and any other groups described as “enemies of Germany.” In 1931, more than 8,000 people were injured or killed in political violence in Germany (more details about the SA here).
  • Veneration of a glorious past, strong sense of current decline, promise of revival
Italian Fascism saw an Italian empire as a successor of the Roman empire and Renaissance Italy. The Nazis believed that they descended from the master race of the Aryans, who, through migration, had been responsible for most cultures and civilizations, including the Greek, the Iranian, and Indian.
  • Extensive use of propaganda and a cult of the leader
Mussolini was glorified ceaselessly in fascist Italy, which made extensive use of propaganda. Among its slogans was Mussolini ha sempre ragione ("Mussolini is always right").  The Nazis used propaganda even more extensively, if anything. Hitler recognized its value in Mein Kampf
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. ... All propaganda must be presented in a popular form ... The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. 

7 comments:

hari said...

Vijay,

Very good summary! I think that almost all concepts in social sciences are slippery, e.g., capitalism, communism, democracy etc. Beyond high-school textbook definitions or treatises by Marx/Adam Smith etc., in the real world there are lots of variations of these concepts. So fascism is perhaps no different. The two examples you cite are from early 20th century Europe, but I think we can find more examples in Africa or other civilizations if we stretch our scope.

I think it's also useful to look at why fascism emerged. Wasn't it a response to some large section of society unhappy? The "liberal order" that emerged as a reaction to it, is not a comparison for obvious reasons. But in late 20th century, the so-called secular/liberal principles got co-opted by capitalists who are also inflicting similar outcomes, while keeping their hands clean.

It's a horrible analogy, but, isn't fascism on the rise today because the liberal-order-free-market crap has left a lot of people behind? Isn't that similar to early 20th century?

Instead of talking about fascism/theocracy vs. liberal-secularism, shouldn't the discussion be focused on how to create a more inclusive society, and learn from the large-scale "experiments" in Europe in the 20th century?

In India, my guess is that Hindus feel threatened by the rise of more organized religions worldwide. Secularism / atheism is not an alternative for a whole host of reasons.

I could go on if you think it's useful :-)

Keep writing!
Hari

VP said...

Thanks, Hari.

You are of course right that social science concepts are slippery. My sense though is that Fascism was a particularly incoherent political movement because other than extreme nationalism and violence, it had no particular ideology.

My reason to choose Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was to pick out the two original cases, to see what is common between them and other movements we loosely label as fascist.

You raise important questions about why fascism emerged originally and why it is on the rise today. It does seem to be the case that it plays on resentments felt by large fractions of a majority group. Is this simply because of economic displacement? I am not sure about that. Certainly worth some thought, and perhaps another blog post, with specific case studies.

As for India, there are very specific historical circumstances (such as the long periods with Muslim rulers and the 1947 partition) that might account better for the resentments felt by the Hindus. So, my initial reaction to your guess that "Hindus feel threatened by the rise of more organized religions worldwide" is that it is far-fetched :-)

I love reading comments and responding to them. Please keep them coming. In fact, if you don't mind writing posts, I am happy to make this a multi-author blog. Let me know.

hari said...

Maybe you should attempt a definition of Democracy and see if it's any less slippery :-) Sweden, Iran and Russia all have elections.

Regarding Fascism, I think it's important to be a bit more precise in the criticism.

A term/movement is not incoherent if it mobilizes a large number of people and is incredibly/horribly efficient and effective. That's the whole point of a concept in social science, to mobilize and effect change, not to seek reusable precision like we try in natural sciences or when writing software. By contrast, liberal secularism, is stuck in academic salons :-(

The thinking for a follower of Fascism was to correct some wrongs, and violence was okay because the injustice was so egregious, and perhaps people were tired of liberal democracy not working. The ideology was not just blind violence. Nationalism is fine imho, people like to feel proud about their heritage.

As for why it's on the rise today, at least in U.S., the "red counties" / "base" are in the disenfranchised midwest "rust belt", so it looks like economic displacement to me. The more interesting question is why do we have to unite just based on phenotypic characteristics :-) surely there must be a way to simplify this message.

As for India, yes hindu-muslim riots happened even when we were growing up. Is it the same today, or has resentment evolved because the muslim/islam "brand" has evolved with a more violent strain and people see evidence of it gaining more traction?

Not sure about writing original posts - sounds like a lot of disciplined research and thinking - much easier to respond to prompts. Thanks for the nudge though :-)

VP said...

Precision in definition is not the goal here, so there is no point trying to contrast the concepts here with those in the natural sciences. It might be useful to recall the parable of the four blind men trying to describe an elephant: each one feels a different part of an elephant and describes it. Think of me as one of the blind men: I am making no claim to precision or completeness.

Having said that, even within political science, where it is implicit that concepts are fuzzy compared to the natural sciences, it is an acknowledged fact that Fascism is particularly difficult to describe. One main reason is that the original movement, Italian Fascism, kept changing its ideas frequently, which were in any case quite contradictory in themselves. This is what I mean by incoherence. The only constants were extreme nationalism and violence, and those were enough to get them a large following. The sad thing about the world is that seems to be the case with many societies at different points in time.

I think an explanation that fascists took to violence because "injustice was so egregious, and perhaps people were tired of liberal democracy not working" is a bit too facile. Precisely what injustice was this? In what sense was liberal democracy not working? How was brutal violence against opponents resolving these problems?
And violence (typically called "action" or "direct action") was very much a part of their ideology and modus operandi.

Regarding your statement that "Nationalism is fine imho, people like to feel proud about their heritage", it might be useful to note a few important points:


1. Nationalism is not simply equivalent to people feeling proud of their heritage. It can easily devolve into chauvinism, jingoism, and militarism: apart from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, another example is pre-war Japan.

2. IN any case, I have been careful to use the qualifier "extreme", in order to emphasize that nationalism becomes virulent when it is used to hound minorities

3. Anti-imperial nationalism, as in pre-independence India, Indonesia, or Vietnam, is worth appreciating, because it was fundamentally a fight against injustice.

On the topic of India, while you pose a question, it seems to me that you are inclined to the possible explanation that Hindu resentment has 'evolved because the muslim/islam "brand" has evolved with a more violent strain and people see evidence of it gaining more traction'. I think this is an unlikely explanation, even though the degree of resentment and hatred have been amplified by incidents of terrorism and the dominance they achieve in the headlines. The chronology is the main issue here: the resentment spiked in the mid 1980s with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, well before Islamist terrorism in the rest of the world became a major problem.

hari said...

Vijay,

(1) I just don't see the point of trying to define Fascism. What is your underlying goal? To take another example - republicans & democrats - democrats were the party of the south in early 20th century, and Lincoln was a republican. Republicans used to be the "fiscally responsible party". The lesson for me is that parties are pragmatic beasts, their goal is to win elections. Principles/ideology/frameworks are for academics it seems.

I suspect a similar thing with Nazis. They did whatever was necessary order to do wrest justice back for the "true Germans". What's the point of trying to define the word and contain it?

(2) From my little understanding, in early 20th century, there was rampant amoral capitalism, and lot of people being left behind or economically displaced in this "creative destruction process". These disenfranchised groups found home in these new movements. Is that wrong? Middle-class people with stable incomes don't get off their couch!

(3) Agree, Nationalism can turn ugly. Usually the minority is more unified and coordinated, and the majority unifies as a reaction "after they've had enough". I've always been a foreigner, even in India, I lived everywhere except in Andhra. So I probably don't understand the majority psyche. Ability to protect minorities/weak, recognition of human dignity, that seems to be a simple test for a civilized society. But a well-organized minority should probably also has some responsibility - not sure what...

VP said...

(1) The goal is not to try and get a precise definition. As I say early on in the post, people use the label "fascist" far too flexibly. Knowing the history allows one to decide whether the label is justified in any given case. That's it. I don't know how to explain this any better.

(2) I don't know whether this thesis is wrong, but I don't know if it is right either! It sounds plausible, but would be more convincing with some evidence. From my reading, I gather that from 1914 onwards, there was a strong surge of nationalism in almost all European countries, which persisted even after the end of WW I. I see the extreme nationalism as the primary cause for the popularity of fascist ideas, though in Germany, this certainly coexisted with severe economic disruption. I don't know if that was the case with Italy.

(3) I can't think of examples where the minority is "more unified and coordinated", but perhaps you have some in mind. Also not sure what you mean by a well-organized minority having some responsibility. Responsibility for what? Again, examples would help me understand.

Namit said...

Good framing of the topic. Thanks.