Fascism and ideology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the Politics series on Fascism |
|
Definition Varieties and derivatives of fascism Fascist political parties and movements Fascism in history Relevant lists Related subjects |
| Fascism Portal Politics Portal · |
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. Some specific views can be found at Definitions of fascism.
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.
[edit] Difficulties arising from the definition
Of the political ideologies considered important in recent history, fascism is one of the most difficult to define. The consensus suggests 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 controversial. 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 called "fascism" nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents.<ref name="orwell1944">George Orwell: ‘What is Fascism?’</ref>
These difficulties arise because there have been few self-identified fascists. Originally, "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 is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has little significance outside of Italian politics. But the term usually refers 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 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 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.
[edit] 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.<ref>"The Doctrine of Fascism," Benito Mussolini or Giovanni Gentile, 1932.</ref> |
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. Hubert Lagardelle, who worked together with George Sorel earlier, and was editor of the 'neo-syndicalist' Plans in 1931, became a Vichy labour minister. 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.
[edit] Fascism and Nazism
Nazism, the political movement led by Adolf Hitler in Germany, is widely viewed as a form of fascism. The Nazis shared the extreme nationalism, militarism, corporatism and anti-communism of the original Italian Fascists, and Hitler initially admired Mussolini, going as far as to copy the Roman salute used by Italian Fascists and make it the basis of the Nazi salute. However, the Nazis added racism and anti-Semitism to the original fascist ideas. The Italian Fascists were not interested in racism at first; nevertheless, they eventually began to pass anti-Semitic laws at the request of their German allies.
For these reasons, racism and anti-Semitism are not seen as necessary elements of fascism, though fascists are held to be particularly willing to adopt these views under the right conditions.
Italian Fascism and German Nazism were loyal allies in World War II, but this had not always been so. In the early 1930s there were tensions between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany over the increasing possibility of an Austria-Germany merger (Anschluss), which would create a more powerful Greater Germany. In 1934, the Austrofascist Chancellor of Austria, Englebert Dolfuss, was assassinated by Austrian Nazis, who acted on behalf of Hitler.
Furthermore, the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who is often considered a fascist, remained neutral in World War II. Hitler had supported Franco in his rise to power during the Spanish Civil War, and Franco was sympathetic to the Axis, but he refused Hitler's pleas for military assistance. This situation, together with the period of hostility between Italy and Germany noted above, is sometimes used to support the view that fascist regimes are not natural allies, and that they each tend to follow their own separate interests.
[edit] Fascism and conservatism
One of the many controversies regarding the nature of fascism is its relationship to traditional authority and conservative ideology. Fascists often claimed to defend the social order, traditional values, national culture and civilization itself, against the forces of modernity (particularly liberalism and socialism). At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.<ref>Joseph A. Leighton, "Social Philosophies in Conflict", D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937. pg. 32</ref> Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this apparent contradiction, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."<ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 2</ref>
World War I produced a great deal of social change in Europe and led to the dissolution of most traditional monarchies, including the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia. Conservatism, which drew its strongest supporters from the political, economic and intellectual elites in pre-war Europe, found itself in crisis. The established elites in Central and Eastern Europe were weakened or rendered powerless by the introduction of universal suffrage, the collapse of traditional social hierarchies and the creation of nation-states in place of the old multinational empires. At the same time, many segments of the population - particularly the rural peasantry and the skilled professionals - felt threatened by the prospect of industrialization, increased social mobility or the creation of a welfare state. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, many also felt there was a real possibility that the working class might rise up in a communist insurrection. Normally, those segments of the population would have rallied behind traditional conservatism, but with traditional conservative parties severely weakened in the aftermath of the war, there was a political vacuum on the right.<ref>Kevin Passmore, "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction", Oxford University Press, 2002. Chapter 6.</ref>
This political vacuum was filled by the rising fascist movements. They gained power and support from older conservative classes, and in some cases received direct approval from the traditional conservative parties.<ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 2</ref> The conservative British newspaper The Daily Mail published a lead article in 1934 under the title "The Blackshirts have what the Conservatives need".<ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 1</ref> The rise to power of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis was largely funded and supported by aristocratic landlords, wealthy industrialists, army officers, and other groups with strong conservative leanings. The fascists gathered this support by successfully presenting themselves as the last line of defense against liberal democracy, land reform, demilitarization and the socialization of the means of production. <ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 4</ref> Thus, many traditional conservatives were persuaded that fascism was the only realistic alternative to liberalism and socialism. A French businessman remarked in 1935, "better Hitler than Léon Blum". <ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 5</ref>
Fascism did not rely solely on the support of traditional conservative elites. It was also a mass movement, drawing its rank-and-file members from the general population, particularly the lower middle class, skilled professionals, and the peasantry. Many of these people did not come from conservative backgrounds; some of them had been strongly influenced by classical liberalism.<ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 5</ref> To its voters, fascism presented itself as a form of new and even revolutionary conservatism that could reconcile the interests of the elite with those of the common man. Fascist ideology emphasized the concept of class collaboration, which held that social inequality and hierarchy could be beneficial to rich and poor alike. The fascist model of the corporate state was decidedly different from traditional monarchy, yet claimed to be based on the same fundamental principles.
Adolf Hitler expressed the Nazi view of politics, in 1937, as follows:
| The main plank in our program is to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood.<ref>John Weiss, "The Fascist Tradition", Harper & Row, 1967. pg 9</ref> |
[edit] Fascism and totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a term used in political science to refer to an ideology or organization that aims to control every aspect of life. For technological reasons, totalitarianism became an issue only recently. Before the 20th century, communications were not fast enough to allow a central government to collect information on a large number of its citizens in real time, the mass media was not developed enough to allow the existence of all-pervasive propaganda, and weapons were not effective enough to allow a relatively small number of armed soldiers to control a much bigger unarmed population. In the 20th century those technological barriers fell, and totalitarian government became a possibility.
Many authors have argued that totalitarian governments existed in the 20th century, though there is disagreement on which governments were totalitarian and which ideologies created them. Nazism and Stalinism are the two ideologies most often considered to be totalitarian, and Hitler and Stalin are the two people most often given as examples of totalitarian leaders. They both held absolute power in their countries and had personality cults built around them. They both used similar means - extreme forms of censorship, police state tactics, and mass murder - though their goals were different. Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), was the first author to give a lengthy description of a form of government called "totalitarianism", and she asserted that the governments of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union fell under this category. However, she believed that Fascist Italy had not been totalitarian, but merely a traditional form of dictatorship which did not submit the state to the party. Other authors, such as Karl Popper, included Fascist Italy in their list of totalitarian governments.
There is an ongoing debate on whether all fascist governments and Communist states can be considered totalitarian, or whether only some of them fit this description. It has been argued, for example, that the Soviet Union ceased to be totalitarian soon after Stalin's death.
There are also critics of the notion of totalitarianism, who argue that the label "totalitarian" is too vague and tries to bring together governments that use similar methods but have little else in common. Primo Levi, for instance, 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 all had their idea of what kind of parasitic classes or races society ought to be rid of, and they all used similar means to dispose of them, Levi saw that they identified their targets by very different criteria. The Nazis assigned 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). Therefore, in Levi's view, revolutionary communists would accept the son of a wealthy capitalist as a productive member of society if he agreed to change his original social position and oppose capitalism; but to the Nazis, one born a Jew will always remain a Jew, and he is a parasite who must be disposed of.
[edit] Fascism, capitalism and socialism
Fascism itself, as an ideology, is not concerned with economics, and fascist governments have often sought the advice of professional economists who were not fascists. For instance, Hjalmar Schacht, the first Minister of Economics of Nazi Germany, was never a member of the Nazi Party. Nevertheless, there has been much debate surrounding the economic policies supported by fascists, and whether they were capitalist, socialist, or something else entirely.
Fascists themselves usually claimed to reject traditional forms of both capitalism and socialism. They argued that the implementation of fascist ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration. They believed that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists)<ref name = "Mussolini"> "The Doctrine of Fascism". Enciclopedia Italiana. (1932). Rome: Istituto Giovanni Treccani. "[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men"</ref>, but they also argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). In essence, fascists supported state-enforced inequality, which is opposed by liberal capitalists because it is state-enforced and opposed by socialists because it is inequality.
However, many opponents of fascism contend that fascist economic policies were not unique as the fascists claimed, but rather fell within the bounds of existing economic systems.
The term "Nazism" is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and some Nazis sometimes described their views as "socialist", though they strongly rejected all existing forms of socialism and particularly hated Marxism and communism, calling them "Jewish ideologies". Whether the word "socialism" in "National Socialism" was an honest description or merely propaganda meant to attract the votes of workers is a matter of debate. The Nazi Party did not have a clear economic program, and different groups within the Party had different and often contradictory views regarding economic policy. Some claimed to be on the side of workers, others claimed to be on the side of business, and there were many who said different things at different times.<ref>Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 60-69</ref> Hitler tolerated this confusion because he personally believed that the economy was unimportant<ref>Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 71</ref> and because he hoped that he could gather support from opposing interest groups if the Nazis told each group what they wanted to hear.<ref>Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 83</ref>
At first, Hitler tried to provide a definition for the "socialism" of "National Socialism" that would remove the economic implications of the word, and make a socialist identical to a nationalist. Thus, in a speech given in 1922, Hitler said:
| Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation, whoever in addition has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, to mean that nothing in the world surpasses in his eyes this German people and land, land and people - that man is a socialist.<ref>Joseph A. Leighton, "Social Philosophies in Conflict", D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937. pg 32</ref> |
Later, he grew more cynical, abandoning his attempt to redefine socialism. At a meeting of Nazi leaders in 1929, Hitler expressed regret for having integrated the word "Socialist" into the Party name:
| Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether. [...] What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.<ref>Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", Oxford University Press, 1985. pg 77</ref> |
Some commentators who oppose both Nazism and socialism have sought to establish a link between the two. Libertarian economists of the Austrian School define "socialism" as any state intervention into the economy. Thus, according to their definition, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the majority of present-day countries are socialist.
Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, Fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Also, Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist. The accuracy of that description depends on one's definition of "socialism". As noted above, Austrian economists equate socialism with statism (any kind of state intervention in the economy). However, this definition is rejected by all self-described socialists; they typically only support state interventions that are seen as promoting equality or advancing the interests of the working class. They are particularly opposed to the government granting favors to big business. Some socialists (e.g. libertarian socialists) oppose the state altogether.
Some commentators who are opposed to capitalism alongside Nazism and fascism, argue that fascist economic policies were essentially capitalist - perhaps even more so than the policies of other nations in the same time period. These views are usually based on the fact that fascism had a very close relationship with big business: fascist leaders often received significant financial support from business leaders and passed laws to the benefit of large companies. Fascists also banned strikes and trade unions, and imprisoned or executed socialist leaders. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy started a war against the Soviet Union with the aim of destroying communism.
Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew and condemned Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy, pledging to block its rise in Germany. He believed that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These actions prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against communism. When the Nazis worked in close collaboration with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working class, this was seen by most socialists as a highly capitalist economic policy. The economic interventions of the Nazi government, which were often designed to consolidate social inequality, were likewise seen as capitalist by those on the political left. The high tariffs and trade barriers imposed by the Nazi government had been a common feature of conservative economic policy in Europe for several centuries.
Industries and trusts were not nationalized 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.
Georgi Dimitrov developed the idea promoted by the Communist International that fascism is "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital."
Fascists themselves, and some of their supporters, have made statements advocating private property, individual initiative, and market economics. In 1923, soon after he was appointed as Prime Minister, Benito Mussolini promised that "the government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy." And, indeed, Italian Fascism followed a laissez-faire economic policy before the Great Depression, under the Minister of Finance Alberto De Stefani, which included the privatization of state assets.<ref>William G. Welk, "Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment", Harvard University Press, 1938. pg 163</ref> However, De Stefani was replaced with Giuseppe Volpi in 1925, and from then on laissez-faire and free trade were progressively abandoned in favor of corporatism. Benito Mussolini continued to make statements in support of private property and private enterprise. For instance, in 1934, he proclaimed that "Corporative economy respects the principle of private property. Private property completes human personality."<ref>Benito Mussolini, quoted in The Corporate State in Action (pg. 115) by Carl T. Schmidt, Oxford University Press, 1939.</ref> But policies changed. In the 1930s, the Italian government increasingly promoted monopolies and partnerships between private companies and the state. By 1939, Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises after the Soviet Union.<ref>Patricia Knight, Mussolini and Fascism, Routledge (UK), ISBN 0-415-27921-6, p. 64-65</ref>
The Italian Charter of Labour, introduced by the fascists, stated:
| The Corporate State considers private enterprise in the sphere of production to be the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the Nation.<ref>Italian Charter of Labour, quoted in The Corporate State in Action (pg. 115) by Carl T. Schmidt, Oxford University Press, 1939.</ref> |
Finally, the Italian Fascist politician Alfredo Rocco wrote:
| Fascism maintains that in the ordinary run of events economic liberty serves the social purposes best; that it is profitable to entrust to individual initiative the task of economic development both as to production and as to distribution; that in the economic world individual ambition is the most effective means for obtaining the best social results with the least effort.<ref>Alfredo Rocco, International Conciliation, 1926, pg. 404.</ref> |
[edit] Which governments were fascist?
As noted above, fascism is not well defined. As a result, the identification of specific countries and governments as "fascist" is nearly always controversial. The only two examples of fascist regimes that can be considered entirely uncontroversial are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Besides those two, a variety of other countries have been considered fascist by their supporters or opponents in the years leading up to and including World War II. Among these countries were Imperial Japan, Spain under Francisco Franco, Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar, Croatia under the Ustaše, Hungary under Miklós Horthy, and Romania under the Iron Guard.
After World War II, when the term "fascism" became highly pejorative, countries were occasionally called "fascist" only by their opponents.
A full list of governments claimed by some observers to be fascist can be found in the article Fascism as an international phenomenon.
[edit] Neo-fascism
Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neo-fascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page:
For information related to neo-fascism in the United States, see also: Christian Identity; Creativity Movement; National Alliance; American Nazi Party; William Luther Pierce; George Lincoln Rockwell. For information related to neo-fascism in Europe, see: Alain de Benoist; Nouvelle Droite; GRECE.
[edit] See also
- Fascism
- Definitions of fascism
- Economics of fascism
- Fascio (usage 1890s to World War I)
- Doctrine of Fascism
- The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle
- George Seldes, early reporter of US fascism.
- Horst-Wessel-Lied, a German song that encapsulates much of Fascist ideology.
- Fascist symbolism
- Japanese nationalism, Japanese radical Right-Nationalist ideology
[edit] References
<references/>
- Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (1992). London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-5254-X
- "Labor Charter" (1927-1934)
- Mussolini, Benito. Doctrine of Fascism which was published as part of the entry for fascismo in the Enciclopedia Italiana 1932.
- Sorel, Georges. Reflections on Violence.
- Wallace, Henry. "The Dangers of American Fascism". The New York Times, Sunday, 9 April 1944.
- Hayek, F. A. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, 50th anniversary edition, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-32061-8
- von Mises, Ludwig ((1985), Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, Libertarian Press, ISBN 0-910884-15-3
[edit] General bibliography
- De Felice, Renzo Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press, 1977 ISBN 0-674-45962-8.
- 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 0-299-14874-2
- Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.
[edit] 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 0-87855-190-5.
- 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 0-19-505780-5
- Gentile, Emilio. 2002. Fascismo. Storia ed interpretazione . Roma-Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli.
[edit] 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.)
[edit] Further reading
- Seldes, George. 1935. Sawdust Caesar: The Untold History of Mussolini and Fascism. New York and London: Harper and Brothers.
- Reich, Wilhelm. 1970. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
- Gentile, Emilo. 2003. The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-97692-0
- Black, Edwin. 2001. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation Crown. ISBN 0-609-60799-5
[edit] External links
- The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini (complete text)
- The Political Economy of Fascism - From Dave Renton's anti-fascist website
- Fascism and Zionism - From The Hagshama Department - World Zionist Organization
- Fascism Part I - Understanding Fascism and Anti-Semitism
- Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt - Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics of Fascism, originally published 1995.
- Site of an Italian fascist party Italian and German languages
- Site dedicated to the period of fascism in Greece (1936-1941)
- Text of the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
- Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler by Jacques R. Pauwels
