The Definition of Fascism[1] The definition of fascism is notoriously difficult to pin down. The difficulty arises from the popular propensity to use the term to describe anyone and everyone with whom one disagrees. There is hardly a politician, party, or nation in existence that has not at some point been derided as "fascist." But what does this mean? [2] This problem is not new: As early as 1944, only twenty-odd years after the word's first appearance in Italian,1 George Orwell complained that the word fascism was essentially meaningless in its popular usage. Orwell wrote that he had seen the word used in print to describe all sorts of people from conservatives and nationalists to socialists and war resisters. He added, In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.2 [3] The egregious abuse of the word fascism, then, is nothing new. But is there a proper definition of fascism, or is it simply a vague, political curse word? Here, too, we can draw on the wisdom of Orwell. In his essay, he notes that "underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning." He explains, Even the people who recklessly fling the word "Fascist" in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By "Fascism" they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept "bully" as a synonym for "Fascist." That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.3 [4] In his pursuit of a definition of fascism, Orwell gives us two important insights: First, that there is broad agreement about the sort of person that a fascist is, namely, a bully who forcefully imposes his or her will on others; and second, that fascism has an oddly systemic character. For instance, if a fascist is the equivalent of a bully, is fascism the same as bullying? [5] I would suggest that the comparison breaks down here because the word fascism is not quite as closely related to bullying as the word fascist is to the word bully. Fascism also implies a kind of sympathy for the bully and a system of thought rationalizing his or her behavior. Fascism is not merely bullying but an ideology of bullying. We have no word in English to apply such a concept to simple bullies; we do not speak of the bullyism of bullies in the same way we speak of the fascism of fascists. [6] Orwell's definition of fascism is perfectly correct in so far as a fascist is a person who seeks to impose his or her will on society at large; to coherently expand his definition, fascism may be said to be the sort of society it produces, the tyranny of one over all, with the understanding that tyranny is always self-justifying in a way in which mere bullying is not. [7] A monarchy, for example, inevitably elevates the king or queen to a divinity, or at the very least, invokes a "divine right" to rule. As Edmund Burke declared, "The arguments of tyranny are as contemptible as its force is dreadful."4 Like the fascist, the tyrant is inseparable from his or her arguments. The nature of tyranny, after all, is the systemic imposition of those arguments on all who disagree. Fascism vs Totalitarianism[8] The definition of fascism is very similar to that of totalitarianism or communism, which is the tyranny of all over one. In practice, fascist dictatorships have been remarkably similar to communist regimes and the difference is strictly theoretical. As such, the political spectrum could well be regarded as circle.[9] In theory, fascism represents "perfect freedom" on the political spectrum, just as communism represents "perfect equality." This may well seem odd given that fascist and communist societies have been characterized by the total absence of what those of us from the liberal democracies would consider freedom and equality. [10] But if one imagines what perfect freedom would be like, it would essentially be the total supremacy of one individual's will over everyone else's. The fascist is perfectly free because he or she can do anything humanly possible without opposition. Similarly, those beneath the fascist's rule are perfectly equal in so far as all are equally subservient to his or her whims. 2008
|
