Fascism and ideology

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.

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.

Difficulties arising from the definition

Main article: Definitions of fascism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fascism and conservatism

There is some controversy regarding the ideological impact of the conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction against communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail newspaper enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. Fascism relied heavily on the idea of restoring and defending national values and traditional ways of life. Many conservatives found this message appealing. On the other hand, fascists also proposed a new model of government, based on the concept of a one-party state rather than traditional monarchy. This was a source of conflict between fascists and some monarchist conservatives. When defeat in World War II ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco regime and Portugal's Estado Novo in the 1970s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism was further weakened.

Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in America who support the military and even call for increased military spending, but even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives. Left-wing activists and intellectuals often claim that, like Hitler, neoconservatives see the military as a paradigm for problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or unethical).

The relationship of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents, particularly in countries with a fascist past. In Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified neo-nazi groups. In Italy, there is no clear line between conservatives and movements inspired by Italian Fascism. Some right-wing political parties, such as Alleanza Nazionale (which was a member of the governing coalition under ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi), call themselves "post-fascist" and claim to draw upon the principles of classical fascism without being fully fascist.

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.

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), 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. 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. 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.

Others, particularly those 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.

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 his rise to power, Benito Mussolini promised that "the government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy." Eleven years later, in 1934, he repeated: "Corporative economy respects the principle of private property. Private property completes human personality."

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.

Finally, 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.

Fascism and the United States

(More contemporary forms of fascism are discussed on the page Neo-Fascism).

While some people hold the view that there are certain fascist elements operating within the United States, very few scholars would call the U.S. a fascist country. Nonetheless, cases have been made both for and against this allegation, typically from those on the left and right of the political spectrum. Most of the discussion about 'American fascism' concerns America during the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, a time when fascism was on the rise throughout Europe and became a popularly known political phenomenon, resulting in comparisons between the United States and fascist nations such as Italy. Kolko, for example, saw some parallels between Mussolini, Hitler, and Roosevelt. In 1954, however, Richard Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR’s N.R.A. and fascist corporatism.^[1]

Primarily from the political left are those who point to the Business Plot, which was an alleged attempt to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt by military coup, allegedly because the widespread popularity of the New Deal threatened the interests of the industrial and financial elite. The Business Plot became popularly known following 1933, when retired General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee that he had been approached by a group of wealthy business interests, led by the Du Pont and J. P. Morgan industrial empires, to orchestrate a fascist coup against Roosevelt. The Fascist sympathies and support for Germany and Italy of many of the richest families in America and payments to William Randolph Hearst for favorable articles in the American press were mentioned in American ambassador to Germany William Dodd's letters to FDR. The idea of fascism developing in the United States was presented in the 1935 satirical novel It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis and more recently in the 2004 Phillip Roth novel The Plot Against America.

On the other hand, some on political right, particularly libertarians and supporters of the free market, argue that particularly during Roosevelt's successive terms in Government introduced fascism to America. This view is nearly entirely based on an anti-statist criticism of the New Deal, which makes socialism, fascism and any form of state intervention ideologically equivalent (Comparisons are drawn between the cartelisation of Italian industry by Mussolini and the 'cartelisation' of American industry by Roosevelt under the National Recovery Act, which was ruled as an unconstitutional usurption of Legislative power by the Executive Branch.) Critics of Roosevelt's economic policy like John T. Flynn saw major links between the 'generic' fascism and a large number of policies of the United States. President Ronald Reagan argued that many New Dealers admired Benito Mussolini's Fascism.^[2] The fascist economic model of corporatism, however, promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to socialism.

Historical view from the Right

Some libertarians and conservatives argue that the U.S. has been imposing a fascist system of government since the New Deal. The central argument is that while similar to state socialism in its authoritarianism, fascism prefers state control over ostensibly private property rather than nationalization as carried out by Roosevelt. According to Joseph R. Stromberg:

"More recently, historians have taken a second look at the actual structural parallels in these corporatist experiments. While it is now generally agreed that corporatism survived the demise of fascism, it can also be asked whether fascism survived its supposed death."

In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in "As We Go Marching," where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to what he called uncomfortably similar American policies.

For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were:

• 1) unrestrained government;
• 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
• 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
• 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
• 5) state control of the financial sector;
• 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
• 7) militarism, and
• 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62).

Flynn then argued that these all existed under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258).

"Pragmatic American liberalism had produced 'a genteel fascism' without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas." - Joseph R. Stromberg, Fascism: Déjà Vu All Over Again

Since 1959 the John Birch Society has promoted the idea that the New Deal was a form of collectivism borrowed from fascism and leading toward communism, often wrapping the package in conspiracy theory. For example, William P. Hoar says the "economics of Fascist Italy were...imported into this country by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose C.C.C., W.P.A., PWA. and other Depression-era schemes proved so damaging." He quotes President Herbert Hoover criticizing FDR's programs, in his memoirs, as being fascist: "Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933 .... [these ideas] were adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. During the campaign of 1932, Henry I. Harriman, president of that body, urged that I agree to support these proposals, informing me that Mr. Roosevelt had agreed to do so. I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini's corporate state' and refused to agree to any of it. He informed me that in view of my attitude, the business world would support Roosevelt with money and influence. That for the most part proved true." Hoar says, "As was the case in corporate socialist Italy, and Germany, American corporations were financing and organizing corporate socialism right here in the United States in an effort to consolidate and control, i.e., monopolize, the wealth and productivity of the American economy for themselves. This was the essence of the New Deal."(Hoar, William P. Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History, Western Islands, 1985, p. 127)

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President of the United States, he expressly adopted a variety of measures to see which would work; including several which their proponents felt would be inconsistent with each other. One of these programs was the National Recovery Administration, which, with its codes and industry organizations, bore a certain resemblance, as an economic institution, to Mussolini's syndicalism. This was a commonplace comparison at the time, and not necessarily a critical one; even Winston Churchill had moderately praised Mussolini. In partisan ^[3] or eccentric moments, this might be extended to political likeness. When the NRA was found unconstitutional, many within the New Deal, including Adolf Berle and Harold Ickes, did not regret its passing.^[4] In the 1960s historians generally maintained that the NRA was a composite based on input from only Americans--it was modeled after the 1917 War Industries Board of Woodrow Wilson; Hawley found no European models whatever. (Ellis Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly 1966, ch 1) Hugh Johnson, from that board, had helped draft the NRA and was its first head, but he vehemently denied any Italian inspiration.

Historian Benjamin Alpers concludes [Alpers 35]:

A second major source of the decline of dictatorial rhetoric following the spring of 1933 was the disenchantment of American business with the Italian economic model. Much conservative business support for a dictator or a "semi-dictator" had been related to the idea of establishing a corporative state in the United States..... The last gasp of support for Mussolini's solution to the problems of labor and management may have been the publication of Fortune magazine's special issue on the fascist state in July 1934. Business approval of government intervention in capital-labor relations had begun to wear off as the business community began to actually experience it under the NRA; it discovered that such an arrangement, at least in its American incarnation, meant state involvement in business, not self-government by wealth....After 1935, business journals began to equate fascism with communism, denouncing both the Italian system and the NRA as "state socialism." At exactly the same moment liberal supporters of Roosevelt began to deny the similarity between the NRA and fascism.

Some Austrian School economists have since made similar claims about other aspects of the New Deal; for example, Sheldon Richman's sentence on the AAA ^[5] This line of argument has also been adopted by Bosnian Serb spokesman and historian, Srđa Trifković who says that "Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust," the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism - a term which was not pejorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor." ^[6] Other historians who have analyzed the origins of the AAA in depth have discovered no inspiration from Europe. (Theodore Saloutos, The American Farmer and the New Deal (1982)].

Critics of New Deal policies who make the comparison with fascism do not always argue that these policies acquired their roots in European fascism but held significant economic preferences shared by European fascism. However, as the New Deal did not share all of the cultural and nationalistic sentiments of European regimes, the resulting ideology in America had its own peculiarities.

These matters are further discussed in the New Deal entry.

References

1. ^ From an earlier essay, collected in Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 65.
2. ^ For example, Reply to Press Inquiry, Palo Alto May 15, 1935
3. ^ See, inter alia, Harold L. Ickes Autobiography of a Curmudgeon 1943
4. ^ Eddlem, Thomas R. Introduction. And Not a Shot is Fired by Jan Kozak, Appleton, WI: Robert Welch University Press, 1999.
5. ^ Richman, Sheldon Fascism Concise Encyclopedia of Economics 1993, 2002.
6. ^ Trifkovic, Srdja. FDR and Mussolini Chronicles magazine, August 2000.
7. ^ Buchheim, Christoph and Scherner, Jonas. The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry University of Mannheim, Germany.
8. ^ "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism". New York Times. December 22, 1981. p. 12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Sources

• Richard M. Ebeling, When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America
• Richard M. Ebeling, Don't Blame the Thermometer for the Fever Freeman Magazine, 1999. This article refers to the NRA, not the rest of the New Deal
• John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth, by , San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes, 1998. [ISBN 0930073274]Book Review
• John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, Doran, 1944).
• Friedrich A. Hayek, (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, [includes Ludwig Von Mises as contributor] (London: Routledge, 1935).
• Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1944).
• Ludwig Von Mises, Omnipotent Government, the Rise of the Total State and Total War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944).
• Ludwig Von Mises, Planned Chaos (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y: Foundation for Economic Education, 1947).
• Ludwig Von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, (Princeton, N.J: Van Nostrand. 1956).
• Lawrence Reed, Great Myths of the Great Depression Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
• Hans F. Sennholz, “The Great Depression,” The Freeman (April 1975): 212-213; quoted in Lawrence W. Reed, “Great Myths of the Great Depression” above.
• FDR Scandal Page
• Fireside Chat on Reorganization of the Judiciary, March 9 1937.

Which governments were fascist?

Main article: Fascism as an international phenomenon

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.

Neo-fascism

Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neo-fascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page:

• Neo-Fascism
• Neo-Nazism
• Neofascism and religion
• Dominionism

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.

See also

• 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

References

• Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (1992). London: Pimlico. ISBN 071265254X
• "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 0226320618
• von Mises, Ludwig ((1985), Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, Libertarian Press, ISBN 0910884153

General bibliography

• De Felice, Renzo Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press, 1977 ISBN 0674459628.
• 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 0299148742
• Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.

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 0878551905.
• 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 0195057805
• Gentile, Emilio. 2002. Fascismo. Storia ed interpretazione . Roma-Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli.

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.)

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 0275976920
• Black, Edwin. 2001. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation Crown. ISBN 0609607995

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