What is fascism and what place does it occupy in political philosophy? As reflected in Brenanica Enyclopedia, I’m bored with that question more than the standard identification on the extreme right.
Fascist parties and movements are very different from each other, but they had many common characteristics, such as extreme militaristic nationalism, a contespation of electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, belief in natural social hierarchies and elite domination, and a desire to create a desire to create creation (German: “community of people”).
This characterization does not fit well with the traditional left and right axes of the political spectrum. For one thing, it is rather doubtful that the mainstream left entertains community beliefs and, at least in the classic sense, prefers devotion to democracy and liberalism. Apart from populist variants, the mainstream left delights the hierarchy between the elected office and the professional bureaucrats on one side and the masses on the other side. Finally, looking at socialism and communism such as Maduro, the practical difference with fascism is thinner. The preferred political constituency of the two regimes differs from the Butokuten overlap. For example, the public can easily gather behind a strong person on the extreme left or extreme right, and even move from one to the other over time.
The relatives between the extreme right and extreme left suggest that the left and right axes of the conventional axes are not satisfactory models. The left and right share more than they are obvious. A suitable simple model is the circle where the extreme left and extreme right meet in the general arc. Alternatively, there is a missing important dimension SEM. This becomes rather obvious when you ask historical fascism experts about the fundamentals of ideology.
Alfredo Rocco was a law professor and friend of Benito Mussolini’s ads. In his 1925 speech, Mussolini said, “The Political Doctrine of Fascism.”[d] Rocco declared (eds. Carl Cohen, as reproduced in Communism, Fascism, and Democracy: Theoretical Fundamentals, 1972):
For liberalism, individuals are the end, and society is the means. It is also not thought that an individual would be lowered for mere tools, taking into account the dignity of the ultimate finish. For fascism, society is the end, individuals are the means, and their life is to use individuals as means for social ends. (p. 323)
Individual rights are collected as long as they are implied by the rights of the state. In this excellence of duty, we find the highest ethical value of fascism. (324)
Or ask Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism himself. In an article in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932 on the “Doctrine of Fascism,” I explained (op.cit.):
The concept of fascist is for the state, against individualism. …It opposes classic liberalism, which arises from the poor people of Ajin’s absolutism that reacted, ending its historical pure purpose when the nation transformed into the conscience and will of the people. (330)
A nation is created by the nation, given to its people, and is conscious of its own moral unity, will, and therefore effective existence. …In fact, the state is the creator of rights as a universal ethical will. (331)
Fascism can be defined as “organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” (336)
This century may be the authority of the “right” fascist century, the authority from the century. If 19 years old is an individual’s century (liberalism means individualism), then one might expect this to be the century of “collectivism,” and therefore the century of the nation’s century. (337)
When people say it, people say it individual. When someone says it, a person says the state. (338)
In his 1936 book published by the Dante Alighieri Association of Chicago, the philosophy of fascism, Mario Palmieri (probably a pseudonym), cited the famous fascist motto (op. cit.):
Everything is in states and states. Out of state there is nothing, nothing to the nation. (351)
A little further away, the author evokes
Another vision of Italy dreaming of glory, dreams of greatness, and empire. (357)
What these show is that both fascism and the commune — and another extension, right and left — invalidate the choice so that it is subordinate to the collective choice made through the state. Both the left and right are collectivists, opposed to classical liberalism and liberal individualism. This distinction between group and individual choices that are the main fractures in modern ideology.
