The Opposite of Fascism

People play games with words. The word fascism is commonly used as a play thing. Everyone seems to agree it’s bad, but not what it is. If we don’t know what it is, it’s hard to say whether it’s good or bad, and what the opposite of it would be. Fascism emerged in the early 1900s in Italy with Benito Mussolini as the leader. Let’s start with a clear statement from him.

On 26 May 1927 Mussolini gave a speech. Here is a quote, “We here solemnly reaffirm our doctrine concerning the State, here I reaffirm no less energetically my formula from the speech at the Scala in Milan: everything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State.”

This is a clear and direct statement of belief about what fascism is from the leader and founder of fascism. We can work with this. Let’s directly reverse it first. That would be: nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. That’s a good definition of anarchism. Now, anarchism doesn’t align with human nature so it can only exist theoretically, but not practically. You end up with the problem Thomas Hobbes talks about in Leviathan from 1651, “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man.” So you end up back in the same place, fighting and oppression.

We have a need then to find something that isn’t fighting and oppression. Let’s work off of Mussolini’s original statement and adjust it again: not everything in the state, some things against the state, some things outside the state. That’s pretty good. Let’s go a little further away from Mussolini’s position: most things not in the state, many things against the state, many things outside the state. That seems like a good position to me.

Mussolini published a small book in 1932 called ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’. The first part was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile, and the second part by Mussolini himself, although it appears Mussolini took credit for all of it at least initially. We already know the central idea of fascism, this idea of everything being part of the state. Let’s go through this document and see what defines fascism as its own term and movement, then we’ll reverse those key principles to see what the opposite is.

Not everything in the book is unique to fascism. For instance, the first paragraph says that fascism is action and thought, that it arises from history, that it takes place in time and space. This applies to everything. It’s not unique to fascism, and reversing it does nothing useful. We don’t want to have non-action and non-thought from not history outside of time and space. That’s non-sensical. We have to find the things that set fascism apart.

A large amount of the writing is like this, general. From tradition to religion to working hard to forming combat groups, none of these things is unique or sets fascism apart from the norm in human society and history. In the notes of the book there are various quotes from Mussolini that are referenced. Some of these are so emphasized by Mussolini that I think they need to be addressed even though they don’t seem to be that unique.

Here is one from the notes. “I called the organization Fasci Italiani Di Combatimento. This hard metallic name compromised the whole program of Fascism as I dreamed it. Comrades, this is still our program: fight. Life for the Fascist is a continuous, ceaseless fight, which we accept with ease, with great courage, with the necessary intrepidity.” Fasci means group and combatimento means combat, so these are combat groups. The reverse of that would be peaceful individuals. I think it’s unreasonable to say that you shouldn’t be ready and able to fight. Historically the people that weren’t able to defend themselves ended up as conquered people and slaves. But the fascist wants the continuous and ceaseless fight, so wanting to not fight even if you’re able to, is the opposite.

Here is another from the notes. “When recently a Finnish philosopher asked me to expound to him the significance of Fascism in one sentence, I wrote in German: We are against the ‘easy life’!” The reverse of that would be to be for the easy life. Again though, fascism is not unique in being against the easy life. Fascist, communist, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, ancient Greek, all of these can be considered against the easy life. It seems that much of what fascism has tried to define itself as has been nothing unique, which may be part of why no one seems to know what they’re talking about when everyone is calling everyone else a fascist.

The only key thing we’ve found so far is that emphasis on the state, on everything being contained within and as part of the government. This is again emphasized in one of the notes. “We were the first to state, in the face of demo liberal individualism, that the individual exists only in so far as he is within the State and subjected to the requirements of the state and that, as civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted.” The reverse here would be to say that the individual exists without the state and without being subjected to the requirements of the state, and that as the civilization becomes more complicated the individual becomes less restricted. Mussolini even gives a term to this idea as “demo liberal individualism”.

This is an idea that Gentile emphasizes in the first part of the book as well. “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” The statement itself tells what the opposite is, the opposite of fascism is individualism and classical liberalism.

Gentile continues: “The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.” Again, the opposite is clear, for the individual to have human and spiritual values that are outside of the state, and for the state to not be totalitarian.

Gentile finishes his portion by emphasizing that fascism goes deeper than just government control of outer things. “The Fascist State, as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man. Its functions cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it. It is no mere mechanical device for defining the sphere within which the individual may duly exercise his supposed rights. The Fascist State is an inwardly accepted standard and rule of conduct, a discipline of the whole person; it permeates the will no less than the intellect.” This seems to be something like possession. He hits on this two paragraphs in a row. “Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content — man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this purpose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway.” To be the opposite of this we would need to not have the state enter and rule the soul.

Now we’re to where Mussolini takes over the primary writing. He emphasizes that there really wasn’t an explicit doctrine at the beginning, fascism is just group action that grew out of socialism, because that was the only thing he was really familiar with. Then, over time, the movement came to have its own ideas. He goes through what they reject first.

Fascism rejects pacifism. The direct opposite would be to be a pacifist. Like I stated before though, the fascist pushes for war, so it’s reasonable to be able and willing to defend without being war hungry like a fascist.

Fascism rejects Marxism. The obvious opposite would be to be a Marxist. This is an interesting problem. Many of the people that fought against fascists were anti-fascists, and the anti-fascist movement is communist and socialist. Ironically, Marxism, communism, and socialism also see the state as an all encompassing entity with the individual as just a cog in the machine, like the fascists. All of these philosophies and political systems are totalitarian and based on collectivism. The opposite of all of these is individualism and limited government.

Fascism rejects parliamentary democracy. He calls it a sham and a fraud. The obvious opposite would then be a parliamentary democracy. But there’s something more than that. He rails against the corruption and sometimes lack of freedom in parliamentary democracies. So we could say that a free and non-corrupted parliamentary democracy would be the solution.

Fascism rejects egalitarianism. The opposite would be to have equal rights before the law.

Mussolini then makes an interesting point that fascism is real democracy. I’ll include the entire section, which is one sentence. “But if democracy be understood as meaning a regime in which the masses are not driven back to the margin of the State, and then the writer of these pages has already defined Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” To flip to the opposite of this we have something like, the masses being driven to the edge of the state in an unorganized, decentralized, non-authoritarian non-democracy. That’s an interesting idea, especially if you think of a non-democracy as a constitutionally limited representative republic.

Fascism rejects economic liberalism. It also rejects political liberalism. The word comes from the Latin liber, which means free. So the opposite of fascism would be economic and political freedom.

The next section he labels The Fascist Totalitarian Vision of the Future, an intense label. Mussolini makes a correct prediction here. “If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.” This was true. The 1900s were brutal on a mass scale. The Fascists in Italy under Mussolini. Franco as dictator and a version of fascism in Spain. The Nazi movement under Hitler in Germany. Japanese imperialism. The Bolshevik Social Democratic Party and Communists in Russia and the Soviet Union. The Communists in China. After WW2 Britain went strongly socialist and nationalized many industries. And it was even true of the United States, with the centralizing of authority in the national government, the 16th amendment for federal taxation, the 17th amendment that limited state power, the implementation of expansive zoning laws, and the growth of the administrative state. The opposite then of all of these collective government movements is as Mussolini pointed out, individual liberalism.

The next section Mussolini labels The Absolute Primacy of the State. He makes the case that with economic turmoil in the early part of the 1900s the public asked for governments to do more, and so these collective movements were generally supported. The solution was simple and straightforward, give all power and authority to the government. As he puts it, “If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” Here the opposite is built into the statement already.

Mussolini is clear and hammers the point home over and over again. Fascism is about the government controlling everything. He’s also clear about what the opposite is, individual freedom. For anyone that wants to be against fascism the message of what is needed is clear, limited government.

________________________________________________

Find more at JeffThinks.com or JeffreyAlexanderMartin.com and ResetMeditation.com