We occasionally encounter words that seem to have a clear substance, yet slip through our fingers like sand the moment we try to grasp them. If we were to pick the most representative of such words in the history of political science, it would undoubtedly be "Fascism."
Hitler’s Swastika, Mussolini’s Roman salute, and the crowds gathered in public squares sending up frenzied cheers—we know the "images" of fascism all too well. Yet, when faced with the question, "What exactly is fascism?" even the greatest minds of the era blushed as they put forward completely clashing answers.
Some called fascism "thugs hired by capitalists to protect their vested interests" (the Comintern thesis), while others described it as "a frenzied mass movement created by wounded petty-bourgeoisie" (Togliatti). Still others diagnosed it as "an independent monster, free from class, controlled by neither capitalists nor workers" (Thalheimer and Guérin).
When diagnoses diverge so drastically to opposite extremes, could it be that the concept of fascism is nothing more than an imaginary illusion? Are we fighting a ghost that doesn’t even exist?
Chameleons Have No "Original Color"
Make no mistake: fascism was real. However, the reason we fail to define it every single time is that fascism was not a fixed ideology, but a chameleon that changed its body depending on "the situation and power."
Marxism has Das Kapital, and liberalism has The Wealth of Nations—solid theoretical texts. For them, ideas were born first, and movements arose to realize those ideas. But fascism was the exact opposite. They possessed no sophisticated doctrine. There existed only one purpose: "the acquisition of power."
Before seizing power, early fascism stole the hearts of the petty-bourgeoisie and the masses by shouting for workers’ rights and advocating anti-capitalism. Yet, the moment they reached the threshold of power, they shook hands with big landowners, mega-corporations, and the military, brutally crushing the labor movement.
Depending on the point in time and the angle from which it was viewed, fascism was at times revolutionary, and at others, deeply reactionary. Since it had no fixed form, the very attempt to define it in a single sentence may have been an impossible challenge from the start.
A Servant of the Ruling Class, or an Uncontrollable Monster?
The most intriguing debate surrounding fascism is: "Who is the master of that monster?"
The perspective that the establishment unleashed the hound of fascism to protect their wealth when capitalism was on the brink of collapse (the instrument theory) is quite intuitive. In fact, capitalists provided massive funding to Hitler and Mussolini.
However, historical truth was not that simple. This is because the hound called fascism soon broke its master’s leash and escaped. As time passed, the fascist regimes went beyond merely representing the interests of capitalists, driving the entire nation into frenzied war and ruin. It was a runaway train that even the capitalists had not wanted.
Ultimately, fascism was nobody’s servant. In the midst of the taut conflict between class and capital, it was an "uncontrollable monster" that seized the opportunity to swallow state power whole.
A Historical Cancer Fed on Contradiction
Fascism bizarrely blended values that could never coexist in reality.
While gathering millions in public squares to whip them into a passionate frenzy (mass dictatorship), actual decision-making took place solely in the hands of a single dictator. While worshiping state-of-the-art radio propaganda technology and missiles, the sentiments they put forward were primitive myths like "Blood and Soil" and the "Resurrection of the Roman Empire."
This terrible contradiction is the very essence of fascism. Fascism is not a normal ideology, but closer to a "political cancer cell" that bloomed amidst a societal crisis. Because it constantly mutated by exploiting the vulnerabilities of normal cells, doctors (scholars) had no choice but to offer different prescriptions and diagnoses for this single cell.
Therefore, there is no need to be disappointed just because we cannot bind fascism into one neat definition. Rather, understanding its contradictions, its deceptiveness, and its elusive, chameleon-like nature itself—that may be the only way we can properly face the ghost of fascism in history and ensure we never wake the monster again.
Leave a Reply