Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Fascist ideologies are almost always defined as traditionalist, in terms of nationalism and religion.
Would a political ideology that involved the fascist-style authoritarianism and collectivism but did not rely on the traditionalist concept of nationalism and religion (e.g., was secular) and invented its own definition of collective independently of traditional ethnicity, still be considered fascism? Or would that be considered communism?
Defining fascism is a needlessly difficult exercise. One of George Orwell's essays attempts this, explaining that the practical and philosophical differences between the fascist regimes of the time confused the issue. That most people would readily accept "bully" as a synonym for "fascist" makes it harder still. He went on to say:
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.
That was true in 1944, and is still true today. Both Bush Jr. and Obama were often referred to as "fascist" by their opponents, further making a mockery of any attempt to use the term meaningfully.
However, here is a link which cites various academics who have published books on the matter. It is worth reading but I shall point out the core ideas and elaborate upon them.
Professor Michael Mann defined fascism's core beliefs: The transcendence of the people and state into one, which cleanses itself of dissent and diversity by force. The fascist view is that the state is not a means to an end; it is the end. Fascists also believe that their nation is superior, and this can be demonstrated by the use of force against its enemies.
RJB Bosworth defined fascism based on what Mussolini said. This is important since Italy was the first fascist regime. Mussolini should not be considered the absolute source of all things fascism; because he wasn't, but he's a good start.
To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.
Fascism is far more of a unique ideology than many think. Some of these oddities have been summarised by Stanley Payne. Fascists are against individuality; the expression of liberty, and view individuals only in relation to their people.
What's more, fascism regards violence as a moral imperative; which is distinct from other ideologies which accept the use of violence as a means to an end, but do not promote violence in itself as morally good. This is tied to their belief in the necessity of revolutionary rebirth, which is to say that there must be a revolution; because only the strong who can seize power should rule (fascists are anti-democratic).
This belief in national rebirth also opposes tradition; which attempts to return to an imagined past, and should not be confused with fascist veneration of their culture. Fascists want to completely recreate the state and its people in their image; they are radically anti-tradition.
In addition to being anti-liberal and anti-conservative, fascism is opposed to socialism, trade unions, and communism especially. Partly because of the fascist rejection of class conflict, and also because of their rejection of the premise that all people are equal. This is why it is referred to as "third way" politics; neither first (liberal-conservative) nor second (socialist-communist).
Some fascists are often conflated with conservatives; like Franco, and there is a legitimate academic question of whether Franco and the Falangists were quintessentially fascist, owing to their alliance with the aristocracy and church. Nonetheless fascism, like any other thing, can't be defined by its exceptions. So to conclude: fascism is unique and cannot be confused with nationalism per se, it is anti-conservative and so cannot be defined as traditional or religious. Fascism is generally radical and secular.
Yes, the concept of fascism is fuzzy enough that, while traditionalism is quite an important element, it is not imperative. As a note, since you mentioned religion, consider that Nazism, probabilly the most famous fascism, is usually seen as anti-Christian and neo-pagan.
I suggest reading 1995 Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism. It outlines a list of fourteen features of what Eco calls Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. They are very useful to recognize new fascisms as they approach.
Cult of tradition is listed as feature #1; specifically a syncretistic cult of tradition, one that combines different forms of believe, even tolerating contradictions. Quoting the essay:
One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
Rejection of modernism as an implication of traditionalism is feature #2.
Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
However, note that not all features need to be present in order to identify a fascist regime, movement or ideology. In fact, Eco explains:
These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
and
Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
