- The Washington Times - Sunday, August 28, 2005

The eminent arrival of fascism is a favorite theme of American political scientists. Some even believe It Has Already Happened Here.

I don’t know what will happen Sept. 3 at the American Political Science Association Panel 3 under the theme “Is It Time to Call It Fascism?” But I would like to help Professor Dvora Yanow of California State University, Hayward, the panel chairman answer the panel’s question: “Is there a theoretical-definitional grounding to make a claim for the present U.S. administration as fascist, and is it useful, critically, to use that language at this point in time?”

First, fascism had its academic theoreticians but in fact fascism, as a concept, has no intellectual basis nor did its founders even pretend to have any. Adolf Hitler’s ravings in “Mein Kampf,” Giovanni Gentile’s hortatory article in the Italian Encyclopedia, Benito Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as “an amalgam of disparate conceptions.” It is about this “amalgam” that Professor Henry Ashby Turner Jr. has written:

“Anyone who reads many studies of fascism as a multinational problem cannot but be struck by the frequency with which writers who begin by assuming they are dealing with a unitary phenomenon end up with several more or less discrete subcategories. Regardless of what criteria are applied, it seems very difficult to keep fascism from fragmenting.

“In spite of this, there has been a general reluctance to consider what must be regarded as a definite possibility: namely, that fascism as a generic concept has no validity and is without value for serious analytical purposes. … The generic term fascism is in origin neither analytical nor descriptive.”

The Russian extremist politician, Vladimir Zhirinovsky (whatever became of to him?) was called a “fascist.” But as Professor James Gregor wrote: “In what sense Zhirinovsky is a fascist is difficult to say with any intellectual conviction.”

Yet “fascism” still has meaning in democratic societies as seen in the fracas a few years ago over Austria’s Joerg Haidar.

Labeling someone you dislike a “fascist” is still a popular polemical sport: Call someone a communist and proof is demanded. Even with proof, you risk being called a Red-baiter. Call someone a fascist and that’s enough to convict.

In the lexicon of the left, there is nothing lower than a “Red-baiter” but there is no such person as a “fascist-baiter.” We’ve all heard about “communist hysteria,” especially during the McCarthy era, but there is no such thing as “fascist hysteria.” The name-calling got a little ridiculous when in the 1969 Sino-Soviet split, Moscow and Beijing called each other fascist.

Having combed their literature, Professor Gregor has shown beyond a shadow of doubt the affinities, too long ignored, between fascism and Marxism-Leninism. (It was Don Luigi Sturzo who provided the reductio ad absurdum: Fascism was black communism and communism was red fascism.)

Richard Pipes has written that “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.” Recalling that Mussolini began his political career as a distinguished Italian socialist, Professor Gregor writes: “Fascism’s most direct ideological inspiration came from the collateral influence of Italy’s most radical ‘subversives’ — the Marxists of revolutionary syndicalism.”

Even Nikolai Bukharin, the leading Soviet ideologist purged by Josef Stalin, began to have misgivings about the Revolution and to allude to the emerging system’s fascist features.

Says Professor Gregor: “By the early 1930s, the ‘convergence’ of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike. … By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. ‘…

“Fascist theoreticians pointed out that the organization of Soviet society, with its inculcation of an ethic of military obedience, self-sacrifice and heroism, totalitarian regulation of public life, party-dominant hierarchical stratification all under the dominance of the inerrant state, corresponded in form, to the requirements of fascist doctrine.”

Left liberals have never dared face the fact Marxism-Leninism and fascism, V.I. Lenin and Mussolini had a common origin.

Arnold Beichman, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a columnist for The Washington Times

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide