Fascism: An introduction

May 22, 2025
This isn't the "very large article" I mentioned in the front page, this is just a side project The word 'Fascism' is used as a derogatory term to call someone (typically a politician) overly authoritarian. But this is of course a misuse of the word and has made the term lose all meaning. This of course applies to many other ideologies like Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, etc, but is especially common for Fascism. But Fascism is, like any other political ideology, vastly complex and hard to describe. It has taken different forms throughout history and comprises a very large worldview that has changed over time. In this article I want to explain what Fascism is, it's predecessors and influences, its implementations, it's history, and its relations to Christianity.

Part 1: What Fascism is

Simply put, Fascism is the complete unity and preservation of a nation. This is why it comes from the Latin word 'Fasces', i.e a bound bundle of wooden sticks, typically with a blade, as seen here: It seeks to accomplish this unity and preservation by: But these points all require further elaboration. The first two points are under the umbrella of:

Corporatism

Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. - 1 Corinthians 12:14-26
The word 'Corporatism', not to be confused with Corporatocracy, is derived from the latin word corpus, meaning body. It wants corporations to work like organs of a body and juxtaposed to national interests. Since if one organ of a body suffers the rest of the body will suffer as well, Corporatists think the same goes for the nation and thus stresses cooperation between the interests of the people, the interests of corporations, and the interests of the government. Take for example the student loan debt crisis in America where the price for tuition has become too bloated for many America due to a wide variety of factors. This is proof that civilization is very delicate and one weak link can ruin everything else. Therefore one should not be owed the right to destroy the lives of others. Corporatists want to accomplish this by representing industries with guilds (or 'corporations') that represent industries or major economic sectors. Each of these corporations would have associations for laborers, employers and government overseers, thus ensuring that everyones needs are met. Private companies exist under Corporatism but they are under the regulation of their corporation. Corporatism thus abolishes class conflict by having the state, not a wealthy executive, wield the power while working out the best solution for all groups involved. It would be in the states best interest that everyone is happy after all since that will lead to more cooperation. It's also worth noting that Corporatism is something that holds a very lengthy history outside of Fascism, and was actually first defined by Pope Leo XIII in Reverum Novarum and has also been a core tenet of Catholic Social Teaching. However Corporatism itself as a political practice existed long before Catholicism, with historical and political analysts placing its first implementation in ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Christ was even born. It was also practiced to varying extents prior to Fascism in:

Nationalism

The State ought to consist of a single race, for a single race is united in its customs and habits which make for friendship between the citizens by reason of their likeness one to another. Hence states which were made up of diverse races have been destroyed owing to the dissensions which they had with one another through the diversity of their customs, for on one part of the state joined forces with foreign enemies owing to its hatred of the other part. - St. Thomas Aquinas on Aristotles commentary on the Politics Book III, chapter II
Nationalism is the idea that a nation should maintain its ethnic autonomy and unity, as well as its sovereignity. Mass immigration and the control of the economy by ethno-nepotistic forces causes a nation and its people to no longer have autonomy, unity and sovereignity. This is bad because a nation only has one homeland, and if they are to lose that this will likely lead to disenfranchisement, disempowerment and persecution.
A people without a nation they can call their own is a people without a soul. Nationalism is the assertion of our dignity, unity, and self-reliance. - Marcus Garvey (famous African-American nationalist)
Nationalism also views that since other nations have their own governments, the government for its own nation need not interfere in other governments and is thus isolationist. This is why Nationalists have been consistently opposed to things like the "War on terror", which were done supposedly to help Middle-Easterners. The word 'Nationalism', much like 'Corporatism' and 'Fascism', is very often misused and misrepresented. Nationalism does not believe ones own nation to be superior to other nations, but people who believe their nation to be superior to other nations tend to be Nationalist. Nationalists simply believe that a nation has but one home, and hence must preserve it. Nationalism has been practiced far too much to form a list, so I will not do so. The only significant reason that many pre-modern countries have ever not been Nationalist was due to their governments desire to conquest and dominate other groups of people by force for power (i.e empires).

Traditional values

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. - Orthodoxy, G.K Chesterton
If you are reading this I find it very hard to believe that you don't believe in the notion that traditional social values are better than modern individualistic social values. When I say "traditional values", I of course am referring to social values and ethics regarding topics like sex, the role of religion in society, the role of the two genders in society, the fact that a man can't become a woman and visa verca, etc. Catholicism itself is literally a tradition-oriented religion. Thus I will just include this quote from Mussolini:
In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life. Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions. Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature.

The role of the government in Fascism

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. - Homily, Baltimore, Pope St. John Paul II
Something perhaps of most discussion in regards to Fascism is the Fascist government. In particular, the concern that a Fascist government would be some sort of super-authoritarian dystopia. In reality the power that a Fascist government would wield would wield in regards to individual liberties depends entirely on what you define as individual liberties and what implementation of Fascism you are referring to (more on that part later though). If by 'individual liberties' you mean the ability to indirectly harm others, then no. If by 'individual liberties' you mean what is mentioned in the bill of rights, then the only objection would be that Fascist states do not afford the press to spread slander and antisocial thought. In fact, Fascist states went out of their way to preserve things like gun rights. Some might argue that this power could lead to the state persecuting any threats to power or may cause corruption, but the powers that be do the same thing in liberal democracies. Ask yourself, if a viewpoint is banned on every potential platform, is routinely engaged with lawfare, is demonized and slandered on every platform, and mobs do anything they can to target people associated with that viewpoints, and the families of those people, does that viewpoint actually have freedom like more popular opnions do? You probably know very well that this happens in liberal democracies. So why is it different if the government decides that antisocial movements should not be allowed?
The individual in the Fascist State is not annulled but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedoms, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone. - The doctrine of Fascism, Benito Mussolini
Regarding the general concept of how the state functions in a Fascist society, this too is ancient. It can find its first documented roots in Plato, who in The Republic advocated that a "philosopher king" be in charge of society and criticized democracy elsewhere.

The history and influences of Fascism

As established prior, the various tenets of Fascism had existed for centuries or millenia before it. But the idea to join these similar tenets together was concepted by Mussolini. Mussolini was, much like Mosley, a Socialist at first having been raised into it by his father. However he grew dissatisfied with it, primarily due to its Internationalism. While the exact details on the inception of Fascism are vague and lost to time, he released it into the world with the establishment of Fasci di Combattimento, which mainly appealed to Nationalists, veterans and dissilusioned ex-Socialists. But the movement would continue to grow until Mussolini started an event now known as "The march on Rome" in 1922, wherein his movement marched en masse to the capital city of Italy, thus pressuring the king into making Mussolini the prime minister. A few years before that in 1920, Hitler first heard of Fascism through news reports of Mussolini's movement. Hitler had already been a prominent figure in the DAP (later renamed NSDAP) and was already a Nationalist, but the discovery of Fascism would cause Hitler to model his movement after it. This in effect created National Socialism, i.e Nazism. Around that time, Oswald Mosley first heard of Fascism due to news reports of Mussolini's movement. At that time, Mosley had been a Conservative member of parliment. But he was already growing weary of Conservatism, which made Fascism stick out to him. Eventually in 1932 Mosley would meet Mussolini in Italy, solidifying him as a Fascist. Francisco Franco also heard about Fascism due to news about Mussolini's rise in Italy, and was similarly heavily influenced by it, however his rise would occur later then most other Fascist figureheads in 1939.

Actualized and proposed implementations of Fascism

Fascism has been implemented in Italy, Germany and Spain, however I will also include Mosley's platform which never sucessfully overtook Britain due to the major influence it had.

Italy

Mussolini's Italy was the most overly authoritarian and as a 'murican I like it the least maybe as a result of that. However it layed the groundwork for what a Fascist country would look like so it can't be ignored.

Germany

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not really sure to what extent I am permitted to talk about this on Neocities. I mean I did kinda already test the waters with that alt-right article and there is nothing in the TOS about "hate speech" or whatever, but I want to play it safe and you probably know more about NS then any other type of Fascism so there's not much left to elaborate on. Here is a testimonial I found from someone who lived in NS Germany at the time, make of it what you will:

Oswald Mosley

Oswald Mosley, head of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) perhaps isn't a household name. But he was a very charismatic, well spoken and perhaps even more moderate face of Fascism. His book Fascism: 100 questions asked and answered is maybe even a better introduction to Fascism than this article. Unfortunately though I can't add much else since he never got to run a Fascist country.

Francisco Franco

My favorite fash, Franco. He focused much more on Catholic Social Teaching and had the best relations with the church, being a Catholic. His government also outlasted every other Fascist government, lasting until the 70s when he was car-bombed. Spain would be plunged into social degeneracy as a result and Spain never recovered. He also saved Spain from Anarcho-Communists who tortured priests and raped/burned nuns, so there's that.

Fascism's relations to Christianity

Some would say that the papal encyclicals Summi Pontificatus (1939), Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) and Non Abbiamo Bisogno (1931) condemn Fascism. But they only condemn Authoritarianism, the restrictions of Catholicism by the state, and the idea that a race or government should be worshipped. And when you look into the history and context of what was going on between the church and Fascist states, it turns out thing are a lot more complex then many anti-Fascists make it out to be. I could go on forever but I think this video made by a National Socialist about Pope Pius XII (particularly his diplomacy during WWII) is the most informative and helpful.