Fascism then and now BOOKS

TIBOR SZAMUELY

What do all the .following have in common: Harold Wilson, Nguyen Cao Ky, Charles de Gaulle, Enoch Powell, George Papadopoulos, Anthony Crosland, Georges Bidault, T. S. Eliot, Barry Goldwater, Axel Springer and the Shah of Persia? Two things: first, they have all, at different times in the recent past, been called fascists (sometimes by each other) and, secondly, none of them are or ever have been fascists in

any recognisable- sense of the word. The list could be endlessly prolonged, but this would

add nothing to our appreciation of a basic fact of modern life: that in political parlance the word 'fascist' has long become a meaningless catch-all, a simple term of abuse for anyone of whose views or activities one happens to dis- approve (usually, but not always, because they are to the right of one's own).

But is there, has there ever been such a thing as 'fascism'? The latest ambitious attempt to solve the mystery has just been published, in

the form of a volume of essays, European Fascism (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 63s), pre-

pared under the auspices of the Graduate School of European Studies in the University of Reading. The editor, Dr S. J. Woolf, is well aware of the difficulties facing him and his col- laborators. In his introduction he sets out to restore the original meaning of 'fascism' by narrowing down its scope in time and space and defining its specific characteristics.

But for all its erudition and insight his effort, I am afraid, cannot be regarded as an unqualified

success—because Dr Woolf himself slips at

times into the very error he pinpointed with such clarity: that of broadening the concept of

fascism to include a great variety of right-wing authoritarian movements, and thus once again render it meaningless. What possible sense can the following passage convey: 'A fascist- minded army, which lacked a fascist leader, spelled doom for a fascist takeover'? What is 'a fascist-minded army'? Were there any 'fas- cist-minded armies' anywhere? How 'fascist- minded' was the German army itself up to 1944? And what is 'fascist-minded,' anyway? We seem to be back where we started.

It is Professor H. R. Trevor-Roper, in an ex- cellent essay on 'The Phenomenon of Fascism,' who gets to the heart of the matter: 'Behind the vague term of "fascism" there lie in fact, two distinct social and political systems. . . These two systems are both ideo- logically based. Both are authoritarian, opposed to parliamentary liberalism. But they are dif- ferent.... They can be conveniently described as "clerical conservatism" and "dynamic fas- cism" . . .

'These two different forms are constantly con- fused. They were confused in fact—for both were brought together by common fear of com- munist socialism in the 1920s. They were con- fused by design: in order to attain power, "fascists," like Hitler, would pose as conserva- tives, and "conservatives," like Franco, would pose as fascists.'

Precisely. 'True fascism,' as a genuinely new social phenomenon born of the war and the postwar revolutionary upheavals, was the dynamic, radical, violent, totalitarian, anti- communist, anti-plutocratic, anti-clerical, racial- ist, aggressive mass-movement created in Ger- many by Hitler and, in a somewhat milder form. in Italy by Mussolini, together with a few of their less successful emulators.

The chief contribution of such a symposium should therefore be the unravelling of the con- fusion between 'radical fascism' and right-wing authoritarianism. This, to a large degree, it suc- ceeds in achieving. Paradoxically, a volume en-

titled European Fascism proves, quite convinc-

ingly, that no such thing as 'European fascism' ever existed. There was Nazi Germany; there was Fascist Italy; there were the Spanish Falange and the Rumanian Iron Guard; one or two leaders with limited followings, like Szalasi in Hungary or Doriot in France; a few .groups which never really got off the ground: Mosley's or Quisling's, for example—and that was about it. All the rest were really variations on the more or less traditional, authoritarian. nationalist, clerical-reactionary pattern.

Above all else, there was Adolf Hitler. Pro- fessor Trevor-Roper rightly points out that '."international fascism" itself is unthinkable without Germany. Remove nazism from the Europe of the 1930s, and what would have hap- pened?' Nothing much, probably : Europe would be seen today—realistically—as having been largely governed by a collection of con- servative, traditionalist, anti-communist regimes.

rather repressive by British standards but cer- tainly infinitely more liberal than the majority of governments in the radiant world of the 1960s. Hitler transformed fascism into a great public issue and a terrible world menace. And when Nazi Germany went down in flames that was the end of fascism.

' Or was it? The authors are properly cautious when assessing the possible survival of fascist- type movements into the postwar era. Some of them believe that elements of fascism are pre- sent in contemporary Europe, where they can be found among all the familiar -targets: the

German NPD, the French Poujadists and oss. the British anti-immigration organisations, even

in 'the power of the church or the army.' But. however much is made of them, these are ob- viously unremunerative trails. The traditional right has been revived, but prewar fascism seems dead as the dodo.

I deliberately stress prewar. For I certainly

believe that within the present-day world one can discover phenomena bearing a close familial resemblance to true or 'dynamic' fas- cism, however different their origins. Where I disagree with the authors of the present volume

is in searching for these phenomena on the poli- tical right. This is part of a more basic method- ological disagreement: as a result of the con- fusion, pointed out by Professor Trevor-Roper, between fascism and the traditional right, it has been automatically assumed (and not only by the authors of the volume under review) that fascism was itself a part of the right : the `ex- treme right,' in fact Yet why should this be so? Although nazism did embody certain tradi- tional features of right-wing ideology, its revolutionary. 'national socialist' mass-move- ment was bitterly opposed to far more of what the political right has always stood for.

Nazism, like communism. represented some- thing quite new, something that transcends the traditional divisions of left and right, that takes its place beyond the pre-1917 political bound- aries. For all their manifest and obvious diver- gencies, nazism and communism should be classified together, not as parts of the old left- right syndrome, but as specimens of the twen- tieth century phenomenon of totalitarianism (a word, incidentally, that occurs only very rarely in this volume). Communism is no more libertarian than fascism is traditionalist. In what sense was Stalin a leftist or Hitler a rightist?

The seeds of present-day fascism are to be sought not only on the traditional right, but within the spectrum of totalitarianism and semi- totalitarianism. Today fascism may find it con- venient to disguise its true nature with left- wing slogans, just as thirty or forty years ago it donned a right-wing mask—its nature has not changed. Neither has our guillibility.

Some years ago Professor Hugh Seton- Watson remarked that the new Afro-Asian dic- tatorships. however much they may recite marxist formulas and proclaim their 'socialism,' have a strong similarity to fascism : 'Revolutionary nationalist regimes, applying techniques of .mass mobilisation, injecting into their quasi-socialist ideologies strong doses of racialism and of historical mythology, and mov- ing from simple dictatorship ever further to- wards totalitarianism, may end up nearer to the Third Reich than to the Soviet or Chinese model.'

'Progressive' intellectuals prefer not to dwell on such a painful subject: the facts of Pro- fessor Seton-Watson's case may be suppressed - -they can hardly be refuted.

But let its look nearer home, and try for a moment to overcome the old left-right dicho- tomy. Have there recently been signs of the reappearance in the West of a radical mass- movement with slogans, methods and aims much nearer to those of the nazis than of the communists? Undoubtedly. The events of the past few months have greatly clarified the true nature of what is-- in my opinion. entirely erroneously----called the 'New Left.'

The 'New Left' is itself a muddled movement, composed of many often contradictory ele- ments. Its ideology is an incoherent mishmash of discrepant theories. It is opposed to modern society, to capitalism, communism and demo- cracy alike. It stands for 'direct' extra-parlia- mentary action, for 'youthfulness,' violence and destruction—and for no positive programme at all. In every one of these respects it is much nearer to fascism than to 'Old Right' or 'Old Left'—including communism.

Of course, it differs from fascism at some important points, as the 1960s differ from the 1920s. The 'New Left' is against authority and hierarchy—though it is a profoundly elitist movement, claiming for itself the right to de-

fine what is good for the masses without resort- ing to the 'trickery' of the ballot-box. Neither does it appear to be nationalistic—rather the opposite. But George Orwell showed long ago that a nationalist 'may be a positive or a nega- tive nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating.' The hysterical denigration of their own countries is a prominent feature of the 'New Leftist' ideo- logy—'negative nationalism,' if you like. _ But the 'New Left' possesses many more attri- butes in common with fascism. Take their slogans: 'Conquer the streets!,' DoWn with the System!,' To hell with politicians!' (this last the contribution of our own dear, demented `Liberal' party): all without exception the favourite slogans of the Nazis in the early 'thirties. Take their cult of violence: 'Burn, baby, burn!' yell the Black Power men; 'Red paint is a symbol of blood and fire,' shrieks The Black Dwarf: 'Neglecting schoolchildren is violence, ghetto housing is violence, contempt for poverty is violence, everything is violence,' mindlessly intone the deluded followers of the 'New Left.'

The revolt of the 'New Left,' just like the fascist revolution, is a revolt against indus- trialised, 'materialistic' society; against liberal- ism, parliamentary institutions, free elections, free speech; against knowledge and rationality. It is a lower middle-class movement, composed largely of students and semi-intellectuals, mas- querading as a working-class movement, but actually representing (to use the words of a contributor to this symposium on fascism) 'the self-assertion of an inflamed lower middle class In a weakened industrial society.' It claims (as another contributor wrote of an earlier move- ment) 'to embody the true future, the transcend- ence of liberal capitalism and marxist expro- priation.'

Not least among the many virtues of the pre- sent volume is the wealth of quotations from original fascist sources, many of which sound uncannily as if they had just emanated from the nether depths of the Sorbonne or the LSE. Here are two.

The Austrian Die Heimwehr (1928): 'Since the state authorities have proved too weak, and the parliamentary system unworkable, we shall have to consider ... extra-parliamentary means to cut the Gordian knot.'

Benito Mussolini: 'Democracy has taken away the sense of style from the life of the people. Fascism brings back a sense of style to the life of the people, that is, a line of con- duct, colour, the picturesque, the unexpected, the mystic.'

The last quotation is particularly piquant: only four weeks ago a distinguished British leftist journalist ecstasised in almost exactly identical words about student violence in Paris: 'Above all, the French movement has style, a certain elegant flourish to all that it does, which catches the heart and makes one appreciate that politics is not just utilitarian science, but also an art.'

Which brings me to one of the main lessons of fascism. The Nazis successfully deluded the traditional nationalist right into believing that their aims coincided, and therefore into bring- ing them to power. After which they soon showed their beguiled ex-supporters what was what. Our own 'progressives,' busy extolling the pristine purity of the proto-fascist 'New Left,' had better beware. Not that they wouldn't deserve their fate. The trouble is that in every case it is the innocent who suffer most.