The author takes an in-depth look at the only two full-fledged examples of fascism we have: Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany. Since Fascism as an ideology differed from fascism in practice, the author follows five stages of its development and focuses more attention on what they do, as opposed to what they said.

The first stage is: Creating Fascist Movements

He initially covers the cultural and intellectual spirit of the time which gave rise to fascism. He sees several issues that opened the door for these movements to take hold.

First, Europe had begun to question the liberal order.  

Liberalism was based on individual rights, reason, human capacity for harmony, and a belief in scientific progress. But several factors brought that order into question. Darwinism had been accepted, and alongside that, the concept of the survival of the fittest. Psychology was opening up as a study, and there were new revelations about the subconscious, and the role emotions played in human decisions. Irrationalism was taking root. This wasn’t a philosophy of acting irrational, it was the recognition that not everything could be reduced to the material, or rational. There was also a decadence taking root in many industrialized countries, and a breakdown of former social patterns that accompanied industrialization.  

A very important factor was liberalism’s move to open up voting to everyone. This introduced mass politics, which was destabilizing to the old guard politicians. They had traditionally relied on deference to their position and education and were not proficient at appealing to the masses.

Part of liberalism’s doctrine were free-markets, which were opening up countries to cheaper goods, but also impacted industries at home. This caused unrest among the workers.  

World War I damaged the liberal notion of human harmony and technical progress, and the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was inspiring socialists, and spooking capitalists, all over the continent. With liberalism seemingly on the ropes, and socialism threatening a radical new restructuring of society, fascism had an opening for success.

The next stage was: Taking Root

Intellectually, fascist movements were a development from Marxism to syndicalism to fascism. The fascists had initially been opposed to bourgeois capitalism. Where Marx saw the world in terms of class struggle, and sought to overthrow the bourgeois and liberate workers, the fascists thought that view too divisive. They recognized that people identified much more with the nation than class across borders. Their primary view was anti-democratic, they thought only a strong leader could confront the weaknesses of the liberal system; nationalistic, they thought the greatness of the nation was paramount; and collective, they thought individualism in liberal societies led to weakness and broke down the sense of belonging that people needed.

Fascists had a strong relationship with violence. They saw social darwinianism as naturally weeding out the weak by the strong, so there was no need to feel bad about using violence against the weaker groups.

Politically, they used the threat of violence to intimidate. They used parallel governing structures alongside legal means in order to enact what they needed to enact. They also were highly selective in their application of ideology. They were bent on taking power and made alliances where they could with conservatives.  

The fascists made problems for the existing order, particularly the socialist aspects of it, and then helped to resolve the problems for the people through the use of their parallel structures and alliances. They also relied heavily on the threats of communism.

The third stage was: Getting Power

Both fascist regimes came to power through alliances and the power of their direct actions helping a broad enough swath of the population. The violence they used against outsiders was in most cases, considered ok since it was used against unpopular targets. They enjoyed enough popular support to keep them in power, and the readiness to use violence intimidate the rest into acquiescence.

Fourth stage: Exercising Power

The fascists regimes used the dual, or parallel, state. They needed the cooperation of conservative allies.  

As much as they tried, they could never completely swallow civil society to the level they wanted. The ultimate aim was to remake men into obedient citizens, but also fighters.

Given that the rulers had come to power on promises of national grandeur, they were under pressure to perform. Since fascism was based explicitly on the mobilization of mass politics, they needed the people to support them.  

Alliance with conservatives was necessary since those were the established authorities and technical leaders of the country. The fascist promises of national greatness required production and civil society function at high levels. Accordingly, conservative allies could not simply be dismissed. But this meant the regimes were perpetually in compromises, some of which bothered party faithful. These countering forces were destabilizing on the regimes.

And the fifth stage: Long Term- radicalization or entropy

Fascism has a built-in destabilizing feature: since the leaders had promised national greatness, there was never a point where they could settle into the comfortable enjoyment of power. Their very existence was predicated on forward momentum. They had two choices: settle into entropy, or drive on, taking ever greater risks, until they arrive at a paroxysm of self-destruction.  

The expansion of the greatness of the nation required expansion of borders, which required war against neighbors. But endless war is inherently instable.

The only two real fascist regimes that ever really attained power both self-destructed. Nazi Germany was the only one to reach full radicalization. Fascism in Italy overstayed its welcome and was overthrown.

In the final analysis, fascism was a response to a particular set of problems.  

Darwin, psychology, and world war weakened some of the liberal order’s underpinnings.
Mass politics and communism threatened the established elites.

Fascism was an answer to some of these problems.

Survival of the fittest gave a seemingly scientific justification for violence.

Developments in the study of the subconscious showed human response was not purely rational. People longed for meaning and could find it in the collective rather than being left to their individual selves.

Mass politics made democracy seem messy and gridlocked. A strong leader was the only way forward.

The threat of communism gave rise to fears of societal destruction. While class warfare was destructive, rallying around the nation was constructive.

It’s highly unlikely that we need worry about these same varieties of fascism reappearing. But there are lessons to be learned about what the defects of the liberal order are, how our forebears sought to solve them, and what kinds of things they compromised on, and why, so we can avoid falling into the same traps.  

Whatever kind of –ism seeking to break down the liberal order comes next, will probably not come goose-stepping onto the scene. They won’t be dressed in a way that we will automatically recognize them. But they will likely try to persuade us the liberal order has inherent and unfixable problems, and likely propose solutions that are very similar.