Machan's Little Libertarian Encyclopedia
Chapter 9: Fascism
Fascism is a political system based on the view that some inspired ruler should lead a human community so that as a whole that community would flourish. Fiercely anti-individualist, fascism is different from other collectivists systems by lacking any theoretical plan for public policy and leaving this up to the particular leader. Some fascists, accordingly, will rule with an iron fist, others with great laxity. One will impose a planned economy but leave artists unperturbed, others will clamp down on the humanities only to leave the economy substantially on its own.
The idea behind fascism is akin to a simple version of Plato's idea of the philosopher king who because of an unfailing attention to important matters, will know how to rule best. But unlike Socrates's support for this approach to governing human communities, at least in the ideal realm, fascists do not view it as feasible to offer a full justification for why a particular person ought to rule, nor why such a person ought to impose certain edicts. That is because the leader governs by inspiration, by virtue of having an ineffable personality and character, one that invites admiration and followers on an intuitive, non-rational level.
There is a version of fascism rarely identified, namely, the leadership of, for example, certain Native American tribes. The means of grasping how one ought to rule a tribe are often mystical, not explainable to members of the tribe. The chief rules by means of inspiration and trust, not rational understanding.
Fascist societies can very tremendously and still remain fascist — Spain's Franco, Argentina's Peron, Chile's Pinochet and Italy's Mussolini were all fascists leaders but exhibited different tendencies. Their common attribute was to have ruled with complete authority and without any need to explain themselves.
It is arguable that there is a democratic version of fascism, whereby the sheer will of the majority of those who vote suffices to produce public policy, without any need for further justification. Some Western societies exhibit this approach to forging public policy and law, although sometimes the approach is challenged when those championing it do not get their way. At that point demands for justification in terms other than the sheer will of the people are called for.
One reason fascism is appealing to some has to do with certain romantic aspects of the system. In the wake of scientism and the rationalism of certain strands of the Enlightenment, there emerged the post-modern attitude that had its first inkling in Existentialism, namely, to reject theory, to undo the grip a certain narrow rationalism and positivism has had on the modern mind. Since much of that is reductionist, dethroning human beings from their exalted status as the only animal close to the divine, there has been a reaction against it and fascism is the politics of that reaction.
Granted that scientism and reductionism fail to do full justice to the nature of human life, the fascist post-modern, anti-Enlightenment and anti-individualist stance is arguably extreme and quite unnecessary. Human life can be seen in its rich dimension without introducing ineffable elements, ones that cannot in principle be grasped by rational understanding. If that is what is embraced, however, there is a price to pay, namely, mass subservience to supposedly superior leadership. And, in this respect, the threat it greatest to liberty, since, to quote Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, defenders of fascism will reply that while Lord Acton may have been right about ordinary persons, this insight does not apply to the great-souled leader. It is fair to say that history teaches the opposite - all of us are susceptible to the corrupting influence of unlimited power.
The genesis, moreover, of the appeal of fascism, this element of romanticism in the most Enlightenment era, is the result of the misapprehension of the reductionism that accompanied that era. Passion and reason are not enemies, choice is not a violation of science — all have a place in this vast, diverse universe in which human life is played out.
Accordingly, government, too, needs to justify itself, especially given the tools that it claims to require so as to carry out its task, namely, physical coercion or its threat. Fascists leaders would seem to try to avoid having to gain the consent of the governed by claiming that there is no rational mind to appeal to, it is all an Enlightenment myth.