#title The Marxist Roots of Classical Fascism
#LISTtitle Marxist Roots of Classical Fascism
#subtitle Genuine Anti-Fascism Begins with Understanding Fascism
#author Hein Htet Kyaw
#date 15-02-2025
#source [[https://libcom.org/article/marxist-roots-classical-fascism][libcom.org]]
#lang en
#pubdate 2025-06-02T05:42:55.595Z
#authors Hein Htet Kyaw
#topics anti-fascism, fascism, Marxism
Background Story: Within Burmese antifascist circles, an eye-opening event unfolded when certain self-proclaimed leftists—or individuals with a superficial attraction to leftist ideology—unknowingly worked together (including shared drinks) with members of Casa Pound within the Karen Struggle, even finding common ground with them. This situation prompts a crucial question: how did those who identify as antifascists and leftists fail to recognize the very fascists among them? This misstep highlights the necessity of comprehending fascism in depth—because genuine opposition requires a clear and precise understanding of its nature.
----
The goal of this piece is to deeply explore fascism, essentially re-examining and reconstructing the understanding of its foundations—despite the potential resistance from ideological cults. By reverse-engineering fascism, the hope is to develop more effective ways to counter it. Understanding fascism requires looking at its original form, classical fascism, and the broader history of socialism.
In today’s discourse, even liberals and right-libertarians are frequently labelled as fascists. However, historically, fascism has been fundamentally opposed to individualism, capitalism, and liberalism—an important but often overlooked point. So, if liberals and right-libertarians are considered fascists rhetorically, Stalinism, Maoism, and their adjacent Marxist-Leninist geopolitical anti-imperialist groups fit the definition of fascism. Liberals and capitalists are totally ineffective combating fascism and crony capitalism presents genuine risks that must be addressed. However, equating liberals and capitalists with fascism is an inaccurate and misleading approach.
*** Pre-Marxist Socialisms
While modern socialism’s official beginnings are often traced to the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution, earlier populist movements with
religious ties existed, like the 17th-century English Diggers, who
advocated agrarian socialism. Similar movements occurred in China,
India, and the Middle East. Guild socialism, another form of utopian
socialism, differed from agrarian socialism. There were other forms of
non-Marxist socialism such as Fabian socialism and others too. Frederick
Engels referred to the works of the utopian socialists such as Thomas
More (16th century) and Tommaso Campanella (17th century) in his work
“[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm][Socialism:
Utopian and scientific]]”. Even in the communist manifesto, Marx and
Engels had to talk about a fringe group among the socialists which they
called
“[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#b][Conservative
or Bourgeois Socialism]]”. So, it’s not only factually true but also
important to acknowledge that there were non-Marxist socialist movements
before and along. Claude Henri de Saint-Simon’s vision of socialism
presents a fundamentally distinct concept of class struggle and
revolutionary theory compared to Marx. Therefore, it would be entirely
misguided to interpret socialism exclusively through the lens of
Marxism. Additionally, nationalization has been a core element in
several socialist traditions.
*** Introductory Marxism
Classical Marxism, based on historical materialism, employs the base and
superstructure model to analyze societal structures, encompassing
social, political, cultural, and economic relationships. Karl Marx
argued that capitalist economic relations, characterized by profit
motives and overproduction, alienate workers from their labor, its
products, their fellow workers, and their own humanity. He theorized
that capitalism’s internal contradictions would inevitably lead to
crises, ultimately culminating in a proletarian revolution in which the
working class overthrows the bourgeoisie and establishes the
dictatorship of the proletariats. Marx identified the bourgeoisie
(capitalists) and the proletariat (the working class) as the two primary
classes within capitalism, with their class struggle driving historical
progress. The petit bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat are considered
secondary, or reinforcing, classes.
*** Sorelian Marxism
Georges Sorel, a French revolutionary syndicalist, offered a new
interpretation of Marxism. His theory of “direct action” stresses direct
confrontation between workers and capitalists, bypassing elected
officials and other go-betweens. The ultimate expression of this direct
action, according to Sorel, is the general strike. As a result, Georges
Sorel created a new revisionist Marxism with the idea of general strike.
Georges Sorel and the syndicalists believed the working class could and
should liberate itself without the leadership of intellectuals or the
middle-class members who dominated political organizations.
In
“[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/kamenka/1962/ethical-foundations/introduction.htm][*La
Decomposition du Marxisme*]]*”*, Georges Sorel argues that Marxism is
not the straightforward, cohesive, and purely empirical science it is
sometimes purported to be. Instead, he posits that it comprises three
distinct elements: a set of dogmas, a canon of historical
interpretation, and a heroic social myth designed to cultivate
working-class consciousness and power. Sorel considered the dogmas
absurd, the historical interpretation canon potentially valuable, and
the myth to be evaluated based on its practical efficacy rather than its
factual accuracy.
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1946/non-dogmatic.htm][Karl
Korsch]], one of the major figures responsible for laying the groundwork
for Western Marxism in the 1920s, referred to Lenin and Georges Sorel as
non-dogmatic Marxists. He labelled
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1934/why-marxist.htm][Sorel as
the Syndicalist]] of the original Marxism and
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1934/why-marxist.htm][Lenin as
the Communist]] of the original Marxian Marxism.
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm][Amadeo
Bordiga]] noted that Georges Sorel considered revolutionary syndicalism
as a true successor tradition of Marx against social-democratic
revisionism and legalitarian revisionism. José Carlos Mariátegui, a
Peruvian Marxist philosopher who identified himself as a Sorelian argued
that
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2696782-cultural-identity-and-social-liberation-in-latin-american-thought?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=UPZDHKgDIS&rank=1][Vladimir
Lenin was a Sorelian and Nietzschean hero]]. Antonio Gramsci was also
reported to be influenced by the
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/787654.Power_and_Resistance_in_the_New_World_Order][Sorelian
views of social myth]]. Having such influential Marxists being
influenced by him, that proves that Georges Sorel was not a fringe
revisionist Marxist that could be ignored. Also, it’s important to note
that Georges Sorel supported Lenin and Bolshevik fraction on the
question of Second International and the October Revolution. He even
wrote for an official Soviet Union publication,
[[https://books.google.com/books?id=PgkEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA352][Russian
Soviet Government Bureau]], calling Lenin “the greatest theoretician of
socialism since Marx and a statesman whose genius recalls that of Peter
the Great.” However, Lenin called him “a notorious muddlehead”.
Later, it was reported by
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6558448-the-myth-of-the-nation-and-the-vision-of-revolution][Jean
Variot]] that Georges Sorel considered Mussolini as a man who was no
less extraordinary than Lenin and a political genius, of a greater reach
than all the statesmen of the day, with the only exception of Lenin.
Sorel’s method of turning key Marxist principles into “myths,”
regardless of his aims, inadvertently undermined those principles’
practical relevance to the revolutionary working-class struggle. This
ideological shift paved the way for Mussolini’s Fascism.
*** Revolutionary Syndicalism
The concept of syndicalisme révolutionnaire or revolutionary syndicalism
emerged in French socialist journals in 1903. The French General
Confederation of Labor (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) came to
use the term to describe its brand of unionism. It promotes worker
control of industry and the economy, achieved through industry-wide
unions and direct action like strikes and even sabotage.
Leon Trotsky addressed
“[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/1-discussion.htm][revolutionary
syndicalism]]” as “in many respects the precursor of present-day
Communism”.
[[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm][Rudolf
Rocker]] stated that the teachings of libertarian or anarchist socialism
were taken from the movement of Revolutionary Syndicalism. The Communist
International, at its Second Congress, recognized revolutionary
syndicalism, as pointed out by
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1931/feb/syndic.htm][James
P. Cannon]], as a progression beyond traditional parliamentary
socialism. This recognition was reflected in the Congress’s resolutions.
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/nov/00.htm][Lenin]]
argued that revolutionary syndicalism arose naturally and unavoidably as
a reaction against the opportunism, reformism, and excessive focus on
parliamentary politics that plagued the socialist movements at the time.
Similarly,
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/rosmer/1950/07/trotsky.html][Alfred
Rosmer]], a political associate of Leon Trotsky and a memoirist, noted
that revolutionary syndicalists and socialists of the parties of the
Second International followed two different paths. Revolutionary
syndicalism clearly drew from revolutionary Marxist and managed to have
some influence upon the tradition of anarcho-syndicalism. It is also
relevant to note that
[[https://libcom.org/article/fernand-pelloutier-and-revolutionary-syndicalism][Fernand
Pelloutier]], a theorist of anarcho-syndicalism, was influential in the
development of revolutionary syndicalism.
*** National Syndicalism
By 1909, Sorel had grown disillusioned with the conciliatory approach of
socialist parliamentarians, the rise of democratic socialism, and what
he perceived as a decline in the proletariat, seduced by the mirage of
enormous economic benefits. He felt the proletariat was failing to
fulfill his expectations of revolutionary transformation, nor was it
aligning with Marx’s vision of a magnificent epic. This reappraisal of
Marxism prompted Sorel to adopt Benedetto Croce’s assertion that
“Socialism is dead.” This period saw Sorel directing much of his
criticism and writing toward the profound “crisis of Marxism,” which, as
Antonio Labriola noted, he addressed with zeal, effectively transforming
this “crisis” into one of socialism itself.
Sorel tried to reinvigorate Marxism by combining it with populism and
nationalism. His brand of “Sorelian socialism” attracted many
revolutionary syndicalists who, influenced by his admiration for Maurras
and French integral nationalism, shifted towards radical nationalism.
Maurras’s nationalist stance against bourgeois democracy, the
Enlightenment’s values (like liberalism and individualism), and its
fragmented view of society resonated with them. This movement continued,
and by 1911, revolutionary syndicalists saw these two anti-rational
political currents merging into a new nationalism and revolutionary
socialism—a precursor to later fascism.
Influential theorists from the movement of revolutionary syndicalism
such as Édouard Berth, Georges Valois, and other nationalist
philosophers altogether co-founded a group named
“[[https://www.marxists.org/history/france/cercle-proudhon/index.htm][the
Cercle Proudhon]]” where they syncretise revolutionary syndicalism with
nationalism.
[[https://libcom.org/article/anarchism-and-syndicalism-edouard-berth][Édouard
Berth]] sought to reconcile Marx’s focus on material conditions and
Henri Bergson’s emphasis on metaphysical concepts by developing a theory
of revolutionary self-organization within the working class. He insisted
that
“[[https://www.marxists.org/history/france/cercle-proudhon/index.htm][dual
revolts]]” of syndicalism and nationalism would result in the “complete
driving out of the regime of gold and the triumph of heroic values over
that ignoble bourgeois materialism under which Europe was
suffocating.” [[https://www.marxists.org/history/france/cercle-proudhon/index.htm][Georges
Valois]], another co-founder of “the Cercle Proudhon”, aimed to create a
unifying ideology that would appeal to both nationalist and
anti-democratic factions, particularly those identifying with the left
wing. In 1926, he became a member of the Toulouse branch of the “Le
Faisceau”, France’s first fascist party.
[[https://www.marxists.org/history/france/cercle-proudhon/index.htm][The
Cercle Proudhon]] could be identified as the first precursor to fascist
organisation that focus on
[[https://www.marxists.org/history/france/cercle-proudhon/1912/declaration.htm][syndicalism
that syncretised far-left revolutionary trade unionism with far-right
nationalism.]] The Cercle Proudhon stated it was influenced by various
thinkers, including the anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
revisionist Marxists like Georges Sorel, other socialist thinkers, and
even nationalist thinkers.
[[https://www.theamericanconservative.com/about-charles-peguy-mystique-matthew-maguire/][Charles
Péguy]], who was also a revolutionary socialist at first can also be
seen deserting the revolutionary politics and reversion to the religious
and nationalist myths instilled in him in his childhood. Being
influenced by Sorelian syndicalism, revolutionary syndicalism, national
syndicalism, Péguy’s own views were a unique blend of socialism,
nationalism, and Catholicism. Hubert Lagardelle, a founder of Toulouse
Marxist journal Socialist Youth, later founded Le Mouvement socialiste,
a revolutionary syndicalist journal in France founded in 1899 along with
Karl Marx’s grandson Jean Longuet. This journal achieved significant
popularity and garnered international readership through its analysis of
Marxism and revolutionary syndicalism. It featured contributions from
prominent revolutionary syndicalist thinkers, including Georges Sorel.
Benito Mussolini, in his “Doctrine of Fascism”, credited Lagardelle as a
partial inspiration for the development of fascism as follow:
“In the great river of fascism, you will find that the veins run back
to Sorel, Peguy, to the Lagardelle Socialist Movement and the Italian
trade unionists, who from 1904 to 1914, carried a new note in
socialist circles with Pagine libere Olivetti, La Lupa of Orano He
Divenire Social E. Leone.”
As quoted above, “La Lupa” magazine that also syncretised “revolutionary
syndicalism” with “nationalism” can be seen endorsed by Benito
Mussolini, in his “Doctrine of Fascism”. Arturo Labriola, a
revolutionary syndicalist and a socialist member of Italian Socialist
Party, was one of the leading contributors of La Lupa. He was called
“[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/x03.htm][the
Italian chauvinist]]” by Lenin. Another contributor of the “La Lupa”
magazine, who was from nationalist wing of the contributing members, can
be seen
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/x03.htm][declaring]]
“just as socialism was a method of freeing the proletariat from the
bourgeoisie, nationalism will be for us, Italians a method of freeing
ourselves from the French, the Germans, the British, the North and South
Americans, who are our bourgeoisie”. He developed the concept of
Proletarian Nationalism in 1919.
Georges Valois, a revolutionary syndicalist who later participated in
the
[[https://web.archive.org/web/20061116034518/http:/centre-histoire.sciences-po.fr/archives/fonds/georges_valois.html][French
Resistance]], characterized Marxism and fascism as “brother enemies”. He
further asserted that fascism and socialism share a common objective.
Karl Korsch, a German Marxist theoretician and political philosopher,
one of the major figures responsible for laying the groundwork for
Western Marxism in the 1920s,
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1934/why-marxist.htm][wrote
the following]]:
“But neither Sorel, the Syndicalist, nor Lenin, the Communist,
utilized the full force and impact of the original Marxian
‘critique’. Sorel’s irrationality device by which he transformed
several important Marxian doctrines into ‘myths’, despite his
intentions”.
Similarly,
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1934/expressionism.htm][György
Lukács]], a Hungarian Marxist philosopher who was also one of the
founders of Western Marxism, reached to a similar conclusion. He stated
“Sorel himself never became a fascist – but rather the course of
development of the ideology, which by the most diverse left and right
steps leads necessarily to fascism, the affinity between this
‘extreme left’ conception and the chiefly intellectual ‘leagues’ that
stand close to fascism being the most striking point.”
*** Fascist Dialectics and the Struggle for National Identity
Dialectical materialism, a Marxist framework developed by Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, explains societal evolution through economic
structures, class struggles, and historical forces. It argues that
material conditions, particularly modes of production, shape history,
with capitalism’s contradictions driving class conflict toward
socialism. However, this study critiques its predictive limitations,
such as overestimating proletarian revolution and neglecting nationalism
and cultural influences for fascist thinkers.
Karl Marx outlined a sequence of historical development in works such as
*The German Ideology*, *The Communist Manifesto*, and *Das Kapital*,
proposing a progression from primitive communism to slavery-based
agrarian societies, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and ultimately
communism.
Alternative interpretations emerged from thinkers like Benito Mussolini:
- **Benito Mussolini**, Italy’s fascist leader, presented a
materialist-inspired analysis of capitalism in his 1933 speech *On
The Corporate State*. Influenced by Werner Sombart, he identified
three stages:
- *Heroic Capitalism* (1830–1870): Characterized by
industrialization, innovation, and laissez-faire economics.
- *Stagnant Capitalism* (1870–1914): Marked by monopolization,
corporate dominance, and increasing state intervention.
- *Super-Capitalism* (1914–onward): A phase of mass consumption that
eroded individuality, leading to cultural homogenization.
These perspectives reflect distinct critiques of capitalism’s evolution,
each emphasizing economic transformation within broader ideological
frameworks.
Beyond **Classical Fascism**, less popular fascist thinkers with Marxist
roots —Ernst Niekisch, and James Burnham—engaged with Karl Marx’s
critique of capitalism but developed distinct interpretations based on
their nationalist ideological priorities and historical contexts.
- James Burnham replaced Marx’s revolutionary proletariat with a new
managerial class—bureaucrats and technocrats—who he argued were
already displacing traditional capitalists. He foresaw global
technocratic governance, drawing parallels with Soviet and fascist
bureaucratic structures.
- Ernst Niekisch, a German Conservative Revolutionary thinker,
developed *National Bolshevism*, which merged Marxist class struggle
with nationalism. Unlike Marx’s internationalist vision, Niekisch saw
class struggle as a force for national rejuvenation, advocating
Soviet-style socialism to counter capitalist decay while opposing
both liberalism and fascism.
Their critiques remain relevant as capitalism adapts but continues to
exhibit vulnerabilities. Niekisch’s nationalist socialism echoes
anti-imperialist socialist revolutions in China and Cuba. Mussolini’s
corporatist vision parallels modern hyper-consumerism and state-backed
enterprises, while Burnham’s managerialism is reflected in corporate
bureaucratization and technocratic governance models.
More of such example can be seen in Enrico Corradini’s usage of the
term Proletarian nation.
[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/x03.htm][Lenin
quoted ]][[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/x03.htm][Corradini]],
a leader of the Italian nationalists, declared at the same time: “Just
as socialism was a method of freeing the proletariat from the
bourgeoisie, nationalism will be for us Italians a method of freeing
ourselves from the French, the Germans, the British, the North and South
Americans, who are our bourgeoisie.”
Ultimately, the nationalist dialectical process involves a
reinterpretation of Marx’s concept of class struggle, shifting its
emphasis toward national renewal. It fundamentally rejects Marxist
internationalism, substituting it with a nationalist perspective while
incorporating anti-capitalist rhetoric and socialist principles.
*** Giovanni Gentile on Marxism
Giovanni Gentile, the founder of “Actual Idealism,” developed a
philosophical system that directly countered the Marxist interpretation
of Hegel. In addition to his prolific writings on Marxism, philosophy,
and history, Gentile was a key figure in the establishment of fascism.
In one of his works
“[[https://ia801807.us.archive.org/26/items/giovanni-gentile-english-translation/Origins%20And%20Doctrine%20Of%20Fascism%20-%20Giovanni%20Gentile.pdf][Fascism
and Its Opponents]]”, he wrote the following:
It is well known that Sorelian syndicalism, out of which the thought
and the political method of fascism emerged—conceived itself the
genuine interpretation of Marxist communism.
He claimed his ideology, “fascism,” stemmed from a revisionist Marxist
school of thought known as “Sorelian syndicalism,” and that fascism
represented the true continuation of that Marxian syndicalist tradition.
*** Mussolini & Fascism
Benito Mussolini, born into a socialist family, served on the National
Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). His early belief in
Marxism stemmed partly from his father,
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/800561.Benito_Mussolini][Alessandro
Mussolini]], a revolutionary socialist who reportedly instilled in him
an admiration for Karl Marx and his philosophy. Alessandro Mussolini
advocated for government control of production, improved working
conditions, and a worker-run society. However, his socialist views
weren’t solely derived from Marx. Alessandro Mussolini was a complex
figure whose ideology blended Marxism, anarchism (influenced by Carlo
Cafiero and Mikhail Bakunin), the military authoritarianism of
Garibaldi, and the nationalism of Giuseppe Mazzini.
In September 1911, Mussolini was jailed for five months after
participating in a socialist-led riot against Italy’s war in Libya,
which he strongly condemned as imperialist. Upon his release, he
facilitated the expulsion of pro-war “revisionists” Ivanoe Bonomi and
Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist Party. This action led to his
appointment as editor of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti,
under whose leadership its circulation increased dramatically from
20,000 to 100,000.
In 1914, following the deaths of anti-militarist protesters and the
subsequent “Red Week” general strike, the Italian Socialist Party (PSI)
declared its opposition to the war. Initially, Mussolini publicly
supported this stance, writing against the war and advocating
neutrality. However, he later reversed his position, arguing that
socialists should support the war to overthrow the Hohenzollern and
Habsburg monarchies, which he claimed repressed socialism. He then
criticized the PSI and socialism in general for neglecting the national
issues that caused the war’s outbreak. Consequently, he was expelled
from the party due to his pro-intervention stance.
It was reported in
“[[https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13276][Mussolini: A
New Life]]” by Nicholas Farrell that Lenin later would say to the
following to Italian Socialists:
[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/388941.Mussolini][‘Mussolini
was the only one among you with the mind and temperament to make a
revolution. Why did you allow him to leave?’]]
Mussolini’s interpretation of Lenin differed significantly. He viewed
Lenin’s implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and state
capitalism not as a deviation from Bolshevik communism’s
internationalist principles, but rather as a pragmatic step towards
“socialism in one country” (a position later associated with Stalin).
Consequently, Mussolini saw Gentile’s fascism as a revisionist form of
Marxism, abandoning internationalism, materialism, and economic
determinism in favour of a class collaborationist approach focused on
strengthening the state through nationalism. He termed this system
“state corporatism.” In 1919, Mussolini positioned fascism as an
alternative left-wing revolutionary movement to internationalist
Marxism. Just as Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism) diverged from orthodox
Marxism, Mussolini’s state corporatism charted a separate ideological
course, distinct from orthodox Marxism.
Stalinism, characterized by “state capitalism,” involved state (and by
extension, vanguard party) ownership of all assets, eliminating the
bourgeoisie within the USSR. Conversely, Mussolini’s “state corporatism”
permitted the survival of a “national bourgeoisie.” A similar economic
model, “new democracy,” emerged later in Mao Zedong’s thought,
advocating for a united front of four national classes against Western
imperialism. Essentially, Mussolini’s system pitted Italian classes
against foreign powers, whereas Mao’s mobilized Chinese national classes
against foreign powers.
Mussolini himself was clear about it in his own
[[https://ia801807.us.archive.org/26/items/giovanni-gentile-english-translation/Origins%20And%20Doctrine%20Of%20Fascism%20-%20Giovanni%20Gentile.pdf][manifesto]]:
Fascism combats the abstract class conception of society, rejecting
the entire notion of antithetical class interests upon which the
artificialities of “class struggle” rests.
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State,
of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is
absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are
admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of
directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the
community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording
results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own.
For this reason, it can be described as “ethical”.
Unlike the contemporary understanding of fascism, the original fascism
or Italian fascism at first didn’t have racism or even economic
antisemitism with them. Margherita Sarfatti, Mussolini’s mistress and a
former art critic for the Socialist Party (PSI) newspaper Avanti, was
also a prominent figure within the fascist party. Besides, Mussolini was
quoted in
“[[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6779798-jews-in-italy-under-fascist-and-nazi-rule-1922-1945][Jews
in Italy Under Fascist and Nazi Rule]]” by Joshua D. Zimmerman as
follows:
Italy knows no antisemitism and we believe that it will never know
it.
*** The birth of fascism as a doctrine
Although fascism emerged from socialist traditions, it transcends the
traditional left-right political spectrum. As a populist movement, it
synthesized far-left (anti-capitalism) and far-right (nationalism)
ideologies, attracting a broad base of support. Fascism arises when a
segment of the socialist movement substitutes class struggle with
nationalism and pursues a state-controlled economy within a single
nation. It occurs when proletarian solidarity is replaced by nationalism
and a focus on palingenesis and statolatry.
Fascist ideology, while permitting the capitalist class to exist for
nationalistic ends, fundamentally departs from both capitalism and
liberal democracy. Similarly, while incorporating elements of socialism
for nationalistic reasons, it diverges significantly from Marxist
principles, much like other socialist schools of thought (e.g., guild
socialism, agrarian socialism, Narodism). Fascism positions itself
against liberalism and capitalism, as well as against the genuine
internationalist left. It explicitly identifies as a “third position,” a
querfront ideology opposed to both capitalism (from a left-wing
perspective either as in socialism or revolutionary syndicalism) and
Marxian internationalist class struggle (from a right-wing nationalist
perspective).
There would have been no fascism if there were not Marxism in the first
place as fascism itself came out of the Marxist tradition. The most
pioneer form of fascism came into existence while syncretising
revolutionary syndicalism with nationalism. The classical fascism which
is also known as Mussolini’s state corporatism, is the practical form of
state-controlled corporatism (guild socialism) for the nationalist
benefits.
Mussolini can be quoted
[[https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state][as
follow]]:
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and
trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative
system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in
the unity of the State.
*** Nature of Classical Fascism
Classical Fascism wasn’t strictly far-right or far-left, but rather a
blend of nationalism (far-right) and anti-capitalism (far-left).
Historically, classical fascism has stronger ties to left-wing
(socialist) politics, originating from Sorelian syndicalism (a
revisionist form of Marxism). Nationalism and irredentism—such as
Mazzini’s influence, Futurism, and anti-Slavic sentiments—were equally
fundamental to fascism as Soralian Marxism. However, this aspect was
left unexamined, since the article focused on fascism through the lens
of left-wing or anti-fascist thought. As a result, nationalism in
general should have been regarded as either a bourgeois characteristic
or, at its most extreme, a counter-revolutionary force.
The socialism of Classical Fascist differs from Marxist and anarchist
socialism, instead aligning with pre-Marxian socialist traditions that
emphasize syndicates and nationalization. Pre-Marxist socialist thinkers
like Saint-Simon and Louis Blanc envisioned state-led economic planning,
nationalization, and social cooperation without class conflict or
revolutionary upheaval.
Rather than being emancipatory, the socialism of Classical Fascism was
integrative—it did not seek to overthrow capitalism but rather to
replace class struggle with class collaboration in service of national
unity. Thus, the mainstream Trotskyist analysis of fascism as the decay
of capitalism is partially correct in the sense of capitalism being
maintained as a status quo. While class structures remained intact,
fascism prioritized national struggle, inevitably leading to
imperialism, militarism, and exclusionary politics. Thus, socialism of
fascist was not based on class struggle but rather on nationalized class
collaboration, aiming to ensure harmony between social classes through
syndicates or guild. Not all fascist regimes were identical, just as not
all Marxist regimes followed the same path. Within this framework, class
collaboration was central to state corporatism, the offfical doctrine of
Classical Fascism in which the state—viewed as non-class-based—acted as
an intermediary between employers and workers. Fascism does not align
with free-market capitalism but instead resembles a form of capitalism
controlled by the managerial class, somewhat akin to social democracy.
It is crucial to distinguish these concepts properly. Fascist state
corporatism is not simply about corporations collaborating with the
state at the expense of the working class; rather, it is structured
around class collaboration process led by the nation/state, with the
goal of maintaining harmony between social classes through syndicates or
guilds. Thus, Classical Fascism is neither a conservative attempt to
preserve the existing order nor a socialist revolution. Instead, it is a
reactionary upheaval that restructures society to uphold the
palingenetic state through authoritarian control and expansionist
policies.
Furthermore, historical evidence suggests that Marxism alone was
insufficient in countering fascism, as fascist ideology emerged through
the fusion of Marxist principles with nationalism, alongside influences
from various non-Marxist socialist traditions. For that
reason, according to
[[https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/conze-wilkinson/ch11.htm][Why
Fascism by Marxists such as Edward Conze and Ellen Wilkinson]], the
Nazis and the Italian Fascists began as a left-wing party whose demands
were not so very different from those of the socialist workers’ parties
in the revolutionary period. However, given that the ends goal of
fascism and Marxism are different, Marxism and fascism are not
synonymous, and it would be misguided to draw such a conclusion.
However, one notable pattern in fascist movements is that behind every
fascist movement, there was at least one Marxist thinker who syncretized
socialism with nationalism—though traits such as militarism and
authoritarianism were also present.
A truly effective approach to antifascism is to remain vigilant toward
those attempting to blend nationalism with leftist values—a recurring
mistake throughout the last century till now. Similar patterns persist
in the 21st century, with movements actively engaging in this
ideological fusion. Examples include the political themes embraced by
the anti-imperialist publications such as Greyzone, pro-Russia campist
Marxist-Leninists, and neo-Stalinist MAGA Communists.
*** Summing up
Effectively countering fascism necessitates a robust defense of core
libertarian and egalitarian values. This includes upholding individual
liberties, universal human rights, open immigration policies, and the
principles of open societies. Furthermore, it requires advocating for
stateless and non-hierarchical social structures, recognizing the
importance of class struggle in addressing social inequalities, and
resisting all forms of totalitarian and authoritarian rule, regardless
of their purported political orientation. In essence, a comprehensive
anti-fascist stance champions both individual freedoms and social
justice against all threats of oppression.
In closing, I’d like to cite M.N. Roy, a revolutionary figure who, after
an early period of Marxist engagement, went on to develop the philosophy
of radical humanism.
“The purpose of all rational human endeavour, individual as well as
collective, is attainment of freedom, in ever increasing measure.
Freedom is progressive disappearance of all restrictions on the
unfolding of the potentialities of individuals, as human beings, and not
as cogs in the wheels of a mechanised social organism. The position of
the individual, therefore, is the measure of the progressive and
liberating significance of any collective effort or social
organisation.”