Account for the emergence of proto-fascism in Europe in the decades before the First World War

In answering this question, it is first necessary to define and explain the concept of proto-fascism. To define and analyze fascism as a whole is problematic and a continuing source of controversy - how then do we define its predecessor, proto-fascism? Does proto-fascism even exist (one historian has categorically stated that "there was no fascism anywhere in Europe before the end of the First World War" ) or are we looking at the ideas and movements of pre-1914 through the experiences of the twentieth century? I am not arguing that fascism after the First World War was not influenced by ideas before 1914 (thus Anderson was able to write that "France had an extreme nationalist movement ... whose ideas and tactics anticipated fascism" ) but this is not the same as maintaining that a rudimentary, "primitive" fascism existed before 1914. Can we say that fascism in a primitive form existed before 1914 or should we say that there is either fascism or there is not and then look for a more accurate way to describe pre-1914 ideas and trends?

`There are two ways of viewing the roots of fascism before 1914; its intellectual and artistic development (it is fair to say that our experiences of fascism obscures, as Hayes puts it, the very powerful link between the arts and fascism" ) and the socio-economic movements, the tenets of which fascism incorporated. Whether this combination can be called proto-fascism though, remains to be seen.

`It cannot be denied that the latter decades of the nineteenth century witnessed an artistic and intellectual revolution that questioned and challenged the established order of European society. The rise of socialism, irrationalism (especially its literary and artistic impact) and militant nationalism were all components of fascism even though when placed together they contained irreconcilable contradictions. The synthesis of contradictions, the fusion of ideas and their opposites though, is usually seen as a unique characteristic of fascism.

`Thus it was possible to be anti-socialist (opposed to the demands of the working class) whilst arguing against the worst excesses of capitalism (it is more likely that attacks on capitalism were synonymous with attacks on industrialization which was seen to have eradicated feudalism).

`The synthesis of irrationalism and rationalism is interesting, if one sees rationalism as arguing for the advancement of society and irrationalism as an attack on the decay and decadence of society. Rationalism (stemming from the French Enlightenment) manifested through Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill), Positivism (Comte) and Marxism stood in stark contrast to Irrationalism, illustrated by literature (notably Dostoevsky and Rimbaud), philosophy (Nietzsche and also Bergson, a major influence on Sorel) and art (Cubism and Expressionism). The culmination of Irrationalism might said to have been Futurism which seemed to be a mixture of all three (though some have argued that Futurism was merely the artistic face of Italian nationalism and that Marinetti was an artistic mouthpiece for Corradini).

`This is all very interesting but does it actually have any bearing on fascism? The idea that society was decadent and decaying is certainly very important and is a central tenet of irrationalism. The idea of rejuvenating society through struggle is also connected to nationalism and militarism (another idea that enjoyed considerable influence at the end of the century) but irrationalism is undoubtedly the intellectual foundation of fascism. When Marinetti called war an "aesthetic experience" and the Futurist Manifesto (1909) claimed that "beauty exists only in struggle" and that war was "the only cure for the world" it is quite clear how this could be adapted by nationalism, militarism and eventually fascism. This is not to say that fascism used irrationalism merely as a reaction against rationalism - as fascism was later to demonstrate, order and control are quite compatible with chaos, struggle and emotion.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

`The part played by race in the intellectual origins of fascism, the contradiction of civilized and primitive, is also intriguing (it is important to note that racialism is not synonymous with anti-semitism, which will be discussed further on).

This is a preview of the whole essay

`The technical and scientific innovations of the nineteenth century were paralleled by an interest in the past and primitive cultures (no doubt influenced by imperialism). Added to this was the corruption of Darwin's work (the preposterous "Social Darwinism") which resulted in racialism and primitivism, a feeling that these were qualities that needed to be infused into society in order for it to survive (again this idea that society was decaying/degenerating!). It is assumed that the idea of different races struggling for mastery of the world did not develop until Nazism, but they were already in circulation before the First World War.

`These are some of the basic intellectual developments that might have had an influence on fascism -all have elements that can be seen in fascism, yet how closely these separate ideas were linked is a another matter.

`The socio-economic movements that developed across Europe before the outbreak of war were I think to a degree influenced by the intellectual developments of the nineteenth century but they also stand apart from them and even predate them (the intellectual developments giving them fresh impetus). The important thing to consider about the trends/movements is if they transcended class barriers or not. This is crucial in relation to fascism, as it claimed to be an ideology/movement that could unite opposing classes (again the fusion of contradictions) thus proving superior to both socialism and capitalism.

`Therefore if movements such as nationalism, anti-semitism, anti-parliamentarianism etc. did succeed in uniting classes then it could be argued that a primitive fascism was in existence. Of course the opposing argument would be that the whole purpose of these movements was diversionary, to draw attention away from the series of economic crises that plagued the latter decades of the nineteenth century.

`The political and economic situation of Europe at the end of the nineteenth century provided fertile ground for mass movements. The spread of industrialization, urbanization and secularization and the growth of mass political participation (political parties, the press, increased franchise) saw social contradictions and tensions increase. The nation-state in theory united all peoples and classes but in reality only obscured the divisions until deteriorating economic circumstances forced them clear again. The economic crisis of 1873, and the subsequent cycle of booms and slumps saw the reemergence of various movements, now more extreme and politicized.

`The growth of political anti-semitism and its links with extreme nationalism is a case in point. Both can be seen as part of the general backlash against the economic crisis and its political counterpart, liberalism.

`Linking this into fascism is more problematic - is fascism merely a reaction against liberalism (both political and economic liberalism), an attempt to maintain a social cohesion threatened by industrialization/capitalism and increased political freedom or is it a genuine alternative to liberalism? If the anti-liberal trends being discussed were merely products of the time then can we really talk about them as precursors to fascism? (This argument of course depends to what extent you believe social/political events are influenced by economic ones - if the answer is a lot then the question raised is irrelevant as you end up arguing that everything is merely a "product of the time".)

`There is a strong argument that anti-semitism at least, was a religious phenomenon that only recently became a cultural and political phenomenon. Europe did have a tradition of anti-semitism stretching back to medieval times, so why did this transition occur? I personally do not doubt that the economic crisis played a substantial role in the transition but I also believe that there was a latent religious/cultural undertone.

`The identification of the Jews with both economic and political liberalism would obviously provoke an adverse reaction when the collapse came, but the liberties and rights bestowed by liberalism on the Jews (the fact that giving them parity with other citizens was called "emancipation" reveals the level of discrimination they laboured under) were also attacked which suggests something more than economics. The growth in protectionism (economic nationalism) also worked against the Jews, as the rise of Social-Christian movements ostensibly formed to support the working-class whilst combatting socialism retained and politicized their religious anti-semitism.

`It can also be seen that intellectual anti-semitism was influential on anti-semitism as a whole. The work of French and German writers between 1873 and 1879 saw the foundations of modern, political anti-semitism - people such as Edouard Drumont and Wilhelm Marr who sought to separate anti-semitism from all other political issues and to identify it as a racial not religious question. As mentioned before the interest in Darwinism and racialism was a major influence on shaping modern anti-semitism and tied in well with nationalism.

`It is not always easy to distinguish separate strands of anti-liberal thought as they tended to coalesce with surprising (or perhaps not) ease.

`There was a definite link between the anti-semitic and nationalist school of thought and practice, all across Europe. Nationalism has always been used a unifying force but originally to form nation-states -now it was used to keep them together, especially in European countries that were in effect "multi-national", although it was also used against conflicting classes. Thus with the exception of Italy (and this was probably due mainly to the lack of a sizeable Jewish minority) all the conservative elites of Europe used a combination of nationalist/anti-semitic ideology and propaganda whilst in countries where the Jews remained in political, religious and economic subjugation (such as Russia and Rumania) active anti-semitic policies were carried out.

`The degree and strength of this anti-semitism is open to debate - it took a while to become established in France and was never that strong and it might be argued that German nationalism was intolerant of all supposed non-conformists, not just Jews. It did exist though and was gradually legitimized - yet as Italy shows we cannot simply say that fascism is synonymous with anti-semitism. Italy the birth-place of fascism, had no anti-semitism, for reasons other that lack of Jews. Nationalism using anti-semitism as a political tool is more in keeping with fascism, yet nationalism was seen as a reactionary tool used by conservative forces - how would this fit in with a radical, revolutionary vision of fascism?

`As stated above, anti-liberal ideas tended to mixed together - thus it was common to find anti-semitism together with anti-parliamentarianism, authoritarianism and nationalism.

`This was undeniably the case in France, where a tradition of anti-liberalism and conservatism already existed. It is strange but in a way France was in a similar situation to the recently unified countries of Germany and Italy, as the political fluctuations since 1789 had allowed an anti-liberal, anti-democratic movement to grow. As my quote from Anderson shows, it would be dangerous to dismiss this trend as a desperate attempt to restore the old order.

`Probably it did start out as a monarchist/catholic alliance (which would account for the anti-semitism) but as Boulangism and Déroulède's Ligue des Patriotes demonstrate, a new radical right, appealing to left and right, anti-socialist and capitalist did find support amongst the French people. It took Drumont (La France Juive) to add the anti-semitism and Maurras (Action Française) the nationalism and they were no doubt helped by the Panama Scandal and the Dreyfus Affair.

`Special consideration is given to Action Française, with its daily newspaper and Camelots du Roi and I would agree that these are precursors to fascist technique but did Action Française possess a genuine fascist ideology? My perception of Action Française is as a renewal of Monarchism, with a nationalist, anti-semitic edge but a conservative core - was this proto-fascism or simply the modernization of the French Right? The ability of the French Right to transcend its traditional upper/middle class limits also has to questioned - was it a movement of the Catholic bourgeoisie or of the proletariat?

`A fusion of anti-liberalism tenets then was common across Europe. Italy lacked the anti-semitism but compensated with an especially militant nationalism and anti-parliamentarianism (it is interesting to speculate if these were merely the result of government corruption and frustrated imperialism) espoused by Corradini's Il Regno. The role of the Italian socialists with their Soerlian Marxism makes it difficult to judge whether Italy was proto-fascist or socialist.

`Germany's contribution to fascism seems to have been the emphasis placed on racialism in relation to anti-semitism. As Germany was traditionally an authoritarian and conservative country this is not surprising. Anti-semitism whilst never acted upon, frequently appeared in party ideology/propaganda and academic journals, whilst various "Aryan" groups were formed, notably the Pan-Germanic League who had strong links to nationalists and conservatives. The influence of racialism on the German right is clearly illustrated by the astonishing popularity of William Chamberlain's book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (with its view of history as a struggle between the Teuton and everybody else), which sold 100,000 copies before 1914 - possibly an effect of primitivism?

`Austria-Hungary followed a similar path to Germany, though its nationalism was Pan-Germanism. Permeation of all social strata by Jews lead to resentment and insecurity which was exploited by political parties so it would appear that anti-semitism was more of a scapegoat for this and ethnic tensions in the empire (though the success of this policy is doubtful).

`Russia actively pursued anti-semitic policies, partly due to religion but also out of fear of capitalism et al. Nationalism was represented by the Union of Russian People which claimed to defend the Czar, Church and Fatherland. It was possibly unique in Europe for having genuine working-class support though as with its European counterparts, it was mainly comprised of the lower middle class.

`There were various para-military groups strongly opposed to liberalism who were also anti-socialist and anti-semitic (notable amongst them were the Soiuz Russkogo Haroda, the Yellow Shirts and the Black Hundreds) but as these were primarily used by the government to break up demonstrations and strikes it is difficult to think of them as independent revolutionary groups.

`What then can we say in conclusion to the question? After surveying per-1914 Europe, I still find myself questioning the concept of proto-fascism.

`It cannot be denied that there were intellectual and political/economic developments at the end of the century which posed a serious challenge to the established order, but did they ever pose a serious threat? There were increases in anti-semitism, anti-liberalism and anti-parliamentarianism, paralleled by a glorification of race, violence and struggle but the main threat they posed was a disruption of normal social life (i.e. general war) not a fundamental change in society itself.

`The economic climate of Europe allowed these trends to flourish, indeed the collapse of society after the war allowed fascism to implant itself, but there are always movements that stand in opposition to society and I hope that I have shown that these movements were, for the most part deeply class-orientated, thus contesting fascism's claim to surmount class differences.

`I would argue then that we allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the events after 1918 - I think the origins of fascism can be found in the nineteenth century but that it took the events post 1918 to evolve into fascism - perhaps the nineteenth century should be appraised as an intensification of anti-liberalism rather than a proto-fascism.