By Richard Martin, President, Alcera Consulting Inc.
The terms “fascism” and “fascist” are often used too loosely, carrying both too much weight and too little understanding. Today, these labels are frequently applied to authoritarian movements without a nuanced grasp of their origins or the broader historical trends that shaped them. To understand fascism and related ideologies, it’s essential to place them within a larger framework of totalitarian militarist nationalism—a movement characterized by authoritarianism, radical collectivism, and the pursuit of national or ideological dominance through military strength.
In the first half of the 20th century, authoritarian regimes such as Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia emerged, each distinct in ideology yet sharing remarkably similar methods. United by a rejection of the perceived decadence and weakness of liberal democracy, capitalism, and traditional conservative hierarchies, these regimes sought a revolutionary “third way” that fused collectivism with militaristic nationalism to create unified, state-directed societies.
The Roots and Evolution of Fascism
The term fascism comes from the Italian fascismo, derived from fascio (plural: fasci), meaning “bundle” or “group.” In ancient Rome, the fasces—a bundle of rods with an axe—symbolized strength through unity, with individual elements bound together into an unbreakable whole. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fasci referred to various socialist and labour groups advocating for solidarity and social reforms, emphasizing collective action.
Mussolini, initially a socialist, repurposed fascismo in 1919 to unite war veterans, nationalists, and disillusioned workers under a new political banner. He transformed fascism into a nationalist and militaristic ideology that rejected liberal democracy and socialism, presenting itself as a “third way.” For Mussolini, fascism symbolized the unity of the state, where individual rights were subordinated to the collective identity and goals of the nation. The fascist state acted as a binding force, organizing society in service to national power and expansion.
Characteristics of Totalitarian Militarist Nationalism
While fascism originated in Italy, similar totalitarian militarist ideologies arose in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia. Each regime operated under unique historical and ideological frameworks, yet they shared fundamental principles, adapting methods of total control to advance their respective visions.
Radical Collectivism and Total Mobilization
Each regime viewed society as a unified whole where individuals were subservient to collective goals. Nazi Germany promoted racial purity, Italy invoked Roman heritage, Japan emphasized loyalty to the emperor, and Soviet Russia pursued proletarian dominance. Rejecting liberal individualism, these regimes organized collectivist states under authoritarian rule.
Expansionism and Territorial Control
These regimes pursued territorial expansion as essential for survival and dominance. Nazi Germany’s Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Italy’s Mediterranean ambitions, and Soviet Russia’s quest to recover lands lost after the First World War and to expand globally reflected a belief in control over resources and land as necessary for self-sufficiency and security.
Militarism and the Cult of Struggle
Each regime embraced militarism as both ethos and practice. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan glorified loyalty and sacrifice, fostering societies in which conflict was viewed as natural and even desirable. The Soviet Union, with its revolutionary zeal, similarly embraced militarization to safeguard and expand its ideological influence.
Economic Autarky
Each regime pursued economic independence to shield itself from foreign dependency, particularly during the Great Depression. Autarky served as a rationale for territorial conquest, with Germany, Japan, and Italy seizing resources to sustain militarization. The Soviet Union’s collectivization and state-directed industrialization aimed to create a self-sufficient economy capable of supporting socialism and militarization.
Revolutionary Rejection of Conservatism and Liberal Capitalism
Although labeled “right-wing” by the Comintern and Stalin, these regimes were revolutionary rather than conservative, rejecting traditional hierarchies of monarchy and religion alongside the perceived weakness of liberal capitalism. They established radical, authoritarian systems combining collectivist economics with nationalism, positioning themselves as alternatives to both aristocratic rule and capitalist democracy.
The Special Case of Communist Russia: Nationalism Under the Banner of Internationalism
The Soviet Union, while ostensibly committed to international socialism, displayed a distinct favoritism toward Russian language, culture, and identity, revealing an underlying Russocentric agenda. This preference was evident in the Soviet Union’s centralized structure, which promoted Russian cultural and linguistic norms within the Soviet bloc. Despite the USSR’s claims to represent a “community of peoples,” the Russian language and values were promoted as the ideal for other Soviet republics to emulate, masking a form of nationalism beneath the guise of international socialism.
This emphasis on Russian identity became particularly pronounced during World War II, when Stalin recast the conflict as the “Great Patriotic War,” calling on Russian historical pride and patriotism to rally the population. By invoking Russia’s historic resistance to foreign invasions, Stalin shifted from a communist appeal to a patriotic narrative centered on defending Mother Russia. This use of nationalism, cloaked in Communist rhetoric, highlights the duality in Soviet ideology—a hybrid of internationalist and nationalist goals that set it apart from other totalitarian regimes while sharing the collectivist control and expansionism that characterized them.
A Dialectical Relationship with the U.S. and Britain: Foes and Models
These regimes not only mirrored one another but also held complex, dialectical views of the United States and the British Empire, seeing them as both rivals and models. While they opposed the liberal-capitalist values symbolized by these powers, they could not ignore their material success and geopolitical influence.
America as a Model of Power and Unity
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Japan, and even the Soviet Union admired America’s industrial might, continental scale, and economic power. Despite ideological opposition, they sought to emulate its self-sufficiency, military strength, and national unity through authoritarian and militaristic means.
The U.S. and Britain as Ideological Enemies
Liberal capitalism, individualism, and democratic values were seen as threats to the totalitarian vision. The U.S. symbolized capitalist exploitation for the Soviets, racial diversity counter to Nazi Aryan ideals, and an obstacle to Japan’s Pacific ambitions. Each regime saw these powers as ideological and geopolitical opposition to their collectivist models.
Britain’s Empire as Rival and Inspiration
The British Empire, with its global reach, was both envied and resented. Italy, Japan, and Germany admired its imperial achievements while aiming to replace its dominance with a militaristic new world order. This ambivalence fueled their drive for territorial conquest, reflecting Britain’s imperial model but through a revolutionary, militarized lens.
Conclusion: Totalitarian Militarism as a Unifying Framework
In their pursuit of power, unity, and dominance, the regimes of Italy, Germany, Japan, and Soviet Russia exemplified totalitarian militarist nationalism. Despite ideological differences, these movements represented a radical rejection of both traditional conservatism and liberal capitalism, positioning themselves as revolutionary “third way” alternatives. They combined collectivist identity with authoritarian militarism, organizing societies for perpetual conflict and expansion.
This shared framework of totalitarian militarism, with its dialectical influences and paradoxical relationship with liberal democracies, continues to shape historical understanding and offers insight into the broader impact of authoritarian collectivist movements on modern political thought.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the founder and president of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in exploiting change (www.exploitingchange.com). Richard’s mission is to empower top-level leaders to exercise strategic foresight, navigate uncertainty, drive transformative change, and build individual and organizational resilience, ensuring market dominance and excellence in public governance. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles. He is also the developer of Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking theory that focuses on winning the battle for minds in a world of conflict by countering opposing worldviews and ideologies through strategic analysis and action.
© 2024 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
