Existentialism v Fascism

[The Feral Underclass]

The basis of fascism is primarily that the state is an entity, which should control the development of a nation and that all institutions with in the nation should be directed and controlled by a strict hierarchical system of loyalty and obedience.

Mussolini, arguably the father of modern day fascism, makes the point in 'The Doctrine of Fascism', "...the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which it finds expression change, but the need for it remains. The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity"

In the same work Mussolini says "The Fascist State, as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man"

Fascism then stands for creation of a god like entity, manifested in the institutions of the state. It romanticises the state as the creator and maintainer of life and all that comes with it.

The point of all this is to crush the individual expression of humans into this entity. "...the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State" thus creating a loyal, obedient nation, which then continues to express that achievement in it's [romantic] militaristic conquests.

Having destroyed the individual outside of the state it re-defines it as simply a connection within a greater "being". The state. The individual does not act, or think, or respond outside of what it is directed to, or, "The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

Jean Paul Sartre said. "..man first of all exists...existence proceeds essence." That is to say that we understand that we exist as ourselves before we have defined ourselves.

Each human being, including Mussolini existed as human beings before they defined themselves. Mussolini defined himself as a socialist for many years, but empirical existence led him to define his existence as something different. Meaning his individuality as an existing being experienced existence; then defined his essence.

This stands to contradict the idea of fascist individuality. Empirical existence is individuality, and the definitions of it are conceived by those who experience it. The creation of a fascist state is the individuals definition of his existence, not the states definition. That's a break down in theoretics.

As a human you exist. As a fascist you are defined, but you are only defined as an individual within your existence.

Fascism attacks the individual and embraces the unchallenged authority of the state and its expression as a living force within the creation and maintenance of a nation. It crushes individuality yet is the consequence of it.

Why do that?

It claims to create the essence of an individual within the state yet the state is the creation of the essence of the individual.

How is this justified?

'The Doctrine of Fascism' (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm)

'Existentialism is a Humanism' (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

[Ian]

Very good thread.

Made for a good read.

[Trissy]

Empirical existence is individuality, and the definitions of it are conceived by those who experience it.
I'm not sure if Existentialism would quite word it like this because it sounds like it leaves room for people to argue for strict determinism and materialism, and by doing so remove the idea of extreme personal responsibility which is found in Existentialism. 'Consciousness is individuality' or something to that extent may be a more helpful wording but I understand your point none the less.


As a human you exist. As a fascist you are defined, but you are only defined as an individual within your existence.

Fascism would have no problem with this because for a Fascist there is such a notion as 'human nature'. For Fascism essence really does proceed existence although this need not be linked to the idea of a God-given human nature because it just as equally be the result of generations of evolution (and hence the obsession with genetics found in the ideology of the far right). This for the Existentialist is an act of bad faith although to be fair the role of economic determinism and the fate of capitalism in marxist ideology leaves it open to the claim of bad faith as well.


Fascism attacks the individual and embraces the unchallenged authority of the state and its expression as a living force within the creation and maintenance of a nation. It crushes individuality yet is the consequence of it.
Well as I said just now Fascism has no problem with making the individual subordinate to the State because of the idea of 'human nature'. It would deny that the State was the product of individuality though and I shall try and explain how circular reasoning is avoided in just a minute. I think this whole issue interestingly revolves around Hegel, Marx, Fascism and Existentialism (although none can be directly equated with each other [not even Marxism and Existentialism alas]).


It claims to create the essence of an individual within the state yet the state is the creation of the essence of the individual.

How is this justified?
Well it does appear that there is circular reasoning in the ideology of Fascism but I don't believe there is and this is because of what I think is a slight misunderstanding of their arguments...

what appears to be the argument is this:

i) The essence of the inidividual comes from the State
ii) The essence of the State comes from the individual.

Now this is a case of circular reasoning because claim i) is established by ii), and claim ii) is established by i) [but as you haven't established either one first the argument collapses].

I more accurate construction of their argument I believe to be as follows:
i) Evolution has created a human nature within mankind.
ii) This human nature has led us to create the State.
iii) As the creation of the State followed the creation of human nature then the State is superior to the individual.

As we can see now the problem of circularity seems to have disappeared because the thoughts of Fascism seem to go 'WORLD > LIFE > EVOLUTION > HUMAN NATURE > THE STATE'. In a way it states that the individual is merely a cog in the working of the State (similar to Hegel although I don't think Hegel would have been as far too the right) and that the State is the inevitable production of Evolution. We can still be free to a point but we're not totally free in an Existential sense but rather we are limited in our choices by our human nature in places. Hegel's system produced Marxism and Existentialism to a point because both Marx and Kierkegaard attended the very same lectures in Berlin on Hegel. As a result we find very curious links between Marxism, Fascism, Hegel and Existentialism with all of them being different.

[Saint-Just]

The state is a reflection of social interactions between many individuals. Of course individuals define themselves first and then create the state. But, as such the state is a reflection of individuals. However, it is not a reflection of the way in which individuals define themselves, it is a reflection of the social interations that take place between many individuals. As such a kind of collectivism emerges, a consensus on how the individual should be defined and how the individual should behave.

Without the state individuals would define themselves more clearly divorced from any social consensus. In a Fascist society the state forces this consensus upon them, it forces individuals to behave in a certain way and develop a certain character: the individual becomes defined by the state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 23 2004, 09:08 PM
The state is a reflection of social interactions between many individuals.
In regards to the process of its existence or something different?


Without the state individuals would define themselves more clearly divorced from any social consensus.

Is this a bad thing? If so, why?

[monkeydust]

Why do that?

It claims to create the essence of an individual within the state yet the state is the creation of the essence of the individual.

How is this justified?

A Fascist might say that, deep down, everyone wants to know their place, to have solid values and unquestionable beliefs. Everyone craves this kind of security and stability.

Evidently, however, this is all balls.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

That is true enough. There is a definate herd mentality in society but perhaps and it is worth investigating should the many individuals who do not fit in so easily be subjected to the tyranny of the state.