George Orwell What Is Fascism?: Tribune

George Orwell
What is Fascism?
TRIBUNE
1944
Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: What is Fascism?
One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred
different people, and got answers ranging from pure democracy to pure diabolism. In this
country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to
the German and Italian rgimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist
states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.
It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder
with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance,
that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only
solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is
not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is
supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not
antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not
even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we
apply the term Fascism to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean.
It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the
press you will find that there is almost no set of people certainly no political party or organized
body of any kind which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am
not speaking of the verbal use of the term Fascist. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I
have seen the words Fascist in sympathy, or of Fascist tendency, or just plain Fascist, applied
in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively proFascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism.
Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or
Fascist-minded. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion.
Key phrase: The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism.
Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism
and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the
principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a
different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily
Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left
extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be
Fascist organizations.
Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James

Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet rgimes, and
holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to
some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a
Fascist country. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a
crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular
Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all
factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist,
both objectively and subjectively;
War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making
things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is
worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term Fascist to anyone who wishes for a military victory.
The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi
invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist
organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism
with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as Fascistminded or natural Fascists. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered
conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist
tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.
Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply
to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish
nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the
I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
***
It will be seen that, as used, the word Fascism is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of
course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers,
Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941
Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth
Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that
there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away,
between the rgimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if Fascist means in
sympathy with Hitler, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more
justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word Fascist in every
direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By Fascism they mean, roughly
speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.
Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would
accept bully as a synonym for Fascist. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused
word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and
generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one not yet, anyway. To say why
would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily
without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor
Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with
a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a
swearword.
1944
THE END

George Orwell What Is Fascism?: Tribune

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Orwell What Is Fascism?: Tribune

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Orwell What Is Fascism?: Tribune

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the author's perspective on defining fascism?

What examples does the author provide of groups that have been labeled as fascist?

George Orwell

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James

You might also like