We Fascists have profound differences with National Socialism that have clearly been affirmed at the Congress of Montreux; for example, we do not have such an intransigent conception of race, we do not fight against religion…in Montreaux, we defined our position on anti-semitism. For us it’s not a question of race. I think we should only invite parties that have a constructive ideal and that want Corporatism.
Eugenio Coseischi (via Erik Norling, Revolutionary Fascism)
One of the chief discussions that has been persistent within Fascist spaces, not just online but since the end of the Second World War, is whether or not National Socialism (Nazism) should be included in one’s definition of Fascism. This piece shall serve as the definitive answer to this question, and seeks to discern permanently the difference between the two. Because, despite what some pseudo-intellectuals online who shall not be named would have you believe, the two are objectively separate, and should be treated as such.
The easiest and most up-front way to discern them is found by looking no further than their conceptions of the State. Fascist thinkers since the beginning have conceptualized a society in which the State was composed of all aspects of society. Everyone in the Fascist State, is a part of that State. The Nation and the State are inseparable, and the State is, in itself, the end-all, be-all of the Fascist society. The National Socialist worldview revolves entirely around the biological notion of race, and views the state as nothing more than a means to an end to achieve this “racial purity.”
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.
Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
It is, therefore, the first duty of a new movement, which is standing on the foundation of a race-based world-concept, to explain the nature and the meaning of the State in a clear way. We can conclude the state is not an end itself, but a means to an end.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
This is a very clear notion of what Hitler’s world-view was all about, and how truly different it was from Mussolini’s. Hitler viewed the Nation as Race, more specifically his pseudo-scientific conception of the “Aryan” people that had made its way into Nazi doctrine from its earliest origins as the Thule Society. Mussolini viewed the State, as said before, as an all-encompassing entity that comprised everyone within it (“All within the State”). It was the penultimate expression of a Nation and its people in his view, and completely inseparable from them. Even Hitler’s closest confidant and the mouthpiece of the Nazi regime, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, made this clear distinction:
One might say that Fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilization. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism. While the latter goes down to the roots, Fascism is only a superficial thing. That is regrettable, but one must recognize it clearly. National Socialism is really a way of life.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries
These are profound philosophical differences that are the result of the two ideologies having entirely different origins. Fascism emerged as a product of the Revolutionary Syndicalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of the early Fascists were former Socialists, who, viewing internationalism as a failed concept, sought instead to empower the State and rejected Marxian principles of a Revolution without borders. Giovanni Gentile, who has been called the “Karl Marx of Fascism” by some, wrote extensive critiques of Marx and his presented solutions to the errors of Capitalism, though he himself had a profound understanding of Marx and Engels’ original works, such as Das Kapital. In fact, Gentile did not view Fascism as necessarily “anti-Marx” in its Philosophy, but anti-Marxist, which is an important distinction to understand. Gentile respected many aspects of Marx’s writings, but saw others as inherently flawed, presenting a different interpretation, and even argued that Fascism was the natural progression of these ideas.
It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.
Giovanni Gentile
National Socialism emerged as the product of the Eugenicist and pan-Germanic ideals that permeated German society in the early 20th century. Compared to Fascism, even its predecessors are quite young, with these ideas being preceded by Hegel, Sorel and Maurras by several decades. Some Historians have even posited that they emerged as an antithesis to them, which makes the notion of Fascism and Nazism being identical really quite silly, and shows the people that advocate this really do not understand the history of the two.
It is worth noting that the most prominent of these “origin points” for National Socialism lies in the aforementioned Thule Society, and specifically in individuals such as Rudolf von Sebottendorf. Von Sebottendorf held many ideals that would later become staples of SIEGE, Atomwaffen and other schizophrenic Nazi communities, such as the belief that Germans were descended from a race of giants that inhabited the mythical continent of Hyperborea, hollow earth ideas and other misbegotten theories. It is highly debated among historians just how much Hitler himself believed in these ideas, but it is worth noting that they contributed heavily to the formation of the German Workers Party, the predecessor to the National Socialists. Anton Drexler, the founder of the DAP, was a member of the Thule Society and a follower of Sebottendorf. The point here is that these ideas were completely and utterly separate from the Syndicalist and Socialist movements of the day, and had no ties to the Italian Fasci that would later transform into the Fascist movement under Mussolini and Gentile.
The most blatant exception to this rule, and is worth noting and debunking, is the point of Julius Evola. It is understood that Evola was considered by the Italian Fascists of the Mussolini era, for lack of a better term, as the “village idiot”, holding a worldview that revolved around all sorts of new-age spiritualism and mysticism with no actual relation or connection to the Gentilean school of thought. In fact, Gentile held him with contempt.
Describing Evola and his activities post-war, historian A. James Gregor writes:
Giovanni Preziosi, Italy’s only committed anti-Semite, suddenly resurfaced together with Julius Evola, whom serious Fascists were to forever dismiss as the “Magic Baron.” … In fact, Evola was never a Fascist, however the term is understood … Nothing of Evola’s exotic ruminations appeared in any Fascist doctrinal pronouncements.
A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals
Evola rejected the notion of the national Totalitarian state, the aforementioned idea that the State was all-encompassing. He was also notoriously outspoken about his hatred of Gentile and Gentile’s ideas. Ironically, despite the lauding of the modern-day Nazis, Evola himself could barely be described as National Socialist, rejecting notions of biological race–in which the entire Nazi movement was built upon–and instead embracing what can only be described as insanity, his concept of “spiritual racism.”
Irrespective of his contribution to Mussolini’s purpose, Evola was never accorded any respect in Fascist intellectual circles.
A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals
Moving past the issue of race and their respective origins, even the economic systems of these two ideologies do not really line up. Fascism is Corporatist–which no, Google, it’s not Corporate rule, that’s Corporatocracy–and holds that all aspects of Society should be organized into Corporations, some use the word Syndicates, which are nationalized Unions that then elect their own members into government as well as democratically run their workspaces. Each profession and field has their own Syndicate, which in turn, operates symbiotically with its composed members. Private enterprise, if it exists at all, is only for the benefit of the State, in which these Syndicates are inseparable from.
“In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital used the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.”
Oswald Mosley, Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered
This is a far cry from the National Socialist regime, which sought to control the economy but retain private industry. Upon coming to power, many of the nationalized industries of Germany were privatized and sold off by Hitler in order to make the utterly broke German state some money. There was no attempt to trust-bust, there was no attempt to implement a Corporative system, and there was no attempt to transition Germany away from a functionally Capitalist system. Even the class system of Germany remained fundamentally unchanged, showing that, in truth, Hitler held no real commitment to Socialist ideals. While some consumer price controls were implemented, the Nazis were, by and large, Capitalists. Some have described this using the term “State Capitalism”, and compared it to the economic policy of the modern-day People’s Republic of China. Rather than Nationalizing, Hitler merely transferred businesses and industries he saw as dominated by “Jewish Finance” to members of the Nazi Party.
The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy. Without in any way destroying its class character, a comprehensive planning mechanism was imposed on an economy in which private property was not expropriated, in which the distribution of national income remained fundamentally unchanged, and in which private entrepreneurs retained some of their prerogatives and responsibilities in traditional capitalism. All this was done in a society dominated by a ruthless political dictatorship.
Otto Nathan, Nazi War Finance and Banking
Much of Hitler’s economic plan in the long-term revolved around gaining “living space” in Eastern Europe from planned German conquests and then emigrating Germans there to utilize the resources of the region, displacing Slavs and instituting a kind of racial agrarian policy, in which Germans would replace the Farmers and to a much lesser extent the industrial workers of the region.
For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the entire area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
I hope that this piece has served its purpose, to in a short and concise manner communicate the fundamental differences between Fascism and National Socialism. This is a highly nuanced topic, and there is much more to be said on it, and perhaps a Part 2 will be released in the future.
God bless you all, comrades. Ave Fascisti. To close, I will leave you with this quote:
If Universal Fascism wants to be truly universal, and if it wants to safeguard peace, it must confirm that it considers cooperation between the peoples of the world and the different races and civilizations…as I said, this racist question will prevent National Socialism from being a Universal and Fascist force.
Eugenio Coseischi (via Erik Norling, Revolutionary Fascism)
By, Octavian
The Seamusite Fascisti 