Fascism as a Transnational Phenomenon
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume I, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
National Socialism was the most radical, most murderous form of fascism—but not the only one. To understand what systematically constitutes fascism, we must examine which elements occur in all variants and which were specifically German. This comparative analysis prevents two errors: the trivialization of other fascist regimes (“that wasn’t as bad as Hitler”) and the false universalization of specifically German developments.
The basic thesis: fascism is not a fixed catalog of features, but a structural pattern—the systematic negation of the basic requirements of reasonable action (self-application, differentiation, mediation, recognition). This pattern can take various forms, depending on cultural context and historical situation.
28.6.1 Italy - Statist Absolutism without Racial Ideology
Mussolini’s fascism (1922-1943) was historically the first fascist movement and gave the entire current its name. Its basic structure differed systematically from German National Socialism.
The absolute was the state, not race. Mussolini’s formula ran: “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”—everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. The state was not a means for the preservation of race (as with Hitler), but itself the highest end. This followed from Giovanni Gentile’s actualist philosophy—the state as the realization of spirit, as the concrete unity of individual and universal.
Until 1938 there was no systematic racial policy. Mussolini initially mocked National Socialist race ideology as “scientifically untenable.” Only in 1938, under German pressure and for power-political reasons, were race laws enacted in Italy. These, however, remained half-hearted, were poorly enforced, and met with considerable resistance—even from within the fascist party itself. Many Italian fascists of the first hour had been Jews, including Mussolini’s mistress Margherita Sarfatti.
The imperial vision was Roman, not biological. Italy strove for the restoration of Roman greatness—a Mediterranean empire under Italian hegemony. The conquest of Ethiopia (1935-36) followed the classical colonial pattern, not the logic of biological annihilation. Subjugated peoples were to be integrated into a new order, not exterminated.
The violence was repressive, not eliminationist. Italian fascism was brutal—political opponents were persecuted, tortured, murdered. But there was no systematic policy of annihilation against entire population groups. Violence was directed against opponents of the regime, not against biologically defined “subhumans.”
Systematic placement: Italian fascism shared with National Socialism the negation of the basic operations: no self-criticism (the state is infallible), no differentiation (Führer instead of deliberation), no mediation (violence instead of compromise), no mutual recognition (subjugation instead of dialogue). But it set a different absolute—the state instead of race. This made it less murderous, but no less fascist.
28.6.2 Spain and Portugal - Authoritarian Dictatorships without Totalitarian Claims
The regimes of Franco in Spain (1939-1975) and Salazar in Portugal (1932-1968) are often labeled “fascist.” Viewed systematically, however, they were something else—authoritarian dictatorships with fascist elements, but without the totalitarian claim.
Franco’s Spain: Conservative Dictatorship with a Fascist Coalition
Franco’s regime arose from the Civil War (1936-1939) as a coalition of various right-wing forces: Falangists (genuine fascists), Carlists (monarchist traditionalists), Catholic conservatives, the military. Franco himself was no ideologue, but a pragmatic power politician.
The Falange, founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera, was a genuine fascist movement—Führer principle, glorification of violence, corporatist state, anti-capitalist and anti-communist at once. But Franco instrumentalized the Falange without ideologically submitting to it. After 1945, when fascism was internationally discredited, Franco systematically defascized the regime—the Falange was marginalized, the regime presented itself as Catholic-conservative.
Salazar’s Portugal: “Estado Novo” without Fascist Mass Mobilization
Salazar’s “Estado Novo” (New State) superficially resembled fascist regimes—single-party rule, corporatism, nationalism. But Salazar was a Catholic-conservative technocrat, no fascist revolutionary. His regime consciously avoided the mass mobilization typical of fascism. No youth organizations like the Hitler Youth, no paramilitary mass rallies, no ecstatic Führer worship. The state was to be calm and orderly, not dynamic and combative.
Systematic placement: these regimes were authoritarian, not totalitarian. They suppressed opposition, controlled the public sphere, restricted freedoms. But they did not claim to permeate all of life, to fully form the human being, to totally mobilize society. They were conservative dictatorships that adopted fascist elements without thinking the fascist logic through to the end.
The difference lies in the intensity of the negation of the basic operations: authoritarian regimes restrict them, totalitarian regimes attempt to eliminate them completely.
28.6.3 Latin American Military Dictatorships - Fascist Methods without Fascist Ideology
The military dictatorships in Argentina (1976-1983), Chile (1973-1990), Brazil (1964-1985), and other Latin American countries show another pattern: systematic violence, forced disappearances, torture—but without elaborated ideological justification.
The structure: military coups against democratically elected (often left-wing) governments, emergency laws, suspension of basic rights, systematic terror against the opposition. The justification was always the same: “struggle against communism,” “salvation of the nation,” “restoration of order.”
What was missing: no mass mobilization, no positive vision of a new society, no Führer worship in the classical sense (the generals often ruled as a junta, not as charismatic individual leaders), no ideology of a people’s community. Terror was functional—deterrence, intimidation, elimination of opponents—but not part of a larger ideological mission.
The role of external actors: these regimes were often supported by the USA within the framework of “Operation Condor”—not out of ideological closeness to fascism, but out of geopolitical calculation (containment of communism). This shows: fascist practices (mass abduction, torture, extrajudicial executions) can also be applied without fascist ideology, if they serve a different purpose.
Systematic placement: these regimes negated the basic operations radically—no self-application (military above the law), no mediation (annihilation instead of dialogue), no recognition (opponents as enemies, not as citizens). But they lacked the positive ideological vision that characterizes classical fascism. They were not for something, only against something (communism). One could say: they practiced fascist methods without fascist ideology—which made them no less murderous.
28.6.4 Japanese Militarism - Fascism in East Asian Form?
The Japanese Empire (1931-1945) is often called “Japanese fascism.” The parallels are obvious: aggressive expansion, totalitarian control, glorification of violence, racism (toward Chinese, Koreans). But the ideological foundation was fundamentally different.
The Emperor as a Divine Figure: unlike Hitler or Mussolini, who staged themselves as embodiments of the popular will, the Japanese Emperor was a religious figure—descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu. The ideology was not secular-völkisch, but religious-imperial.
Bushidō as Warrior Ethic: the samurai tradition supplied the values—honor, willingness to sacrifice, discipline, contempt for death. This was no modern ideology, but the mobilization of premodern traditions for modern warfare.
Kokutai - The National Essence: the notion of Japan’s unique national essence, incomparable to Western nations, justified both internal coordination and external expansion. Japan was to create a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese leadership.
Systematic placement: the pattern is similar—negation of the basic operations, totalitarian mobilization, eliminationist violence. But the ideological source is not the European counter-Enlightenment, but the instrumentalization of premodern Japanese traditions for modern imperial purposes. This shows: fascist structures can arise in various cultural contexts when modern crises are to be “solved” with anti-modern means.
28.6.5 Systematic Synthesis - What Constitutes Fascism
What All Variants Share:
All fascist and para-fascist regimes negate the basic operations of reasonable action. They refuse self-application—the Führer, the state, the party are infallible and beyond criticism. They refuse differentiation—complex realities are reduced to friend-enemy schemas. They refuse mediation—conflicts are “solved” through violence and subjugation, not through integration. They refuse recognition—opponents are dehumanized, not respected as rational beings.
Further common elements: all arise in or after severe crises (war, depression, state collapse). All show anti-modernism combined with selective modernity—rejection of Enlightenment values while using modern technology. All practice glorification of violence—war and struggle as highest values, not as necessary evils.
Systematic Differences:
The variants differ in the absolute—what is set as the highest purpose: race (Germany), state (Italy), nation/emperor (Japan), anti-communism (Latin America).
They differ in the degree of totalization—from totalitarian (Nazi Germany) to authoritarian (Spain, Portugal).
They differ in ideological coherence—from elaborated worldview (National Socialism) to pragmatic terror (military dictatorships).
They differ in mass mobilization—from intensive mobilization (National Socialism, Italian fascism) to demobilization (Salazar).
The Decisive Insight: it is impossible to say: “This is not fascism, because feature X is missing.” Instead we must ask: are the basic operations negated? If so—to what extent, with what justification, with what consequences?
This analysis immunizes us against two errors: first, regarding only Nazi Germany as fascist and trivializing all other regimes. Second, labeling every authoritarian regime as fascist and thereby diluting the concept. The structural approach allows precise distinctions—without overlooking the common patterns.