The term “fascism” is often used in a broad sense to describe authoritarian behaviors, but its academic meaning requires distinguishing three fundamental definitions. First, it refers to the historical Italian phenomenon; second, to the European authoritarian regimes of the interwar period; and third, to an analytical category of authoritarianism applicable to broader contexts. This distinction is essential to avoid imprecise uses of the concept.
The first meaning identifies fascism with the political movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy between 1922 and 1945. This system, known as classical fascism, combined ultranationalism, militarism, and corporatism, and was consolidated after the March on Rome. Mussolini promoted a strong state that rejected both liberalism and communism. The symbol of the “fasces” (a bundle of rods with an axe) represented the idea of national unity and centralized state authority.
The second meaning expands the concept to other far-right regimes of the interwar period, such as Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Franco dictatorship in Spain. Although there are significant differences between these systems, they share common features such as ultranationalism, one-party rule, the cult of leadership, repression of opposition, and the suppression of liberal democracy. This approach, known as generic fascism or interwar fascism, allows for the analysis of similar political patterns across different European contexts.
The third meaning uses fascism as a theoretical category or analytical ideal type for the study of authoritarianism, often referred to as the fascist paradigm. From this perspective, it is not limited to a specific historical period, but rather serves as a conceptual tool to analyze political movements with similar characteristics across different times and social and geographical contexts. However, this interpretation is subject to academic debate due to its breadth and the diversity of existing definitions.
Overall, these three meanings allow the term “fascism” to be used with greater conceptual precision and historical rigor. Distinguishing between them is essential to avoid simplifications and to improve the understanding of contemporary forms of authoritarianism.