Lately, I have been thinking about Fascism. It’s quite fascinating, I must say. When I was at a young age, I have always been given the notion that Fascism is just evil. Names like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini just automatically gave me a sense of evilness and scariness, even though I had no idea who they were or what their historical context was. All I knew was that they are dictators, that they are evil.

Don’t get me wrong. I still believe Fascism is evil because it deprives human’s natural rights and reduces them into mere machines. But Fascism has more meanings to it than just being mere dictatorships, unlike how I previously thought it was. Fascism is essentially what Thomas Hobbes argued for in his influential book Leviathan. Fascism is essentially a Social Contract, one that has long been forgotten due to the triumphs of democracy in the centuries after the Enlightenment.

Whenever people talk about the Social Contract nowadays, they always refer to it as the Social Contract came up with by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government. John Locke’s Social Contract is essentially the foundation of classical liberalism, of democracy, of today’s society. In his book, Locke argued that people form governments to help protect life, liberty, and property, and that people have the right to create a new government if the existing government does not protect these rights. People voluntarily select a government to govern them, and in return, the government needs to govern fairly and protect people’s basic rights. This is the “Contract” signed by the people and the government. What Locke argued for is essentially a democracy where the government comes from the people. This Social Contract has been popularized throughout modern history and viewed as the “right” Social Contract. However, there is another Social Contract that is far less popular and far less recognized, yet very much reasonable and intriguing.

This “other” Social Contract was argued by Thomas Hobbes, the first Social Contract theorist as a matter of fact. Hobbes argued in his book Leviathan that people should voluntarily subordinate themselves to an absolutist ruler and lose their liberty in exchange for order and security. Hobbes argued this way because he believed humans are naturally selfish and evil, and that without a strong ruler to keep them in check, there would be violence and chaos. This is what Hobbes envisioned in a society without a strong ruler: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan). Clearly Locke and Hobbes had very contrasting views on human nature, which is why they argued for their own Social Contract.

Although I don’t necessarily agree with Hobbes, I must say he had valid reasons. Numerous historical incidents exemplified the validity of his argument: French Wars of Religion, English Civil War, French Revolution, Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, Russian Bolshevik Revolution, and etc. There are plenty of incidents where bloody violence and chaos broke out due to the lack of a strong ruler.

Recently, I have found strong correlations between Hobbes’ Social Contract and Fascism. I believe Fascism was essentially what Hobbes envisioned (One important note: Fascism is not interchangeable with Nazism, the two ideologies are not exactly the same. Although Nazism originated from the central concepts of Fascism, Nazism was more like a Hitler’s own vision for Germany, which was adapted specifically for Germany. Nazism believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, had an extreme racist view on Jews, and embraced eugenics. Those concepts do not apply to Fascism). Just like Hobbes’ Social Contract, Fascism believed in a powerful and centralized state (the government) with one single ruler. Fascism also had great emphasis on order and unity, as it was very anti-individualistic and believed democracy could not constrain human natures. So far, Fascism embodies nearly all aspects of Hobbes’ Social Contract. But there is one question that you might have right now, and it is a question that needs to be asked: Is Fascism a “contract”?

Did Italians and Germans support Mussolini and Hitler? Did they want Fascism in their countries? In other words, did people voluntarily give up their freedom to the government in exchange for order and security? It came as a bit of a surprise to me when I first learned it, they did. Mussolini and Hitler’s support in Italy in the 1920s and in Germany in the 1930s respectively were huge. The majority of the people supported the two Fascist leaders vigorously. The Nazi Party saw its support grow exponentially in the consecutive elections of the early 1930s. I am going to briefly address the reasons for the two Fascist leaders’ strong support to provide some background context. 

For Hitler and the Nazi Party, it was mostly due to the devastating economy and instable political condition in the weak Weimar Republic, as well as the humiliation put on Germans in the punitive Versailles Treaty. Hitler, as a phenomenal public speaker, effectively appealed to those problems and convinced Germans that he can solve everything and lead Germany back to its former glory. For Mussolini and the National Fascist Party, the situation was pretty much the same. The economic and political crisis in Italy made Italians turn to the Fascists for alternative solutions. Italy was backstabbed by the Allies in the Versailles Treaty: Allies promised Italy territories in the Austria Hungary empire if it would join their side during the war. Italy did, but the Allies did not fulfill their promise. Many Italians felt betrayed and wanted a tougher Italian government to promote Italy’s national interests. One other important factor is that both leaders utilized mass propagandas and used force to silence opposition to their party during their rise to power. The combination of all these factors is what made the two Fascist leaders gain millions of support and rise to power.

The similarities between Hobbes’ Social Contract and Fascism is again exemplified in Mussolini’s book The Doctrine of Fascism. This is how Mussolini justified why Fascism is not a tyrannical ideology: “A State which stands on the support of millions of individuals who recognise it, who believes in it, who are ready to serve it, is not the tyrannical State of the mediaeval lord” (The Doctrine of Fascism). Mussolini’s justification further reveals the “contract” aspect of Fascism. It basically said that Fascism is not tyrannical unlike some absolutist monarchs because it is founded on people’s support, that it is born out of a democracy. While I do not agree with Fascism or Mussolini’s doctrines at all, I definitely see the logical reasons behind Mussolini’s argument and the “contract” aspect of Fascism.

Fascism is not mere dictatorships or autocratic regimes. Absolute monarchs of the 17th century and the 18th century were inherited to power by bloodline, not by people’s support. Some of the absolute monarchs even believed in Divine Right, the idea that they are chosen by God to rule. Dictators like Joseph Stalin and dictators from military coups rose to power by force and political manipulation, not people’s support. While all of those regimes are totalitarian, there is an important and subtle aspect that distinguishes Fascism from the rest of them - Social Contract.