14 Introduction the organic concept of the nation and of youth as its new life force, and from the predominance of youth in struggle and militarization, The fascist cult of daring, action, and the will to a new ideal was inherently attuned to youth, who could respond in a way impossible for older, feebler, and more experienced and prudent, or more materialistic, audiences. Finally, we can agree with Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Roberto ‘Michels that nearly all parties and movements depend on elites and leadership ‘but some recognize the fact more explicitly and carry it to greater lengths. The most unique feature of fascism in this regard was the way in which it combined populism and elitism. The appeal to the entire people and nation, together with the attempt to incorporate the masses in both structure and myth, was accompanied by a strong formal emphasis on the role and function of an elite, which was held to be both uniquely fascist and indispensable to any achievement. Strong authoritarian leadership and the cult of the leader's personality are obviously in no way restricted to fascist movements, Most of them began on the basis of elective leadership—elected at least by the party elite—and this was true even of the National Socialists. There was nonetheless a general tendency to exalt leadership, hierarchy, and subordination, so that all fascist ‘movements came to espouse variants of a Fidhrerprinzip, deferring to the creative function of leadership more than to prior ideology ot a bureaucratized party line, If these fundamental characteristics are to be synthesized into a more suecinet, definition, fascism may be defined as “a form of revolutionary ultranationalism for national rebirth that is based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, is structured on extreme elitism, mass mobilization, and the Fiihrerprinzip, positively values violence as end as well as means and tends to normatize war and/or the military virtues." THREE FACES OF AUTHORITARIAN NATIONALISM Comparative analysis of fascist-type movements has been rendered more complex, and often more confused, by a common tendency to identify these movements with more conservative and rightist forms of authoritarian nationalism in the interwar period and after. The fascist movements represented the most extreme expression of modern European nationalism, yet they were not synonymous with all authoritarian nationalist groups. The latter were pluriform and highly diverse, and in their typology they extended well beyond or fell well short of fascism, diverging from it in fundamental ways. ‘The confusion between fascist movements in particular and authoritarian 12, A different bt noncontradictory and partially parallel approach may be found in Eatwell's “Towards a New Model of Generic Fascism.”Introduction 15 ‘Table 1.2. Three Faces of Authoritarian Nationalism Countey —_ Faxeisn Radical Rig Conseranine Rist Germany NSDAP. Hogenbung. Papen. Hindontoae. Bri Seach Sehleiher hay PNF ANI Sonning, Sans Austria NSDAP. Heinweehr Chasis Soci Fatherland ont Bojgium late Rex, Verdinaso, ceatly Reg. YNV Légion Nationale Estonia Veterans’ League Pins France Faisceuy, Francistes AF. Jeunesses Pst Crovy do Hou, Vichy PPE. RNP Soliareé Frangaine Hungary Arvow Cross. National “Right Radicals Horthy, National Union Sovilists Panty Latvia Thunder Cross Utmanis Lithuania Iron Wo! Tautininkt Smctos Poland Falanga, OZN National Radicals Pilsiushi. BBWR Portugal National Syndicat Integealiss Salaean UN, Romania Iron Guard Natal Christians Carats South Africe Ossewabrandwae ational Union Spain Carlivs, Renmsacion EDA Expaiiols Yugoslavia Ustasa Zbor. Oruna Alexander, Stauadinovic nationalist groups in general stems from the fact that the heyday of fascism coincided with a general era of political authoritarianism that on the eve of ‘World War I had in one form or another seized control of the political institutions of most European countries. It would be grossly inaccurate to argue that this process proceeded independent of fascism, but neither was it merely synonymous with fascism, Itthus becomes crucial for purposes of comparative analysis to distinguish clearly between fascist movements per se and the nonfascist (or sometimes protofascist) authoritarian right. During the early twentieth century there emerged a cluster of new rightist and conservative authoritarian forces in European politics that rejected moderate nineteenth-century conservatism and simple old-fashioned reaction in favor of a more modern, technically proficient authoritarian system distinct from both leftist revolution and fascist radicalism, ‘These forces of the new right may in turn be divided into elements of the radical right and the more conservative authoritarian right.” (For suggested examples, see table 1.2.) 13, These analytic distinctions bear some analogy to Arno J.Mayer's differentiation of the ‘counterrevolutionary reactionary, and conservative in his Dynamics of Counterrevolution in Europe, 1870-1956 (New York, 1971). Yet as will be seen below, my criteria definitions differ considerably in content from Mayer's16 Introduction ‘The new right authoritarian groups combated many of the same things that fascists opposed (especially liberalism and Marxism) and did espouse some of the same goals. Moreover, there were numerous instances of tactical alliances — usually temporary and circumstantial—between fascists and right authoritarians, and sometimes even cases of outright fusion, especially between fascists and the radical right, who always stood rather closer to fascists than did the more moderate and conservative authoritarian right. Hence contemporaries tended to lump the phenomena together, and this has been reenforced by subsequent historians and commentators who tend to identify fascist groups with the category of the right or extreme right. Yet to do so is correct only insofar as the intention is to separate all authoritarian forces opposed to both liberalism and Marxism and to assign them the arbitrary label of fascism while ignoring the basic differences between them. Its a little like identifying Stalinism and Rooseveltian democracy because both were opposed to Hitlerism, Japanese militarism, and western European colonialism. Fascism, the radical right, and the conservative authoritarian right differed among themselves in a variety of ways. In philosophy, the conservative authoritarian right, and in many instances also the radical right, based themselves upon religion more than upon any new cultural mystique such as vitalism, nonrationalism, or secular neoidealism., Hence the “new man” of the authoritarian right was grounded on and to some extent limited by the precepts and values of traditional religion, or more specifically the conservative interpretations thereof. ‘The Sorelianism and Nietzscheanism of core fascists were repudiated in favor of a more practical, rational, and schematic approach. If fascists and conservative authoritarians often stood at nearly opposite poles culturally and philosophically, various elements of the radical right tended to span the entire spectrum, Some radical right groups, as in Spain, were just as conservative culturally and as formally religious as was the conservative authoritarian right. Others, primarily in central Europe, tended increasingly to embrace vitalist and biological doctrines not significantly different from those of core fascists. Still others, in France and elsewhere, adopted a rigidly rationalistic position quite different from the nonrationalism and vitalism of the fascists, while trying to adopt in a merely formalistic guise a political framework of religiosity. ‘The conservative authoritarian right was only anticonservative in the very limited sense of having partly broken with the parliamentary forms of moderate parliamentary conservatism. It wished, however, to avoid radical breaks in legal 14, For example, J.Weiss, The Fascist Tradition (New York, 1967). In a somewhat similar vein, Otlo-Emst Schiddckop!'s Fascism (New York, 1973), which is distinguished primarily for being one ofthe best illustrated ofthe volumes attempting to provide a general treatment of fascism, also tends to lump various fascist and right authoritarian movements and regimes together.