1

Kawah
Arezu Kawah

Anton Markoc

SYS

24 December 2022

Fascism Movement Sociology

Fascism is most frequently used to denounce attitudes or behaviors that we deem to be

overly autocratic or domineering, as well as the historic events that took place in Mussolini's

Italy and Hitler's Germany. The literature created between the two world wars consistently

depicted fascism as an actor of somebody or something and as a force in and of itself that was

violent, opportunistic, and ignorant, but that was monumental in what it revealed about the

nation that gave it life. Modern historians have mostly carried on this trend of intellectual

inflation. They typically understand fascism in aspects of something more fundamental and

crucial to history, whether they see it as the instrument of material interests or the interpretation

of more impersonal forces, such as the uprising of the crowd, the ethical conflict of human

civilization, authoritarianism, or the modernization process. In contrast hand, it is seldom ever

comprehended in terms of how the self-proclaimed "fascists" claimed it to be. According to one

political scientist, fascist beliefs are only "interpreted," whereas communist concepts are taken

seriously. Fascism, by Georges Batailee, contrasts an aggressively exclusive conception of the

nation with a pluralism that embraces and prioritizes difference; it chooses an autocratic regime

over a democratic one; it seeks to suppress and even slaughter its rivals rather than engaging in

dialogue (66-67). In order to comprehend fascism, one must first understand the fascists

themselves—who they were, when they originated from, why they did what they did, and how

they came to power.

2
Kawah
A second-level escalation beyond this "moderate nation-statism" is represented by

fascism. Two parallel forms of the first escalation, one involving the nation and the other the

state, appeared. The idea of the "integral" or "organic" nation grew intertwined with democratic

ideals for the country. The "people" must dominate, but because they were seen as one and

unbreakable, they had the power to forcibly expel other minority ethnical groups and political

"enemies" from their ranks (Michael Mann 2). In terms of the society, the early 20th century saw

the emergence of a more potent state that was viewed as "the carrier of a moral project" and was

able to achieve moral, social, and economic advancement. This resulted in the establishment of

more authoritarian nations in some circumstances. Radical nationalism and statism combined to

subvert democratic ideals into authoritarian governments that sought to "purge" minorities and

rivals from the country. The second phase of escalation, fascism, principally added a distinctly

"bottom-up" and "radical" paramilitary movement to this combination. This would use violence

from below to eliminate all opponents to the natural nation-state at all costs.

Considering that fascists did have tenable remedies to contemporary social problems.

They received widespread electoral support in addition to militants' fervent emotional devotion.

Fascists were, of course, diverse and opportunistic, just like the majority of political militants.

Opportunism was made more effective by fascism's emphasis on authority and power. Because

fascist leaders may do practically anything to take control, other fascist ideals could be

compromised. However, the majority of fascists, leaders included, held certain beliefs. They

weren't oddballs, sadists, psychopaths, or individuals with a "rag-bag" of partially dogmas and

catchphrases buzzing around in their heads. A significant portion of multiple generations of

adolescent people, especially those who were highly educated, were persuaded by the fascist

movement's lofty ideas that it could lead to a more peaceful social order.
3
Kawah
Fascist movements need to be taken seriously as well. They embodied the policy that

suggested and a constricting "social cage," both of which increased devotion, especially among

unmarried young men who believed that the organization was almost a "complete institution." Its

paramilitarism must also be respected, as "power violence" was essential to its success. Fascist

movements also evolved as a result of two main temptations. One was to exercise power in ever-

more extreme and violent manners. The second was to make backroom deals with strong

conventional elites in order to reap the benefits of power. These either resulted in fascism

hardening (as in Germany) or easing (like in Italy, at least until the late 1930s). The movement

gave fascists the opportunity to pursue violent acts, nipping, and other careers.

Fascists who have "hardened" must be considered credible in a much more menacing

sense, as they will ultimately commit immense evil. Instead of rationalizing or excusing this, we

should try to comprehend it. The propensity for evil and our ability to perpetrate wickedness for

what we consider to be moral reasons are fundamental human qualities. Fascists were

particularly gullible. The circumstances under which humans act in this way need to be better

understood. Even while we like to portray historical and sociological as a positive, forward-

moving moral story, this horribly misrepresents the reality of the human experience. Massive

evil was not seen in the twentieth century as an accident or as a revival of the animal in man, but

rather as deliberate, intentional, and genuinely "modern" action. Understanding fascism involves

comprehending how individuals with ostensibly lofty modernizing aspirations may later act in

such a way as to create evil that was ultimately unavoidable.

We must consider the possibility that fascists could resurface seriously. Understanding

the factors that give rise to fascism will help us better predict whether they will reappear and
4
Kawah
how to prevent this. Some of the factors that led to fascism still exist. Numerous thousands of

people around the world are currently motivated by natural nationalistic and the adaptation of

paramilitary forms that are consented to racial and ethnic cleansing to carry out ostensibly

"idealistic" but homicidal acts against fellow citizens and political rivals whom they label as

"enemies." Although this may frighten us, it cannot be discounted as a reversion to our

"primitive" nature. One of the great contributions of European culture to modernity has been

ethnic and political purging, whereas violent paramilitarism is distinctly a twentieth-century

phenomenon. These features of modernity must be understood. It is good that "statism," the third

fundamental fascist tenet after organic patriotism and paramilitarism, is mostly out of style now

because both of its historical progenitors, communism and fascism, failed miserably. The

designations "fascists" and "communists" have mostly become derogatory slurs; current purging

regimes frequently have militaristic and authoritarian characteristics but falsely present

themselves as democratic. This opposition to the strong state will likely erode with time as

neoliberalism, which purports to be stateless, causes comparable harm in some regions of the

world. Then, in movements like fascism, excessive paramilitary nationalism might be

reconnected with extreme statist principles.

On fascism, there are primarily two schools of thought. A much more materialist "class

school" was more concerned with its class foundation and connection to capitalism, as opposed

to a more idealism "nationalistic school," which was more concerned with fascist ideas and

views. The discussions between them serve as a new iteration of the longstanding polemic in the

social sciences between idealism and materialism (Michael Mann, 26). The two approaches,

however, frequently contradict each other because it seems like they are talking about distinct

levels of phenomena – beliefs versus social base/functions. As a result, there is no viable

5
Kawah
comprehensive concept of fascism. Such a concept would need to incorporate the best aspects of

both approaches while also addressing their shortcomings.

While nationalist theorists prioritized ideology, class theorists of fascism sought to

elevate economic power dynamics in their interpretations. The most significant social and

historical outcomes, however, need the explanation of all four elements of social power. Social

movements use a variety of tools to achieve their objectives, including ideological control over

fundamental meaning systems, economic regulation over methods of production and exchange,

military control over structured physical violence, and govern over centrally controlled and

subnational organizations of regulation (political). It takes all four to adequately explain fascism.

The philosophical, financial, militaristic, and political problems that followed World War I led to

the birth of mass fascism. Fascists proposed solutions to all four. Fascist organization also

combined substantial ideological innovations (generally called "propaganda"), mass political

elect oralism, and paramilitary violence. All became highly ritualized so as to intensify

emotional commitment. Fascist leaders also worked to discredit the political, military, economic,

and intellectual (particularly religious) elites in their bid to capture power.

This increased the emotional content. A crusade, according to fascism. Fascists did not

believe that evil was a fundamental aspect of human nature. Like certain Marxists, fascists

thought that certain social institutions were the source of evil and that these institutions could be

destroyed. If made organic and clean, the country was perfectible. O'Sullivan points out that a

particularly extreme example of this was the fascist leader Codreanu of Romania. As a moral

force, all other political organizations feel that the country was dying because there were no

decent plans; as a result, they put together a flawlessly gelling program with which they start to
6
Kawah
gather adherents." Codreanu contrasted this by saying, "This nation is dying not from programs,

but from a lack of men." "We need fresh males," said the woman. Romania would thus be freed

from "the might of evil" thanks to the Legion. "Heroes," "the greatest souls that our minds can

create, the boldest, biggest, straightest, strongest, cleverest, bravest, and most diligent that our

race can generate," would be among its members. They have to battle the "enemy poisoning the

country" (Codreanu 1990: 219-21). He held that violence was morally acceptable when

defending good against evil.

However, it is obvious that we must look beyond intellectuals if we are to comprehend

fascists. How were the concepts mentioned above able to mobilize millions of Europeans? What

circumstances in everyday life gave rise to such unusual feelings? Sternhell frequently assumes

that fascism was complete before to World War I, omitting the fact that the conflict transformed

the loudmouthed rhetoric of the minority into widespread movements. Without the Great War,

fascism would likely have merely been a historical footnote. However, it is difficult to examine

the beliefs and feelings of subsequent subaltern fascists. Few people left much evidence of their

opinions. Those who did lie frequently, if they did.

The early intellectuals from Italy, Spain, and France are significantly overrepresented in

Sternhell's account, whereas German thinkers are conspicuously absent. Fascism and Nazism are

not the same thing, according to Mosse and others. They assert that such racist and anti-Semitic

Nazis placed more emphasis on the Volk, or people, and less emphasis on the state, and that the

Nazis as a whole lacked a blueprint for an ideal society. The nation was represented by the Nazi

movement, not the government, just as the Führer symbolized it. Contrarily, few fascists in

Southern Europe were anti-Semites or racists, and they created corporatist, syndicalist designs

for their ideal state. Fascism was statist, not völkisch like Nazism was (Mosse 1964, 1966,
7
Kawah
1999;Bracher 1973: 605-9; and Nolte 1965, among others). They assert that the only genocide

committed was due to Nazi prejudice.

While there is some truth to this, I agree with those who think that fascism may be viewed

as a more widespread phenomena and that Nazis were fascists. Mussolini and Hitler both

believed they were related to the exact same party. Being German nationalists, the Nazis did not

want to use the Italian term "fascism," which they did not want to do (neither some Spanish

authors whom are called fascists). However, the bellow two groups had parallel social

foundations, shared essential values, and evolved into related movements. In contrast to Italian

fascism, Nazism placed a greater emphasis on nationalism. But they were only different takes on

common ideas.

Another sign of a fascism with Italy and Germany is the propensity to categorize fascism

as either Nazi or Italian. However, fascism gained more ground amid broader political upheaval,

particularly on the right of the political spectrum. Italian, German, Austrian, Hungarian, and

Romanian mass fascist movements are the five I concentrate on. Each had its own

characteristics, yet they all had some in common. They belonged to the fascist family and

differed largely in their capacity to wrest control. Only first three were able to establish stable

(though brief) fascist regimes. This was mostly due to the differing timing of their advance

surges, which caused their political adversaries, particularly those on the right, to employ various

containment efforts. In reality, Hungarian, Austrian, and Romanian are all examples where we

can examine a dynamic among fascism and more traditional types of authoritarian, a dialectic

that aids us in understanding fascism in general. I conclude by analyzing Spain, a country in

which more conservative nationalism and statists were able to maintain tight control over their
8
Kawah
fascist friends despite having a very small number of fascists but a large number of fellow

travelers.

But unlike socialism, which incorporates Marxism, fascism lacks a formalized theory. The

men I've listed above express a variety of ideas within just a looser Weltanschauung (or "world

view"), ideas that generally "stay together" and from which various fascist movements chose

various ideas. Many academics have tried to pinpoint this core. Nolte (1965) defined a "fascist

minimum" as the confluence of three ideological "anti's"—anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism, and

anti-conservatism—as well as two movement "characteristics," the policy that suggested and the

party-army. These elements were all directed toward a single endpoint, "totalitarianism." His

emphasis on the negatives leads him to draw the problematic assumption that fascism was

mainly a regressive kind of antimodernism, which is not very clear regarding what the fascists

intended positively.

The foremost comparison analyst of fascism today is Stanley Payne. The three antis of

Nolte, along with a long range of additional ideologies, according to him, make up the

foundation of fascism: patriotism, totalitarian, statism and democratic socialism, imperialist,

idealistic, personal autonomy, mysticism, militarism, and violence. A lengthy list! He divides

this into three groups, manner, negations, and programs, however these are more ethereal than

concrete characteristics. He concludes by claiming that Nazism was "the much more

transformative kind of patriotism" and that it was based on moralistic violence and philosophical

idealism (Stanley Payne 1980: 7; 1995: 7-14). The conclusion doesn't seem to be very focused,

and when he attempts to classify fascist subtypes, they turn out to be largely ethnicities (German,

Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Hungarian, and a remnant "underdeveloped" bunch of others), which

seems to be denying fascism's theoretical foundations in some ways.

9
Kawah
According to materialists, fascism was partially a response to the capitalism problem, but it also

presented a revolutionary and ostensibly workable answer. We will see below that in order to

comprehend the "core supporters" of fascist supporters, one must take their goals for

transcendence seriously because they were wholly sincere in doing so. It was also most strongly

held ideological component of their appeal since it provided a realistic, workable vision of how

to advance towards that better society. Actually, transcendence served as the foundation of

fascism's political platform. I have argued in prior work that ideologies are most potent when

they present believable yet transcendental vision of a better world. They bring together the

logical and the illogical.

But of the five key concepts of fascist, transcend was the most difficult and unpredictable.

The goal was never actually fulfilled. In reality, the majority of fascist regimes favored

capitalism and the status quo. Since they were ultimately uninterested in capitalism and class,

fascists lacked a broad criticism of capitalism (unlike socialists). Instead of class, nation and state

made up their center of gravity. Due to the tendency of Marxists and anarchists—rather than

conservatives—to be committed to internationalism, this alone caused them to clash with the left

instead of the right. Fascists, though, could be relatively pragmatists regarding classes - unless

they considered them as enemies of the state, but unlike political left and right. They targeted

specific forms of profit-taking, typically practiced by those in the finance industry or by foreign

or Jewish capitalists, rather than capitalism itself. Due to the dominance of these forms of

capitalism in Romanian and Hungarian, fascist took on a decidedly proletariat tenor. Fascist

movements elsewhere were more pro-capitalist (Georges Batailee, 86). They ran into a unique

issue when they got closer to the electricity.

10
Kawah
As authoritarians, they trusted in management powers but acknowledged that they

themselves required the technical skills to administer industry, despite their desire to subjugate

capitalism to their own objectives. They made a deal with capitalists as a result. Additionally,

upper-class support contributed to the fascist coups in Germany and, particularly, Italy. Although

Hitler was different, Mussolini never appeared to reverse this predisposition in favor of the

ruling elite. I don't think the Nazi industry would have been referred to be "capitalist" had his

rule lasted much longer.

Fascists did, however, tend to abandon their basic goal of overcoming class struggle in the

limited period that was given to them. Class analyses of fascism emphasize this "betrayal," and

those who question the authenticity or coherence of fascist beliefs emphasize it as well (Paxton

1994, 1996). Fascists could not, however, "settle down" into treachery. The conflict among

"radicals" and "opportunists," which persisted in all fascist movements, gave the movement an

unresolvable dynamic. During the Nazi era, one manifestation of this was particularly exposed.

The aim of transcendence was not abandoned but rather replaced by this dynamic. Since

compromise proved to be essential with both the capitalist class opponent, they would transcend

both ethnic and class conflict, but only expel ethnic foes.

Opponents were to be eliminated and the country cleansed of them since they were viewed

as "enemy." This was violent fascist behavior. Though political enemy cleansing received less

attention in the late 20th century, it is upsetting that we have lately become accustomed to the

term "ethnic cleansing." Since political identities can change more easily, organic nationalists

typically think of ethnic opponents as being harder to deal with. Communists may face

repression and even death, but if they change their minds, the majority can be allowed to rejoin

society. As a result, political purging frequently begins violently before becoming less violent as
11
Kawah
the "enemy" submits and becomes incorporated into the population. Since the "rival" may not be

allowed to assimilate, ethnic cleansing frequently worsens. To varying degrees, most fascisms

combined political and ethnic purges. Even the so-called "enemy" of the Nazis wore diverse

political and ethnic attire. Most of the antagonists of movements like Italian fascism or Spanish

patriotism were described primarily in terms of politics. Thus, the Italian end of the spectrum

was less lethal than the more racial Nazi end.

Fascism's fundamental organizational principle and core value was paramilitarism. It was

perceived as "popular," rising up irrationally from below, yet it was also aristocratic, purportedly

standing for the forerunner of the country. The unity of fascist forces is emphasized by Brooker

(1991), and they undoubtedly saw their battle-hardened unity as an example of the natural

civilization and the new man. The foundation of fascism's "radicalism" was violence. By killing,

they overturned the rules of law. The people would "bang heads together" and transcend class via

it. The authoritarian state it would create would thereafter be dominated by its elitism and

hierarchy. A fascist movement was never just a "party." Indeed, for a very long time, the Italian

Nazis were merely organized into paramilitaries. Fascism was always armed, in uniform, on the

march, threatening, and fundamentally unstable of the established order.

This "bottom-up" and brutal nature of its paramilitarism is ultimately what sets fascism

apart from the various military and monarchy dictatorships that exist around the world. It might

increase support, both politically and among elites. The violence perpetrated by fascists was

always justified as "defensive" and "successful" because it could be used to defeat the genuine

aggressors. Although not everyone agreed with them, many did, which raised their popularity,

their support, and their appeal to elites. Thus, paramilitarism provided them with a unique

perspective on the established elites and electoral democracy, most of which they truly detested.
12
Kawah
The two other key fascist power sources must always be seen as intertwined with paramilitarism:

the contest for political power and the weakening of elites. Fascists were able to do much more

than their sheer numbers might have predicted thanks to paramilitarism, which involved

imprisoning their opponents, using force against them, and gaining the backing or respect of

bystanders. So, while paramilitarism involved violence, it was always much more than that. It

most definitely did not grant fascists enough effective violence to carry out coups if doing so

involved engaging the state's army. Paramilitary power was not comparable to military might.

Fascist coups would only take place if the fascists could undermine military might by turning to

the soldiers themselves.

Fascists were undoubtedly "evolutionary," though not in the traditional left-right sense, due

to this combination of characteristics. To refer to them as "right-wing revolutionaries" like some

have done would be inaccurate. Combining these factors likewise means that parties might lean

toward or away from fascism. Although there are some clear similarities and some differences, it

would be impossible to compare fascist and communist movements in this way. However, we

could theoretically trace nationalist groups (each one obviously distinct) over a five-dimensional

space. They were different, if unsuccessful, conceptions of modernity. Who did these essential

qualities appeal to? Who became a fascist, and what goals did they have for the movement?

Strangely, while these are movements that downplay the role of classes, class theorists

predominate in the responses. They regard fascism as the result of the struggle between classes

and the economic crisis, with its fundamental achievement being the repression of the working

class as a means of resolving the crisis. As a result, it had the support of various social classes.

Fascism has been viewed in two ways: as primarily a middle- or lower-class ideology, and as

primarily an advocate or instrument of the class of capitalist.  These are referred to as the "right"
13
Kawah
and "left" Marxist doctrines, respectively, by Renton (2000). Marxists are aware of how

important violence and paramilitarism are to fascism. Fascism, according to Otto Bauer, is "the

tyranny of the armed criminal." Marxists, however, frequently downplay fascist ideologies and

reduce them to their purported socioeconomic foundation. They have no issues classifying

fascism as a single, all-encompassing form. Fascism is a global possibility while category and

capitalism are fundamental characteristics of contemporary cultures. Other social institutions,

however, might also leave their mark on a single application fascist because they were equally

pervasive in the early 20th century, as I contend was the situation with the country and citizen

warfare.

Furet, the Jewish Commenter head, referred to Nazism as "the socialist of the petty

bourgeoisie," and Kater said that it was an autonomous movement of angry middle-class

individuals as early as 1923.  After World War II, these views became more prevalent as

information accumulated that appeared to support the idea that fascists were disproportionately

drawn from nonelite, nonproletarian groups, particularly the lower middle classes (Lipset 1963:

chap. 5; Bracher 1973: 145 Kater 1983: 236; Stachura 19836: 28). The most common

explanation given for this was financial: a malaise, a balance issues of capitalist society

[affected] those who were isolated and confronted by social transformation, whose role in

community was being subverted, who had ended up losing their typical place, and who were

afraid of the future. These were primarily the lower middle classes, or rather specific subgroups

of them: small farmers, independent contractors, craftsmen, white-collar workers, low-level

government employees, and independent tradespeople (Carsten, 1980; 232–23).

14
Kawah
Although some fascists were anticapitalistic, these thinkers contend that a much larger

number were antisocialist. Fascism would manage capitalism while destroying socialism. It is

stated that the middle class was more afraid of the danger from below than from above.

Sometimes, middle-class philosophy has taken even broader dimensions. It has been said that

fascism represents the breakdown of a whole "middle class society" built on democracy and

materialism (Eley 1986: chaps. 9 and 10). It is challenging to discern a clear meaning from this.

A single class cannot be used to characterize an entire society or an entire era. Liberalism and

capitalism in general did not collapse either. Some people have taken the theory too far by

connecting the middle and lower classes to other, marginalized groups. Carsten summarizes a

tradition that dates back to the 1920s and includes Togliatti, Tasca, Fromm, Reich, and Nolte by

identifying the "lumpen proletariat" as the foundation of fascism, along with educators, ex-

soldiers, "jobless intellectuals," déclassés, and small business owners, artisans, and white-collar

workers. This is a diverse collection that may be more a reflection of the author's distaste

towards fascists than any underlying unifying theme. Carsten contends that the economic and

social distress that these disparate individuals experienced led them to become fascists. In fact,

some authors place a greater emphasis on economic hardship than on middle-class identity. The

downtrodden, losers, marginalized, and uprooted were seen by Zetkin, Thalheimer, Löwenthal,

Sauer, and Germani as flocked to fascism - "a true community of bankruptcy," as Löwenthal put

Such writers frequently blame economic hardship, unemployment, or diminishing salary levels

whenever they claim that a certain occupational group was particularly fascist (whether it be

soldiers, students, attorneys, or construction workers) (Carsten (1980): 232–23). It's odd that the

majority of fascism's psychological theories have also been founded on the middle class. By

reinterpreting Freudian theory, the Frankfurt School came to see "suppression," "the dictatorial
15
Kawah
character," "social instability," and "illogic" as being distinctly "bourgeois," especially as a result

of the breakdown of the noble family. These psychological interpretations of fascism lack any

solid factual backing (Payne 1995: 454, notes).

Furthermore, it's possible that not all of these groups had a predisposition to fascism,

despite the fact that some of them might have. Former officers may be more likely to turn fascist

due to their military beliefs, while students may be more likely due to their youth and the

ideological milieu of colleges. No one person merely has a particular social identity that is

determined by their class. An approach against fascism that is motivated by class interests has

one more challenge. To rid their country of "enemies," fascists were driven by an intensely

emotional fight; as a result, they engaged in irrational aggressiveness and horrible cruelty. They

typically had no material advantage from violence and depravity. The aggressiveness of fascists

was too much for them, especially their zeal for war. They frequently overestimated the abilities

of the new individual. Furthermore, genocide is a different affair, even while some crimes

committed towards Jews and other "enemy" were motivated by material concerns (looting was

commonplace). Germany merely suffered physical damage as a result.  Material interest theories

are finally refuted by the fascist trinity of ethics, aggressiveness, and murder. Value and

instrumental reasoning were the motivating factors for fascists.

They were eventually overrun and destroyed by the former. In this aspect, the defeat of

nationalist fascist interpreters is different. In contrast to class theorists, they do not examine the

fundamental components of fascism. They neglect its social foundation in favor of the ideology's

content. Sometimes they just use the group's interpretation. It's strange that ideologies like

patriotism, discrimination, or militarism are deemed to be fundamentally "capitalist" or "petty

bourgeois".
16
Kawah

Works Cited
Abraham, David. “Where Hannah Arendt Went Wrong.” Law and History Review, vol. 18, no. 3,
2000, pp. 607–612. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/744069.

Cohen, Uri. “Consider If This Is a Man: Primo Levi and the Figure of Ulysses.” Jewish Social
Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 2012, pp. 40–69. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jewisocistud.18.2.40.
Levi, Primo. “If This Is a Man”. Translated by Stuart Woolf. The Orion Press, 1959.

Bataille, G. (2003). 12 ‘The psychological structure of fascism.’ The Holocaust, 113–120.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474470230-019

Mann, M. (2006). Fascists. Cambridge University Press. 

Payne, S. G. (2001). A history of fascism 1914-1945. Routledge. 

Nolte, E. (1969). Three faces of fascism. 

Carsten, F. L. (1969). The rise of Fascism. University of California Press. 

Eley, G. (2013). Nazism as fascism: Violence, ideology, and the ground of consent in Germany
1930-1945. Routledge. 
17
Kawah
Lipset, S. M. (2018). Political man: The Social Bases of Politics. Forgotten Books. 

Bracher, K. D. (1973). The German dictatorship. 

Kater, M. H. (2020). Culture in nazi Germany. Yale University Press. 

Stachura, P. D. (2016). The shaping of the nazi state. Routledge. 

Furet, F., & Nolte, E. (2005). Fascism and communism. University of Nebraska Press. 

R., K. P. T. (1933). Fascism. Industrial Christian Fellowship. 

Brooker, P. (1991). The Faces of Fraternalism: Nazi germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.
Clarendon Press. 

Paxton, R. O. (2005). The Anatomy of Fascism. Vintage Books. 

Payne, S. G. (1987). Fascism, comparison and definition. University of Wisconsin Press. 

Mosse, G. L., & Griffin, R. (2022). The Fascist Revolution: Toward a general theory of Fascism.
University of Wisconsin Press. 

Sternhell, Z., Sznajder, M., Ashéri, M., & Maisel, D. (1996). The birth of fascist ideology: From
cultural rebellion to political revolution. Princeton University Press. 

MARTINS, C. A. R. L. O. S. M. A. N. U. E. L. (2022). From Hitler to Codreanu: The ideology

of Fascist leaders. ROUTLEDGE. 

O'Sullivan, N. (1976). Conservatism: Noël O'Sullivan. St. Martin's Press.