Understanding Fascism: A Political Philosophy Born from Modernity’s Discontents

Fascism stands as one of the most destructive political ideologies to emerge in modern history. It reshaped Europe in the early twentieth century, plunging the world into devastating conflict and leaving millions dead. To truly understand fascism, we must examine its philosophical roots-its deep opposition to Enlightenment ideals-and consider how thinkers from different traditions engaged with it. Mahatma Gandhi, though not a systematic political theorist, offered a distinctive critique of fascism during World War II, one grounded in his unwavering commitment to nonviolence and truth.

Fascism as a revolt against modernity 🔗

Political scientist Andrew Heywood provides a crucial framework for understanding fascism’s philosophical foundations. According to Heywood, fascism emerged as a profound revolt against modernity and the values of the Enlightenment. In fascist Italy, slogans like “Believe, Obey, Fight” and “Order, Authority, Justice” deliberately replaced the familiar principles of the French Revolution-liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The ideological roots of fascism trace back to the 1880s and the fin-de-siècle intellectual movements. These movements originated from a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society, and liberal democracy. The generation of thinkers at the end of the nineteenth century supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism, and vitalism as alternatives to cold rational calculation.

Rejection of Enlightenment principles 🔗

The Enlightenment, an intellectual movement reaching its height in the eighteenth century, had championed reason, progress, and the capacity of human beings to improve their condition through rational inquiry. Fascism stood in direct opposition to these principles. Where the Enlightenment celebrated individual reason, fascism glorified collective emotion and instinct. Where the Enlightenment promised inevitable progress, fascism embraced struggle, conflict, and the perpetual battle for national supremacy.

Heywood identifies that fascism possesses a strong “anti-character”-it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and anti-communist all at once. The core theme of fascism, according to Heywood, centres on the idea of an organically unified national community, strengthened by the belief in “strength through unity.” Individual identity becomes absorbed into the collective, and the “new man” of fascism is motivated by duty, honour, and self-sacrifice rather than personal interest.

The cult of the leader and national supremacy 🔗

Fascism demanded complete obedience to a supreme leader and embraced an extreme version of expansionist nationalism or ultranationalism. Nations were viewed not as cooperative partners in a shared humanity but as rivals locked in a perpetual struggle for dominance. This worldview rejected the Enlightenment’s universalism-the idea that certain rights and principles apply to all human beings regardless of national origin.

The term “fascism” itself derives from the Italian fascio, meaning a bundle of rods. In ancient Rome, the fasces-a bundle of rods bound around an axe-was carried before consuls to signify their authority. Benito Mussolini adopted this symbol to represent unity and state power when he founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in 1919, the precursor to Italy’s Fascist Party.

Gandhi’s incidental encounter with fascism 🔗

Unlike systematic political philosophers who devoted extensive treatises to analyzing fascism, Gandhi engaged with this ideology incidentally, primarily during the crisis years of World War II. Gandhi was not a political commentator in the academic sense; he was a practitioner of nonviolent resistance whose political insights emerged from lived experience rather than abstract theorizing.

Gandhi’s engagement with fascism intensified after Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941-the massive military operation codenamed Operation Barbarossa. This invasion, involving over three million Axis troops along a front stretching nearly 2,900 kilometres, transformed global perceptions of the war. What had previously been seen by some as merely another conflict among European imperial powers now appeared more clearly as a struggle against a uniquely destructive ideology.

The shift in wartime perception 🔗

Before Operation Barbarossa, the war’s moral dimensions were less clear to many observers, particularly in colonised nations like India. Britain, after all, was itself an imperial power that had subjugated India. The German invasion of the Soviet Union clarified the stakes. For the Communist Party of India, this event was transformative-they shifted from viewing the conflict as an “imperialist war” to characterising it as a “people’s war” against fascism, leading them to support British war efforts.

Gandhi, however, maintained his distinctive position. While he unequivocally condemned fascism and Nazism, he refused to support violent means of opposing them. His approach to the war remained grounded in nonviolence even as he acknowledged the unique evil represented by Hitler’s regime.

Sources for understanding Gandhi’s views on fascism 🔗

Scholars derive Gandhi’s critique of fascism from two primary sources: his letters to Adolf Hitler and his articles published in Harijan, the weekly journal he edited. These documents, read alongside Gandhi’s broader philosophical commitments, reveal a consistent worldview fundamentally opposed to fascist principles.

Gandhi’s letters to Hitler 🔗

Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler-the first on July 23, 1939, just weeks before Germany’s invasion of Poland, and the second in December 1940, after the war was well underway. Neither letter reached Hitler; British colonial authorities intercepted both.

The first letter, written from Gandhi’s Sevagram Ashram near Wardha, was brief but direct. Gandhi addressed Hitler as “Dear Friend” and made a heartfelt appeal: “It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to a savage state.” He asked Hitler to consider whether any objective, however worthy, was worth the price of such devastation, and offered himself as an example of one who had “deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success.”

The second letter, written in December 1940 when Nazi forces had already stormed across Europe, was longer and more pointed. Gandhi warned Hitler that his methods would ultimately fail. He wrote about British imperial rule in India, noting that “one-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny,” while making clear that India was pursuing its freedom through nonviolent means. Gandhi issued a prophetic warning: some other power would inevitably improve upon Hitler’s violent methods and defeat him with his own weapons.

Articles in Harijan 🔗

Harijan, Gandhi’s journal, served as a platform for his reflections on the war and fascism. In these articles, Gandhi condemned fascist and Nazi forces while articulating his vision of resistance through nonviolence. He recognised that Nazism and Fascism represented the apotheosis of violence, yet refused to accept that Hitler and Mussolini were beyond redemption-a position consistent with his belief in the transformative power of nonviolent appeal.

Gandhi’s 1938 article on the persecution of Jews in Germany drew significant attention and controversy. He expressed deep sympathy for Jewish suffering while controversially suggesting that nonviolent resistance could be effective even against Nazi persecution. This position was heavily criticised, yet it demonstrated the consistency of Gandhi’s philosophical commitments even in the face of unprecedented evil.

The war context and Indian nationalists 🔗

World War II created complex political dynamics within India’s independence movement. Gandhi persuaded the Congress Working Committee to adopt the famous “Quit India” resolution on July 14, 1942, framed explicitly as serving “not only the interest of India but also for the safety of the world and for the ending of Nazism, Fascism, Militarism, and other forms of imperialism.”

Divergent responses among Indian nationalists 🔗

Indian nationalists responded to the war in varying ways. The Indian National Congress, while not committed to absolute pacifism like Gandhi, was prepared to support British war efforts if Indian self-government was assured. When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, it automatically implicated colonial India without Indian consent-a fact that angered nationalist leaders.

The Communist Party of India took a dramatically different path. Initially opposing the war as an imperialist conflict, they reversed course after Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. The CPI then characterised the war as a “people’s war” against fascism and actively supported British war efforts, which led to the party’s legalisation in 1942. This put them at odds with Gandhi and the Congress, who launched the Quit India movement demanding immediate British withdrawal.

Gandhi’s distinctive position 🔗

Gandhi’s position was unique among Indian leaders. He hated fascism and everything it represented, yet he also hated war. He refused to support British war efforts unconditionally while simultaneously condemning Nazi aggression. In April 1942, he suggested ways to resist a potential Japanese invasion through nonviolent means, and he stated that a free India should ally itself with the United Nations against the Fascist powers.

Through his letters and writings, Gandhi exposed what he saw as fundamental fallacies in fascist philosophy. Where fascism celebrated violence as regenerative and noble, Gandhi insisted on the moral superiority of nonviolent resistance. Where fascism subordinated the individual entirely to the state, Gandhi affirmed the dignity of every human being. Where fascism divided humanity into superior and inferior races, Gandhi upheld the essential unity of humankind.

Contrasting philosophies 🔗

The opposition between Gandhism and fascism runs deeper than mere political disagreement. Both emerged as responses to modernity, yet they drew opposite conclusions. Fascism rejected Enlightenment rationalism in favour of myth, emotion, and the glorification of violence. Gandhi, while critical of certain aspects of Western civilisation, sought to transform rather than destroy modern values through the practice of truth and nonviolence.

Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha-often translated as “truth-force” or “soul-force”-stood in direct opposition to fascism’s celebration of physical force and military conquest. Where fascists saw strength in domination, Gandhi located true strength in the willingness to suffer for truth without inflicting suffering on others. This was not passive acceptance of injustice but active resistance through nonviolent means.

The Gandhian critique remains relevant today. In a world where authoritarian movements continue to emerge, Gandhi’s insistence on the power of nonviolent resistance and his faith in the possibility of appealing to even the most hardened opponent offer an alternative vision of political engagement-one that refuses to meet violence with violence while never abandoning the struggle for justice.

What do you think? Can nonviolent resistance truly be effective against ideologies as extreme as fascism, or does such absolute evil require armed opposition? How might Gandhi’s approach to engaging with adversaries inform our political discourse today?

References

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343851732_Andrew_Heywood_2012_Fascism_Political_Ideologies_An_Introduction_5th_Edition_pp226-249_London_Palgrave
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
3. https://buildingarevolutionarymovement.org/2019/03/30/political-ideology-part-2/
4. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-fascism
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism
6. https://www.britannica.com/event/Operation-Barbarossa
7. https://grokipedia.com/page/Communist_involvement_in_the_Indian_independence_movement
8. https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/2015/0405/Dear-Friend-Gandhi-s-letters-to-Hitler
9. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/gandhis-letters-adolf-hitler.html
10. https://academic.oup.com/book/7523/chapter/152470999
11. https://san.beck.org/SouthAsia1941-50.html