Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What role does nationalism play in fascist ideologies as described by leading scholars?
Executive summary
Leading scholars treat nationalism as central to many fascist ideologies but disagree on how and why: some define fascism by a palingenetic (national rebirth) ultra‑nationalism, while nationalism studies stress that nationalism itself is plural and not inherently fascist [1] [2]. Historical and comparative work shows fascists typically appropriate pre‑existing national ideas—shaping them into exclusionary, racial or cultural forms that justify authoritarian politics and mass mobilization [3] [4].
1. Nationalism as the ideological bedrock: “national rebirth” and the fascist minimum
Many leading fascism scholars argue that a core of fascist ideology is an aggressive, palingenetic form of nationalism: the promise of national rebirth that unites “the people” and legitimates authoritarian renewal, which Roger Griffin and others call part of the “fascist minimum” [1] [5]. Encyclopedic syntheses and academic overviews repeatedly list ultra‑nationalism—often linked to notions of racial or cultural purity and a mythic past—as a distinguishing element separating fascist movements from other authoritarian tendencies [5] [4].
2. Nationalism is necessary but not sufficient: debates within the scholarship
Scholars of nationalism push back: nationalism is a plural, multifaceted phenomenon and is not automatically equivalent to fascism. The recent historiographical literature highlights a surprising lack of dialogue between nationalism studies and fascism studies and warns against treating all nationalism as a precursor to fascism [2]. The Conversation and other historians note that nationalist movements can be inclusive and democratic (e.g., anti‑colonial nationalisms), underscoring that it is specific forms of ethnic, exclusionary nationalism that tend to be harnessed by fascists [6].
3. The mechanics: how fascists appropriate and radicalize national sentiment
Case studies and comparative research show fascists typically appropriate pre‑existing national symbols, memories and grievances and transform them into a revolutionary‑style nationalism that delegitimizes pluralism and dissent [3] [7]. This process often involves fusing native myths, “blood and soil” narratives, and claims of existential threat to create a mobilizing story that justifies suppression of opponents and the elevation of a single leader or party [7] [8].
4. Exclusion, nativism and the “ethnic turn” in nationalist rhetoric
A recurrent theme in scholarship is the shift from civic to ethnic or nativist definitions of the nation within fascist projects. Writers highlight that when nationalism is racialized—or tied to alleged immutable traits such as blood, language, or religion—it becomes a tool for exclusion, scapegoating, and state‑sponsored violence, a pattern documented across historic fascisms and many contemporary radical right movements [6] [9].
5. Nationalism’s instrumental role: mobilization, authoritarian consolidation, and policy
Beyond ideology, nationalism performs instrumental functions for fascists: it mobilizes broad social support, redirects class or economic grievances into cultural conflict, and legitimates policies—from education and cultural purges to aggressive foreign claims—that consolidate authoritarian power [4] [10]. OpenStax and other pedagogical sources note that fascist regimes exploited nationalist loyalty to centralize authority and to bind citizens to a leader or “national mission” [11] [4].
6. Contemporary debates: applying the fascism label to modern nationalist politics
Some scholars and commentators extend the fascism framework to contemporary movements that blend exclusionary nationalism with authoritarian impulses, while others caution against loose analogies that obscure historical specificity [12]. Recent pieces trace similar tactics—nativism, scapegoating, appeals to a threatened nation—in current politics, but the literature contains explicit warnings that not all nationalist politics are fascist and that overbroad comparisons can be analytically unhelpful [10] [12].
7. What’s missing or contested in the sources
Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted quantitative threshold (e.g., levels of violence or institutional capture) that turns nationalism into fascism; instead, scholars point to a cluster of ideological, organizational, and behavioral traits [1] [5]. There is also ongoing debate—reflected in the literature—about whether contemporary radical right movements amount to a “neofascism” structurally continuous with 20th‑century fascism or are new hybrids borrowing fascist elements [13] [12].
Concluding synthesis: across the literature, nationalism is not incidental to fascism; it is often the raw material fascists reshape—through myths of rebirth, exclusionary definitions of the nation, and mobilizing narratives—into an engine for authoritarian rule, but scholars insist on distinguishing nationalist varieties and caution against blanket equations of all nationalism with fascism [1] [2].