Replies

Well Mussolini invented the term. Let's see how he defined it:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. -Benito Mussolini

Hmm, nothing about nationalism there. Unless you consider the idea of "the state" to represent extreme nationalism. But what about the obsession with race and racial purity? What did our pal Benito have to say about that?

"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the "nobility" of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. Gobineau was a Frenchman, Chamberlain, an Englishman; Woltmann, a Jew; Lapouge, another Frenchman." - Benito Mussolini

So he wasn't at all interested in the idea of racial purity, and fascism to him was primary an economic system where the state is supreme yet within the context of some level of private ownership of industry (i.e. corporations). Well, he did say this:

'We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores." -Benito Mussolini

Now of course Mussolini was a huge nationalist, a subscriber to the Italian irredntism movement. Recall that Italy was an infant nation cobbled together from previously autonomous states. Just a few decades before there was no such think as "Italy". Hence Nationalism in this context was to say that Italy as a state was legitimate and powerful. Viewed through this lens, the nationalism of Mussolini and Franco were both driven by the circumstances of their specific situations: new nations that were still being established. Nationalism then is an appeal to unity where one might otherwise see the state fracture. It made sense if you wanted to be a dictator of a nation that you must first support the idea that there was in fact ONE nation here to rule.

But does that makes sense in the case of established states like, say, China or (should it rise here) the USA or France? Would an appeal to national unity be necessary to consolidate power as it was in Italy and Spain? I say no. If you have all the other characteristics but not the overt nationalism, you have a fascist state.