AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman. And this is Democracy Now!, the election-year program that tracks right-wing movements worldwide. In the 1960s, it wasn’t unusual to hear activists call members of the power elite and politicians “fascists.” But was the use of this explosive term red-hot rhetoric or just telling it like it was?

Stanley Payne is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and author of A History of Fascism: 1914-1945. He explains the origins and meaning of fascism.

STANLEY PAYNE: Fascism originated with an extreme nationalist movement in Italy at the end of World War I. But the term creates a great deal of confusion, because, unlike other major political terms, the word in itself doesn’t really mean anything. That is, liberalism has to do with liberty, socialism with social organization and ownership, conservatism with a concern to conserve. But fascism doesn’t tell us anything. It comes from a basic Italian word that had to do with leagues or unions, very common in Italian radical politics at the beginning of the 20th century. But the fascism as it developed as an ism, of course, developed specific characteristics in Italy and in Europe in the period between the wars. But they’re not given to us simply by the nature of the word itself. One has to make the historical reference to what the historic fascist movements were really like.

AMY GOODMAN: And what were they like? Who started them?

STANLEY PAYNE: Well, Benito Mussolini, of course, was the first leading fascist. The Italian Fascist Party was begun in 1919. Other essentially similar fascist-type parties developed in a great many European countries, and indeed in countries around the world, in the ’20s and ’30s. But of the fascist-type parties, by far the most important, the most powerful, the most destructive, the one that we remember most, is the Nazi Party in Germany under Adolf Hitler.

AMY GOODMAN: What defines fascism? When you say the Nazis are fascist, Mussolini was fascist, what are the essential characteristics?

STANLEY PAYNE: There is no absolute agreement about that. I’ll have to simply tell you how I define fascism myself. The way I use the term “fascist” is to refer to these movements in Europe during the era of World Wars, 1920s and ’30s and early ’40s, in terms of an extreme nationalist movement oriented toward nationalist rebirth, the resurrection of the nation, with a philosophical basis in an action philosophy, philosophy of vitalism and pragmatism and even a kind of neo-idealism, but rejecting rationalism and materialism, a movement that aimed both at a mass movement and elite leadership, highly authoritarian with the leadership principle, and particularly with a philosophy of violence as an end as well as a means, and an orientation toward militarism and toward empire.

AMY GOODMAN: Where does fascism stand today in Europe? What happened after World War II?

STANLEY PAYNE: What essentially happened, of course, is that with the complete destruction of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in 1945, fascism was literally destroyed physically and, as a major political force, obliterated more than any of the major isms of the 20th century. Nonetheless, there is the phenomenon of neofascism. That is, there are lots of genuine neofascist and neo-Nazi parties in the Western world and other parts of the world today. But these are all small and tiny sects. What’s happened in Europe, for example, since World War II is that any time a political movement inspired or partially inspired by fascism has wanted to become politically successful, it’s had to de-fascistize itself more and more. The more it wanted to gain popular following, the more it has had to de-fascistize itself. And so, there’s a kind of iron law of neofascist politics in Europe since 1945 that you can’t win politically with a directly neofascist movement. You have to change it into something much more moderate. And that’s why in Italy, where there’s always been the strongest partly neofascist movement, the Italian movement has become essentially a conservative parliamentary party and is no longer really a fascist movement. That’s the cost of becoming a popular mass party.

AMY GOODMAN: In fascism, would you say there is a powerful component of hate against certain groups? Is that a necessary element of it?

STANLEY PAYNE: There is a necessary sense of a strong antagonism, and usually it comes out expressed as hate towards certain other groups. That’s correct. I think that’s a fair observation.

AMY GOODMAN: And where is it strongest today outside the United States?

STANLEY PAYNE: As a specific development or projection of historical fascism, it really is not strong as such anywhere, because the genuine neo-Nazi and neofascist parties are really no more than small sects. Where you have the analogs, this, I think, is what should concern people. Where you have the analogs to something that is not maybe the same thing as historical fascism, but at least has some of the characteristics, will be where one finds very strongly and aggressively nationalistic movements and regimes, for example, in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans, in the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the United States today?

STANLEY PAYNE: The United States, of course, there are a variety of genuine neofascist and neo-Nazi movements. These are tiny sects, so they don’t really have any political influence. What one finds, however, are various groups, whether or not they call themselves neofascists or neo-Nazis, that have been influenced by various aspects of fascism and Nazism. And although these are not significant as political forces, what catches people’s attention is the fact that some of them are very violent, and they cause a great deal of destruction.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to professor Stanley Payne. He’s a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and he has a new book out called A History of Fascism: 1914-1945. You’re listening to Democracy Now! Can you talk about — have you studied some of the groups in this country that do call themselves neo-Nazi or neofascist?

STANLEY PAYNE: Not in any detail, because I’m an historian, really, of Europe, and I don’t study fringe element American politics very much. But you have, of course, a very elaborate taxonomy of American extremist groups of all different kinds. As I say, some are categorically neofascist. Others are simply influenced by fascist ideas, not so much by fascist techniques as by fascist ideas —

AMY GOODMAN: Which are?

STANLEY PAYNE: — and practice — ideas of race, of extreme nationalism, of conspiracy and paranoia. I think these are the aspects of historical fascism which are most influential in American extremist groups. They can’t practice historical fascist politics, which was a politics of mass mobilization, because they can’t generate that kind of support in the United States. And therefore, in this country, these groups turn toward terrorism and certain forms of violence, if not merely withdrawal, which makes their action different from that of historical fascist groups in exact type, but certainly does not prevent it from being very destructive sometimes.

AMY GOODMAN: Pat Buchanan, of course, is a major force on the electoral — in the electoral political scene, I think it’s fair to say, is now talking about either forming a third party or still being a part of the Republican Party and applying pressure. Some people have used that word to describe him. Do you think it’s in any way accurate?

STANLEY PAYNE: No. There are all different kinds of nationalists. And Buchanan presents a kind of nationalist rhetoric and program, which is quite militant, very conservative in some areas. But there are all different forms of nationalism. And to set off someone as a fascist, you have to really follow the ideas of physical aggression and violence and the kind of philosophical orientation of the fascists themselves.

So, “fascism” is a term that’s used in quite a variety of ways. One way it’s used simply is as a kind of pejorative for anyone who is quite anti-left-wing or strongly nationalist or opposed to certain major aspects of the status quo in a militant way in Europe or the United States. But the merely pejorative or polemical use of the term “fascist” confuses more than it helps. This was something begun by the communists back in the 1920s. But as early as 1928, the head of the Italian Communist Party, Palmiro Togliatti, who was one of the most intelligent European communists, pointed out that calling people fascist indiscriminately is useful for purposes of agitation and propaganda, but very confounding for terms of political analysis. So one should be careful not to confuse oneself by the kinds of terminology one applies.

AMY GOODMAN: In the time leading up to Mussolini, could you say the landscape looked anything like the United States? Here, you say, you know, there’s just no — there’s no real fertile ground for this to take root in any mass way. Could you say the same about Italy or in Germany before it took hold?

STANLEY PAYNE: There, one had societies which were undergoing absolutely decisive political changes and a great deal of turmoil. This sort of thing is not the case in the United States, although we are in a period of some change. It seems to me that probably the major point of comparison between the United States at the present time and what we would call the fascist situations, or the fascistogenic situations in Europe between the wars, has to do more with aspects of culture than with specific aspects of politics or economics, per se — that is, a great deal of cultural confusion and a shift in values and some attitudes, which tends to open up a certain kind of philosophical vacuum in politics that had not existed, for example, in Europe before World War I, had not exist in the United States as much 10 years ago as at the present time. So, I’d say it’s particularly the cultural and moral confusion of the country which is the only aspect that bears some direct comparison with the situations in Europe before World War II.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s end on the note of the militias in this country. Are you surprised by them? How would you describe them?

STANLEY PAYNE: Well, one is surprised by these things, always, in a certain sense, because of the extremism. On the other hand, one has to remember that the militias — and there are several kinds of militias, after all; some of them are ultra-Christian, some of them are not, some of them are highly racist, some of them are not so racist — have their roots in historical American libertarianism, the idea of being against the government and doing your own thing. This is a very American kind of orientation, and one doesn’t find it to the same extent in any other country in the entire world. That is, the militia phenomenon, although some of the militia leaders are really influenced by fascist ideas, is as American as apple pie, in a certain sense. It really goes back to the Whiskey Rebellions and a variety of phenomena in American history, and it does have roots in American society. Because of some problems that we have today, which are now more severe than was the case 10 or 20 years ago, this sort of thing now is finding some expression and expressing itself sometimes in very violent ways.

AMY GOODMAN: Was it Huey Long who said fascism will come to America wrapped in an American flag?

STANLEY PAYNE: This is, of course, the case with any form of nationalist movement. It has to have a patriotic and nativist kind of wrapping. Huey Long, of course, was one candidate for a kind of American fascism, but he wasn’t. Huey was really just a socioeconomic demagogue who never got that far in national politics. He was, however, of course, the person who was most feared by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.

AMY GOODMAN: Stanley Payne is the author of A History of Fascism: 1914-1945. Whether or not fascism could make a comeback, it’s certainly a concern in Europe, where right-wing nationalist movements are growing in strength. Many Americans were startled by the early victories of presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, but political observers in Europe find Buchanan and his ideas uncomfortably familiar. Sarah Chayes reports from Paris.

PAT BUCHANAN: We stood with South Carolina. I want him to stand with me, stand with me for a new conservatism of the heart that looks out for those Americans who have no voice and those Americans losing their jobs when these factories move overseas. I refer to minority Americans…

SARAH CHAYES: That’s Pat Buchanan during a recent campaign speech. But if the language were French, it could be Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of France’s ultra-right National Front.

JEAN-MARIE LE PEN: [translated] French politicians are, in my opinion, exclusively responsible. What brings immigrants to France? French egalitarianism. We gave everyone, even illegal immigrants, the same social benefits as French people got, and now they even get extra social benefits, what you in America call affirmative action. Why, under these circumstances, wouldn’t billions, hundreds of millions of people come, since they know that by coming to France, they will make 10, 20 times as much not working as they would if they stayed at home and worked?

SARAH CHAYES: Le Pen, who’s championed nationalist and anti-immigration themes for decades, won only a fraction of a percentage point when he ran for president in 1974. Last year, he scored 15% of the vote. Observers say Le Pen’s growing popularity is a result of France’s drawn-out economic crisis, but they also fault the traditional political parties, whose positions on major issues have grown increasingly similar. René Rémond is a historian and political scientist.

RENÉ RÉMOND: [translated] Over the last 10 years, we’ve seen a growing number of voters split off from the traditional political parties and vote for splinter groups that don’t really have a program. It’s a sign of the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the major parties, on the right as well as the left, that have disappointed them, partly because they don’t offer a clear vision anymore, and they’ve lost their ideological landmarks, and they’re powerless against the growth of unemployment.

SARAH CHAYES: Still, the National Front vote isn’t just a throwaway protest vote. It’s solidifying and growing. In the central French department of the Rhône, National Front activists disentangle plastic chairs for their weekly meeting from stacks of boxes. Headquarters is about to move to a larger building. The National Front doubled its number of city councilors in the eastern part of the department in municipal elections last year. Alain Breuil, city councilor in the working-class town of Saint-Priest, says he’s emphasized grassroots organizing.

ALAIN BREUIL: Every Sunday, for example, I am with some members of the National Front in the main market of my city of Saint-Priest. And we give papers and informations to people. We do this nearly every week.

SARAH CHAYES: Breuil’s political program is simple: preference for French citizens in the distribution of jobs and social benefits, lower taxes and increased police presence, especially in the immigrant neighborhoods.

ALAIN BREUIL: Young people, especially from Africa, we have to say the truth: We have just problem with people, young people, from North Africa, and sometimes like Africa, have to understand that we are in France. It’s a great luck for them, and they have to adopt our law, our way of living. And they can’t — they can’t do and live as if there were no police and no mayor and no law and nothing else.

SARAH CHAYES: On the national level, Jean-Marie Le Pen continues to hammer the immigration issue. But with more and more of his votes coming from the working class, he started emphasizing working-class issues, just like Buchanan. He’s begun supporting the minimum wage for the first time, and he’s attacked multinational corporations and the global economy. According to Patrick Silberstein of Ras l’Front, an anti-fascist group that observes National Front activities, this is a big switch for a man who used to call himself the French Reagan.

PATRICK SILBERSTEIN: This is a big change in their policy. And in my opinion, it shows that this National Front is not a right — ordinary right-wing party, but it’s a real fascist party in a new way, because they have a national program — it’s a national preference — and they have a social program for national preference. It means minimum wages for French people, the social security for white people, and so on. And this is, I think, the most dangerous thing in the French politics today, because they are able to reach people who were — who used to be — to vote for the labor parties in the past.

SARAH CHAYES: Jean-Marie Le Pen, like Buchanan, is not about to be elected president. Still, his ideas are making headway. Jacques Chirac’s conservative government is about to announce a tough new set of immigration laws. And many say that so long as the mainstream political parties fail to address voters’ legitimate concerns about the impact of the global economy, support for Le Pen will keep growing. And he’s hardly alone in Europe. There’s Jörg Haider, head of the Freedom Party, now the second-largest political party in Austria, or Russia’s Zhirinovsky. Jean-Marie Le Pen says he’s been doing some networking.

JEAN-MARIE LE PEN: [translated] My idea is the following. The nationalists, the patriots, let’s call them, have conflicts of interest as neighbors, but they share a body of moral doctrines. They like their land, their families, the rootedness of their traditions. That should allow them to understand each other.

SARAH CHAYES: Le Pen says that at Zhirinovsky’s wedding in Moscow recently, he only half-jokingly made a toast: “Nationalists of the world unite!” For Pacifica Network News, I’m Sarah Chayes in Paris.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! Coming up, a reverend in the 85th day of a fast. He’s protesting the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Stay with us.