The following is a piece from Lawrence of Arabia’s “W(h)ither Fascism” which I was re-reading yesterday. LoA tries to accurately define ‘fascism’:
It seems to me there must be at least two components in place to have a genuinely fascist government, party, organization or movement. First, and probably most importantly, there must be a desire to rally the citizenry and organize the political realm around the idea of the nation-family: some common racial, or ethnic heritage, some common, natural, language, possibly, within which the cultural inheritance is passed down across the generations. There must be, then, a very rigorous form of nationalism, where the idea of the nation is taken quite literally: nation as a reference to our natus, or birth.
Secondly, fascism relates to the economic reorganization of the nation along the lines of a state capitalism in order to revitalize the productivity of the worker, but also to provide security for that same worker. Ernst Jünger, one of the economic theorists of fascism, argued in The Worker (1932), for instance, that the revitalization of German industry was linked to the revitalization of German men, warrior-men, and thus the strength of Germany itself.
The quote above had me thinking: would the break up of the Union lead to the rise of fascism in the Home Nations, and especially England? My untrained eye finds it remarkable that fascism, as defined by LoA above, has never gained widespread acceptance on these Isles. Perhaps the exclusiveness of ‘Englishness’ (white, Anglo-Saxon) was countered by the inclusiveness of being ‘British’?