About the Psychological Nature of Fascism

Yanovsky Mikhail Ivanovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9265-6917 PhD in Psychology Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Donetsk National University 283001, Russia, Donetsk People's Republic, g. Donetsk, ul. Universitetskaya, 24 m.i.yanovsky@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The well-known Russian sociologist and political scientist S.G. Kara-Murza, describing the degree of our understanding of the phenomenon of fascism, states: "such a colossal event in the history of the West as fascism has remained practically unexplored and unexplained" [Kara-Murza 2008, 11]. With all the numerous publications and theories explaining this phenomenon, the opinion of S.G. Kara-Murza can be confirmed by the actual revival and spread of fascism in Ukraine, despite the victims and damage caused by it to the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, during the Great Patriotic War.

In our opinion, to a large extent, a full-fledged understanding of this phenomenon is hindered by the explicit or implicit replacement of its objective analysis with evaluative condemnation, the attitude towards it as a "scarecrow", as well as its use as a label that is hung on what is not liked (as, for example, in 2014, Western propaganda used the invented label "rashism" against the inconvenient Russian government for the West).

In this article we offer our version of the interpretation of the psychological essence of fascism.

When we say "fascism", we will also mean "Nazism". The difference between these phenomena, in our opinion, is exaggerated, and has become emphasized in our time, it is possible that with certain manipulative purposes (for example, to condemn one and consider the other acceptable). During the period of the real active struggle against fascism and Nazism, in the middle of the twentieth century, the differences between them were not considered something significant (recall the expression "Nazi invaders").

Our misunderstanding of fascism can be demonstrated by the example of the results of a study by Yaroslavl psychologists A.A. Smirnov and E.V. Solovyova. They were looking for factors influencing the possibility of blocking the "fascization" of personality (fascization is the formation of personality traits that are relatively close or coincide with the features of fascist ideology). Based on the generally accepted idea that fascism is associated with a state of emasculation of emotionality, "soulless" machine-like individual, researchers assumed that empathy can block "fascization". However, the real result of the study turned out to be different: empathy does not block, but to a certain extent, on the contrary, facilitates the fascization of personality [Smirnov, Solovyova 2020; Smirnov, Solovyova 2021]. Despite the fact that it seems impossible from a theoretical point of view and contradicts our moral consciousness, this is not a random artifact of research. Let's confirm this at least by the fact that the systemic fascization of the population of Ukraine that has been taking place since 2014 (the facts of such a process are too numerous to deny them) does not lead to the loss of the traditional Ukrainian mentality of "soulfulness", sentimentality. This, among other things, is one of the reasons for the ease of maintaining the image of a "victim" by the Ukrainian fascist regime inside the country, for themselves, as well as for foreign consumers ? from Russian relatives and friends to American Russophobes.

Such facts point to the insufficiency of our existing ideas about the psychological nature of fascism.

Attempts to analyze fascism in psychology have been made, and they are mainly associated with the psychoanalytic school.

So, according to E. Fromm, fascism is "necrophilia" (love of death, instead of love of life), i.e. fascism is a perversion of the instincts of life, the dominance of Thanatos, flight from freedom, the formation of sado-masochism. According to K. Jung, fascism is a lowering of the level of consciousness and the expansion of the collective unconscious. In particular, the archetype of Wotan (the Germanic deity) or the Shadow. A. Adler saw the causes of fascism in the psychological mechanism of overcompensation caused by an inferiority complex, and V. Reich – in the suppression of libido energy.

Fascist ideology – the ideology of total power or absolute inequality? These well-known theoretical interpretations are based on the understanding of fascism primarily as irrational violence. However, one can guess that such an understanding is based rather on an emotional reaction to it, expresses an emotional attitude towards it. As a consequence, such a view lacks sober objectivity, which inevitably leads to superficial ideas and contradictions. So, postmodernism, based on such an idea of fascism, even comes to ... cooperation with it (apparently because irrationalism is close to postmodernism, and, by the way, psychoanalysis).

Nevertheless, the stereotype that fascism is an extreme, irrational form of violent power and control, on a physical, emotional and mental level, is widespread and entrenched in the public consciousness. From it arose the idea that fascism is the antipode of freedom, and, therefore, the antipode of liberalism. For this reason, in the end, it was liberalism that appropriated the status and laurels of the main fighter against fascism.

The opposition of liberalism and fascism is almost universally accepted. However, in our opinion, it is a consequence of the shift in the understanding of fascism from the essence to an important, but private manifestation. Thus, monarchies also had absolute power (French Louis kings, Spanish kings, Genghis Khan, etc.). But it is obvious that absolute monarchical power is not fascism.

The point of view is more justified that the initial idea of fascism is the postulate of a priori, unconditional inequality of people [Kara-Murza 2008]. Thus, the doctrines of fascism are characterized by the division of people into "people" (or "superhumans"), "non-people" and "anti-people"; there are higher peoples (people and superhumans) and lower (non-people and anti-people). Since this division is not relative, situational, but as if basic, i.e. absolute, it is proclaimed as biological. For example, D. Dontsov, the creator of the Ukrainian version of fascist ideology – the so–called "Ukrainian integral nationalism", in one of his works claims that Russians ("Muscovites") are not a people, but a biological species (race) that is at a pre-human level. (Dontsov is the ideological basis of the Bandera movement; in modern Ukraine he is rated as an outstanding national thinker, streets in 12 cities of the country are named after him [Dontsov Dmytro Ivanovich (article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia)].)

Fascism can be accompanied by a concentration of power and control, using an authoritarian state as its "case". But it also proved to be compatible with liberalism; liberalism does not reject it as a kind of foreign body. For example, in the USA, under the pretext of "freedom of speech", fascist ideology is permissible. In 2014, Ukrainian neo-fascists and liberals found a "common language" for a coup d'etat. Therefore, it is obvious that liberalism is not the antipode of fascism. Liberalism and fascism even agree on some common values – for example, competition, with the difference that fascism declares competition of races [Kara-Murza 2008]. Moreover, according to S.G. Kara-Murza, fascism in a sense is a continuation of liberalism: "fascism brings to a logical conclusion the liberal idea of competition" [Kara?Murza 2008, 24], understanding man biologizatorski as a predatory animal. Ie, the common idea of both is social Darwinism.

The real antipode to fascism, certainly incompatible with it, are ideologies proclaiming the natural (or spiritual) equality of people and the unity of humanity. These are the world religions ? Buddhism, Christianity. But first of all it refers to the communist ideology. It is no coincidence that after the Second World War, adherents of fascism never sought (there were no exceptions!) escape to the USSR. It was not Soviet "totalitarianism" that prevented this, but the absolute foreignness of the fascist and communist ideologies to each other. As you know, they found refuge both in the dictatorial regimes of Latin America and in the liberal USA and Canada.

What are the origins of the idea of a priori inequality and, in general, of this ideology?

In the creation of fascism, the ideas of many theories were used, in particular: social Darwinism (man as an animal; peoples as species struggling for survival), the cult of the volitional principle (Schopenhauer), the cult of the superman and the will to power (Nietzsche), irrationalism, denial of the importance of reason within the philosophy of life (Simmel, Dilthey, Nietzsche, Bergson). However, the charisma of fascism (and it exists, this phenomenon has vitality) arises on the basis of a specific fascist mentality. In the first approximation, it can be described as an experience of one's exclusivity, elitism. But such an experience itself is apparently a consequence of the principle introduced into moral philosophy by I. Kant. We are talking about the principle of the "categorical imperative", which, according to Kant's plan, should be the true basis of the entire moral system of the individual (see our analysis of Kant's understanding of the foundations of morality [Yanovsky, Cherkashin 2020]).

The place of the principle of the "categorical imperative" in the structure of self-consciousness of the fascist personality. To understand what a "categorical imperative" is, you need to understand the general specifics of Kant's theory. According to some philosophers (P.A. Florensky [Florensky 1996] and V.F. Ern [Ern 1991]), Kant created a theory in which there is no place for the Transcendent Principle, i.e. God, in the structure of human consciousness. Human thinking and will in themselves, according to Kant, are alien to God. Therefore, God in Kant is brought into consciousness forcibly, artificially, as a useful representation. Kant creates a new principle – the principle, as it were, of moral autosuggestion, of consciously forcing oneself to believe in a useful illusion, the principle of faith in a "God" without God. This is the "categorical imperative" (the term was not chosen by chance, it has a pronounced connotation of coercion).

The categorical imperative is a kind of violence against one's mind, consciousness, maximalism of self–blind submission to a "duty" artificially and arbitrarily established by me for myself, or by another person for me. I.e., I create for myself what I consider moral, or another person creates and gives what I accept as morality. Including I create a "god". This is where the mindset that becomes characteristic of fascism arises: the experience of one's own specialness, elitism, exclusivity on the basis of volitional maximalism, understood as the basis of morality, as an analogue of religious faith^[1]. But it cannot be otherwise if the subject claims to create "God" himself (and thereby be his owner^[2]).

The categorical imperative is akin to what F. Brentano later came to call intention. To understand the effect created by the closure of consciousness on the categorical imperative (intention) as its basis, it is important to pay attention to the fact that both Kant and Brentano have a kind of prohibition on reflection, on the "highlighting" by consciousness of the "root" of the imperative (or intention). The fundamental impossibility of such reflection is declared, according to the principle "as the eye cannot see itself, so the mind cannot turn around on itself and its source." The place of reflection is occupied by the consciousness that it is "I" who implement the imperative, it is "my" intention, i.e. reflection is replaced by a kind of egocentric sense of ownership. This is how the feeling of personality, the feeling of my "I" as something unconditional, as if weighty and impenetrably dense, is being forced.

The attitude to this "I", impenetrable for reflection, is a priori uncritical. Therefore, it is transformed into self-encapsulation, in particular, into self-pity, reliably protected from both internal and external discretion. Such self-pity is nothing but the position of a "Victim", a victimized Self-image. The position of the "Victim" becomes a source of moral feelings, which determines the features of moral consciousness: the thirst to punish "bad people". Such consciousness is the hidden pseudo-moral core of the fascized personality.

Empathy and a fascized personality. The "victim" is no stranger to empathy. The self-pity of the "Victim", without changing its essence, can expand and extend to the collective "I", to "my own". This is how empathy arises. Obviously, this kind of empathy is the basis of group egoism and is perfectly combined with aggressive opposition to "strangers". Here, by the way, all the positions of the "dramatic triangle of Karpman" come up: the "Victim" becomes a "Rescuer" for "his own", for "strangers" – a "Punisher" ("Persecutor"). Therefore, just as the "Karpman triangle" generates emotionally saturated, but empty scenarios of social behavior, various forms of pseudo-activity ("games", according to E. Bern), so the same thing produces the pseudo-moral consciousness of a fascist personality.

Thus, empathy among adherents of fascist ideology is not absent, but is selective, extends to their community: their nation, their race, their like-minded people, etc. Moreover, empathy among adherents of fascism can play an even greater role than among ordinary people, since empathy for "their own" replaces morality as a single moral norms for both "friends" and "strangers"^[3]. In this sense, empathy should be distinguished from compassion. Empathy is more an expression of emotional "resonance", the connection of people, whereas compassion is soft–heartedness, emotional "delicacy" [Golysheva 2019]. Empathy expresses a connection with others, so it arises primarily to "our own". Compassion is universal, therefore, it also arises for "strangers". Therefore, it is characteristic of religions that rely on a single Transcendent Principle for all mankind (for example, Christianity or Buddhism ^[4]). Fascism denies the unity of humanity and the one Transcendent Principle of humanity (constructs the image of "God for his own", for the "chosen").

Empathy, warmth, selectively shown to "their own", is part of the charisma with which fascist ideology can attract new adherents. As a result, a psychotype can be formed, a personality that inconsistently combines empathy, warmth with cruelty, callousness, as well as with a claim to elitism, which brings contempt to the attitude towards "strangers" (which over time is extrapolated to "their own"). The classic description of such a psychotype was given by F.M. Dostoevsky in the image of the "Grand Inquisitor". The "Grand Inquisitor" ascribes to himself a special mission – the salvation of the human herd from the exorbitant burden of spirituality for people. At the same time, he says that he is driven by pity for people. This pity can be interpreted as empathy combined with contempt for the "herd", thereby expressing in a special form the experience of the same exclusivity, elitism.

Cognitive features of fascist consciousness. Fascist consciousness also has cognitive specificity – a kind of thinking that corresponds to the described mentality. The specificity of thinking is due to the strengthening of the sense of personality. The fact is that the strengthening of the sense of personality is at the same time an experience of the limitations of one's self. The experience of one's limitations can range from feeling like a "little man" (correlating with the image of a "victim") to feeling like a "superman" (correlating with the position of a "punisher"). In both poles there remains an enhanced sense of personality, its boundaries. But this limitation carries inequality as an initial cognitive principle: limitation is always "I" or less, or more than others. Therefore, we can say that the way of thinking of a follower of fascism is based on fixing inequality as a basic type of object relations. Moreover, this is not only the attribution of inequality to people, but also the blocking or underdevelopment of the very mental operation of establishing equality. This impossibility is a consequence of the fundamental denial of the Transcendent and the possibility of the presence of transcendences within consciousness (recall, such denial is one of the central ideas of I. Kant's philosophy [Florensky, 1996]). Here is an explanatory example. "Heavy" and "light" are only relatively different properties ("heavy" is heavy relative to something). In fact, they are equal in that they realize the same transcendent idea: the idea of weight. If the transcendent is denied, then "heavy" and "light" from a variation of the same property turn into two separate different properties. Inequality is attributed to a substantial character (according to the type of "bad" and "good" – these are two initially different types of people). Therefore, here inequality cannot be thought of as a situational, relative state capable of transitioning into equality. There is an absolutization of inequality.

This means that the principle of racial inequality, which is a key principle of the ideology of fascism, arises from a kind of cognitive defectiveness of adherents of this ideology. Consequently, this ideology is not only a set of certain ideas, but also an appropriate, essentially defective, way of thinking. It is this kind of thinking that attributes a constant, namely, biological character to the relative differences of representatives of different social groups, including ethnic groups.

In our opinion, such cognitive deformation is the most important psychological condition of the process of fascization of personality. Probably, to create this condition, propaganda influences can be used, which accustom to: replacing logical connections with associative connections, replacing concepts with images, replacing work on analyzing information by choosing a personal position on its assessment, replacing the search for essential properties of an object by fixing its surface qualities, etc.

The philosophical correspondences of this simplification of the cognitive apparatus are interesting. The fact is that the denial of transcendental elements in thinking is a reproduction of the old medieval scholastic teaching of "conceptualism", to which Aristotle and J. Locke are believed to have joined. From this point of view, surprisingly enough, we should consider these two philosophers as the distant ideological predecessors of fascism (and not Plato, as K. Popper claimed [Popper, 1992], the inspirer of the obviously false social concepts of J. Soros ^[5]). Indeed, in Aristotle we find the idea that masters and slaves are two different breeds of people (the ideologists of fascism extrapolated this simple idea to the peoples). In J. Locke we find the idea of the human soul as a "blank slate"; thus, the inner spiritual essence of a person is declared non-existent. This results in the fact that the barrier to violence is removed, even the right of violence against the inner essence of a person is justified, and, as a result, over the physical, external person. Perhaps that is why the ideas of eugenics ? the genetic purification of mankind and the breeding of new breeds of people ? were used by the ideologists of fascism, but originated and gained popularity in the homeland of liberalism, in the UK and the USA. Apparently it is no coincidence that G. Dimitrov in his famous speech characterized fascism as a form of power of financial capital, which means just an indication of the inner kinship of liberalism and fascism.

Such is the mysterious paradox: the "great-grandfathers" of fascism are the ideologists of liberalism. Therefore, the well-known concept of "totalitarianism", according to the plan of its creators H. Arendt, Z. Brzezinski, etc. embracing fascism and communism and fixing their connection is apparently the product of the same cognitive deformations and simplifications.

The "Superman" complex. The cognitive scheme used by adherents of fascism fixes relative differences as substantial, thereby substantializing evaluative characteristics in general. Subjective evaluations are considered as obvious properties of the object of evaluation itself, and then the subject of evaluation himself is outside of evaluation, outside of reflection. Such a-reflexivity generates a consequence for self-consciousness. The inability to objectively evaluate oneself from a moral point of view is formed, in particular, the ability to distinguish the real Self from the ideal is lost. But also from the anti-ideal. There is a kind of mixing, "piling up" of different poles of the Self-concept: ideal – anti–ideal - I-real. In one of our studies [Yanovsky, Priymak 2017; Yanovsky 2019] this is exactly the result was obtained: under the influence of watching a movie (a modern Hollywood action movie where a team of "warriors of light" is fighting "absolute evil"), the effect of a time correlation of I-ideal – I-anti–ideal - I-real arises. This correlation means that I-the real –is obviously perfect. At the same time, being bad is good, and being good is bad (ideal = anti–ideal). That is, it is a state when all the poles of the I–concept are mixed, the Super-I, I and It merge into one. Contradictions and doubts disappear in a person – belonging to the conventionally named "warriors of light" replaces moral reflection. In the limit, this is a state of shifting consciousness towards a person who is confident in his superiority over everyone as a "bearer of good", but does not bother to distinguish between good and evil in himself. Isn't this the "I" that feels like a Superman (= Superman)?

We believe that these transformations in self-consciousness, triggered by a Hollywood action movie that inspires the viewer with a temporary sense of "superman", are similar to the transformations that occur during the fascization of personality. The difference is that the movie gives a short?term effect, and the indoctrination is stable. Let us take into account that when a cognitive scheme of the absolutization of inequality is put into a person's consciousness, the situational feeling of being a "superman" turns into a consciousness of its unconditional superiority, elitism.

Conclusion. Thus, the following psychological features of the subject seem to correspond to the fascist ideology: rejection of the assumption of the Transcendent and the creation of a useful image of "as-if-god"; acceptance of volitional self-compulsion to believe in artificial ideals; elitism; blocking reflection and replacing it with self-pity; empathy for "one's own", rejection of morality as common to acceptance of the idea of a priori inequality of people; blocking of thinking by abstract "transcendent" ideas, as a consequence – blocking of the mental operation of establishing equality, attribution to relative inequalities of a substantial nature; erasing the differences between the real Self, the ideal and the anti-ideal.

In this set of features, contrary to popular beliefs, we would put the mental, cognitive sphere on the role of the leading factor, since it was thanks to Kantianism that it was cleared of the "exorbitant" burden of the Transcendent Principle.

^[1] At the core of such an experience of elitism is the "trauma" of moral rape. This, by the way, explains the amazing claims of elitism among some subethnic groups, for example, the Galician subethnos, who had a very traumatic historical experience within the framework of the Polish and Austrian states. According to the mechanism, this phenomenon is similar to army hazing: those who in the initial period of service were more inferior to it than others and depended on it are especially prone to it.

^[2] Possessiveness, the protection of the sense of ownership is the most important aspect of fascism. It is well known that fascism and Nazism historically arose as a reaction of the West to the Russian revolution of 1917, which not only changed society, but "encroached" on property as the basis of social life. An eloquent fact: the Russian philosopher I.A. Ilyin, who regarded private property as a spiritual, almost sacred, value [Ilyin 1993], was a fan of fascism for some period of his life.

^[3] It is not by chance that the existentialist philosopher M. Heidegger sympathized with fascism for some time: he saw in it a focus on a more emotional attitude to life than is typical of "cold" European rationalism.

Russian Russians are compassionate, but not empathetic enough, which is probably perceived as a tendency of Russians to ruthlessness.^[4] Perhaps this is one of the reasons for Russophobia, especially among small European nations: Russians are compassionate, but not empathetic enough.

^[5] J. Soros, according to his own confessions, was a fascist collaborator for a certain time, but he did not undergo the denazification procedure after that.