Is the definition of Rosan Smits of Fascism very superficial?

 

Is the definition of Rosan Smits of Fascism very superficial?

Whether political scientist Rosan Smits’ definition of fascism is "superficial" depends on whether it is evaluated as a precise academic theory or as a practical, diagnostic alarm bell for the public. In her book Dit is fascisme (This is Fascism), Smits consciously moves away from viewing fascism as a fixed, rigid ideology. Instead, she defines it as a tactical playbook or a set of tools used to hollow out democracy from within. Critics and defenders view this definition through entirely different lenses.

 

The Argument That It Is Superficial (The Critics)

Academic historians and conservative critics often argue that her definition lacks theoretical discipline and historical depth:

• Divorced from Ideology: Historians point out that fascism is not just a content-free strategy or a set of neutral marketing tricks. By ignoring the specific philosophical roots of historical fascism—such as totalitarian state worship, corporatist economics, and biological racism—her definition can appear overly broad.
• The "Labeling" Problem: Critics argue that by defining fascism primarily by its divisive language and rule-breaking, the definition becomes thin enough to be used as a moral sticker. Detractors claim it risks flattening complex geopolitical and social realities into a simple "far-right vs. democracy" dichotomy.
• Over-Inclusivity: If any politician who uses aggressive populism, attacks the press, or alters voting rules is labeled a "fascist," the term risks losing its unique historical meaning and becoming a generic synonym for "authoritarian" or "bad."

The Argument That It Is Functionally Deep (The Defenders)

Conversely, many political scientists and reviewers praise her approach as highly sophisticated and necessary for the modern era:

• A Dynamic Script: Smits explicitly argues that waiting for 1930s-style swastikas and goose-stepping tanks is a mistake because fascism adapts. By focusing on the mechanisms—such as invoking a mythic past, normalising violence, and rewriting rules—she captures how modern autocrats actually operate today.
• Alignment with Fascism Scholars: Her functional approach heavily echoes renowned scholars like Jason Stanley (How Fascism Works) and Timothy Snyder (On Tyranny), both of whom endorsed her work. These scholars similarly treat fascism as a viral political method rather than a stagnant historical artifact.
• Early-Warning Utility: Defenders argue that a definition shouldn't just be an autopsy tool for dead regimes; it must be an alarm clock. Her definition emphasizes that "fascism starts with talk, not tanks," successfully shifting focus onto the gradual erosion of democratic norms before it is too late