The latest book of Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale University, explains fascism as an ideology based on the concept of struggle against other groups for self-identity and dominance, and calls on universities to act as guardians of the truth, "resisting the temptation to glorify national traditions". 
Professor Stanley has written several books, including publications on politics of language, semantics and propaganda. In an interview conducted on the occasion of his newest book, "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them," professor Stanley is interviewed by fellow-philosophy professor Efstathios Psyllos of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens on behalf of the Athens-Macedonian News Agency (ANA). 
Some of the questions he answers address the differences between fascism as an ideology and as a system of government, the relationship fascist ideology has with the military, and the threat to democracy when "liberal norms such as toleration to a particular financial system and infrastructure, as the failure of the financial system can be represented as a refutation of the liberal norms."
Higher academic institutions must recognize, he says, that "many groups have contributed to knowledge," with civilization not being the work of one group alone.

The full interview to ANA follows:

ANA: You recently published your book, "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them". A translation into Greek has just appeared. It is in many ways a wonderful book. I would like to take this opportunity to ask you some questions concerning it. But before we start could you please, for the benefit of our readers, say what fascist ideology consists of?
 
JS: Hitler's book is called "my struggle". Fascist ideology is based on the concept of struggle; success in struggle determines value. It adds to this basic doctrine of social Darwinism hyper-nationalism, according to which the members of a chosen nation, typically defined racially, are superior because of past military or civilizational achievements. Power and loyalty to an ethnic group are paramount; as a consequence, fascist ideology prizes authoritarian hierarchies, such as patriarchy. 

ANA: Traditionally, intellectuals of the left have seen fascism as a kind of ideology which is associated with a certain form of an openly oppressive state power organized as a dictatorship. The fascist military regimes in Southern Europe after WWII is a case in point. You seem to treat fascism as a kind of politics based on the division between 'us' and 'them' irrespective of the political forms it may assume. As a result you take it that there can be fascist politics in otherwise democratic states. Why is that so?
 
JS: I treat fascism first and foremost as an ideology, rather than a system of government. I think it's difficult to make generalizations about the structure of regimes that came to power by employing fascist ideology; even Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussolini had different approaches to the relation between, for example, the government and the private business sphere. But because fascist ideology is about power and loyalty, politicians or political parties that employ fascist ideology will share some common tendencies when in power: they will seek a one party system, representing support of the opposition party as treason to the nation. They will not respect democratic structures, placing ethnic, party, and personal loyalty over loyalty to democratic values. Because fascism glorifies the military, they will symbiotically merge with the military. So I think that those who come to power by exploiting fascist ideology will try to coopt the state along familiar lines eventually, if they are able.

ANA: You take it that division is the hallmark of fascism: "Us vs them", along any kind of lines: ethnic, religious, racial, gender, sexual orientation etc. Can you explain why divisions that people, unfortunately, tend to make as a matter of course can breed fascist ideology and are fed by it?
 
JS: Really, it's liberalism that's exceptional in demanding equality of moral worth between groups. I see fascism as a particular form of justification for drawing distinctions of moral worth between groups, distinctions that, as you rightly point out, are sadly already quite tempting for humans to endorse - our capacity for vanity, after all, is endless. Fascist ideology gives a practical justification for such vanity - life is a struggle between groups, and it is necessary in such struggle to retain our group identity and belief in our group's superiority to win in this struggle, or else our group will disappear. In fascist ideology, the endorsement of liberalism has led to national humiliation, and will eventually lead to the destruction of what is valuable about our nation and our heritage. By setting life up as a struggle for resources between ethnic groups, fascist ideology provides us with a kind of practical validation for preferring our own and being merciless towards others.

ANA: You emphasize the connection between fascist attitudes and views with the disregard for truth. How can knowledge be used as a weapon against fascism? What might the role of Universities be in the struggle against the rise of fascism?
 
JS: Universities can resist the temptation to glorify national traditions. The goal of universities should be to teach the truth, especially about the topics about which fascism likes to mythologize - history, biology, history of science, etc. In fact, many groups have contributed to knowledge - civilization is not solely due to one group, be it Europeans, or Germans or what have you. Some groups have oral rather than written traditions, and so their history of knowledge production has been less accessible. Colonization was not discovery. The same historical event was experienced by different groups in different ways. By focusing on the truth, and refusing to give in to the temptation to prefer one narrative of history and development over another, universities can be a repository of knowledge that resolutely contradicts fascist myth.

ANA: You associate fascist ideology with the rise of nationalism, economic and social inequality, the weakening of the trade unions and the immigration crisis. How do you think these and other related factors play out in the rise of neo-fascist ultra right and populist parties in Europe?
 
JS: When elite policy spectacularly fails, as we saw in the financial crisis, it opens elites up to critique as using liberal norms hypocritically. Unfortunately, these times are threatening to liberalism. I think it has been a disaster to link liberal norms such as toleration to a particular financial system and infrastructure, as the failure of the financial system can be represented as a refutation of the liberal norms. Toleration is one thing, and the German banking system is quite another. When European elites mix these two together, they imperil support for fundamental liberal values.

ANA: Finally, here in Greece we have seen the growth of a neo-Nazi gang of thugs into a fascist parliamentary party with considerable electoral strength, especially among the dispossessed. I'm referring to Golden Dawn. All this happened in the space of few years during the Greek socio-economic crisis. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?
 
JS: Golden Dawn is of course very worrisome, because they are perhaps the most extreme of the European far right movements. It's ironic, because in reacting with anger to misbehavior that is plausibly placed on Germany during the financial crisis, which imperiled Greece, supporters of Golden Dawn have adopted an ideology essentially perfected by Germany, namely Nazism.