I highly recommend this book. He offers a five-stage process mapping the life of a fascist movement and gives a number of distinguishing traits such as a sense of racial or cultural victimization; the subordination of all aspects of individuality and privacy to the mass movement; a cultivation of a sense of impending disaster; the demonization of vulnerable internal minorities and external enemies; the setting aside of the rule of law; a messianic leader as ultimate authority; the glorification of passion over reason; and a predilection for violence and militarism. Trying to Account for the Holocaust Italian Radicalization: Internal Order, Ethiopia, Salò Final Thoughts Chapter 7 Other Times, Other Places Is Fascism Still Possible? Kirjailija käy läpi kaikki fasismia käsittelevät teoriat, osoittaakseen niitten puutteita tai hyviä puolia. Paxton offers a pretty good analysis of what fascism actually looks like in practice even if he does tend to define it too narrowly , all the way from its origins in the 1920s up through the close of the 20th century. But what is Fascism itself? Now I know there is a reason for it. But what is Fascism itself? Paxton's basic point, which he makes convincingly, is that fascism is better defined by what fascist movements do than by what they say.
If anything, this book has shown that the citizens of a country are always complicit in these situations, so heads up, America. It was the absence of an alternative on the right which led to the acceptance of fascism; where such alternatives of a more traditional right-authoritarian variety existed, fascism remained on the fringes. He develops his theory of Fascism in much the same way that Trotsky does. Knocking one star off purely for that. A common attack upon Islam and immigration does not predict fascism, although as a factor in a more than likely collapse of global order the future is bleak. Similarly, other European fascists tried to convince conservatives and businessmen that only they could handle the communists and protect the social and economic order.
He rejects the thesis that fascism developed 'naturally' either as the result of some peculiarity of certain nations or of a crisis of capitalism: he is adamant in insisting that choice was a crucial element. Paxton shows how these opportunities manifested themselves differently in France, in Britain, in the Low Countries, and in Eastern Europe-and yet failed to achieve supreme power. Their shares were usually in the high 30s and low 40s. . Tämän syvän vihan takia fasismi on ikuisesti tuomittu joko häviämään jossain vaiheessa aloittamansa sodat tai romahtamaan taloudellisen rasituksen takia.
Further fascist advances towards power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social and political power. This kind of alternative construction of civil institutions is a key characteristic of fascist regimes. Here lies its true insidiousness: the German and Italian people, empowered democratically, eventually renounced their rights and their free institutions in order to be subsumed by a totalizing government which supposedly expressed the true national will. For a synopsis of the book and a good summary of Paxton's thoughts, I refer you to the excellent Goodreads reviews of Louise, Szplug, and sologdin. Besides the historical perspective it provides actual facts! Paxton is clearly a scholar and this shows in his style. I learned so much that had been missing from my other history books about the period 1919 start of fascism up until the present. Paxton taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the State University of New York at Stony Brook before joining the faculty of Columbia University in 1969.
Kirja esimerkiksi jäljittää Mussolinin fasismin alkaneen äärivasemmistolaisesta radikaalisyndikalismin ideologiasta, joka kuitenkin alkoi vähitellen muuttua nationalistiseksi ja rasistiseksi. In taking a similar view, Paxton and I share a viewpoint that Sternhell vehemently rejects. Don't let the title of this book scare you off. While Paxton is very cautious about assigning the label, he also reminds readers that every nation's fascism is dependent on its history and culture and thus unique. Can one permit oneself to overlook the fact that the difference between Italian fascism and Nazism is a qualitative one, a difference of essence? If you have an ebook reader or a Kindle, check out our.
They were taking their place alongside the most powerful of the disbanded leagues to proclaim that the time had come to do away with the disgraced regime. Although it contains enough discussion of Marxism and their revolution in Russia to satisfy these qualms, The Anatomy of Fascism is definitely not an in-depth comparative piece on fascism and only one other single movement nor would further exploration of this theme be appropriate in this book. In brief, Paxton states that fascism is a political movement motivated by a sense of national decline and humiliation. The fact that complicity of established political parties and ordinary citizens is necessary for fascism to succeed provides a chilling reminder that no one is immune to gross distortions of nationalism in times of perceived crisis, which are often created or exacerbated by those in charge. Both are well worth keeping an eye on. It should not be surprising, after all, that the most precocious democracies—the United States and France—should have generated precocious backlashes against democracy. As the author points out, everyone has sooner or later been someone else's fascist, so perhaps the term has become so overloaded as to be of no use.
Paxton's book stops at 2005. They often collapse the distinction between the public and private sphere eliminating the latter. Sternhell regards Paxton and myself as hopelessly old-fashioned. This describes not merely a fascism but any dictatorship, and the conundrum of fascism is that its genocidal activity is willingly participated in by the populace. Conservative, militaristic dictatorships are not necessarily fascisms. He rejects the thesis that fascism developed 'naturally' either as the result of some peculiarity of certain nations or of a crisis of capitalism: he is adamant in insisting that choice was a crucial element.
Paxton demonstrates that fascists were preoccupied with community decline and victimhood. Historians have sought to explain this in two ways described by Paxton - structuralism and intentionalism. Despite this, fascism remained undeveloped until it emerged in Italy in the aftermath of the First World War. It first addresses its central question what is fascism? A simply dressed and groomed young women sitting in a rural area with Most people have trouble defining fascism. What stands out about the rise of fascist states is how, ultimately, they all seem to follow the same template. Whenever a question, doubt, or countering argument would arise as I finished a section—and many times when I fully concurred with what I had read—Paxton would approach the topic from another angle of interpretation, and such questions would either wind up answered, or a settled belief be stirred and shaken by being forced to view its foundational core in another light.
Second hiccough is rooted in one of the strengths of the argument: the definition has both formal and substantial components. After attending secondary school in New England, he received a B. Even those usually found at the receiving end of such name-calling have joined in on the fun, as shown in the mental gymnastics Let's admit it, political theatre has turned the word fascism into a vulgarity often used with little understanding of the term itself. The esteemed historian Robert O. If I was teaching a course on political science, this book would be assigned reading. If Robert Paxton calls you a fascist — well, you really are one! Whatever conformity remains has to be either bribed or brutally enforced. A couple of articles have pointed this out and Vox's The rise of American authoritarianism is very interesting.