الفاشية: مقدمة قصيرة جداً

Very Short Introductions #077

by Kevin Passmore, رحاب صلاح الدين (translator)

ليس من السهل — كما هو معروف — وضع تعريف للفاشية. فكيف يتأتى لنا استيعاب أيديولوجية ينجذب إليها مقاتلو الشوارع والمفكرون على حد سواء؟ أيديولوجية ذكورية بوضوح، لكنها مع ذلك تجذب كثيرًا من النساء؟ أيديولوجية تدعو إلى العودة إلى التراث، وفي الحين نفسه تفتنها التكنولوجيا؟ أيديولوجية تحرض على العنف باسم خلق مجتمع منظَّم؟

يكشف كيفن باسمور ببراعة النقاب عن التناقضات التي تكتنف إحدى أهم الظواهر في عالمنا الحديث؛ مقتفيًا أثر أصولها في الأزمات الفكرية والسياسية والاجتماعية التي شهدتها نهايات القرن التاسع عشر، والحركات والأنظمة الفاشية في إيطاليا وألمانيا، وما آل إليه مصير الحركات الفاشية «الفاشلة» في أوروبا الشرقية وإسبانيا والأمريكتين. كما يبدي لنا مدى الأهمية التي مثلتها القومية العنصرية للفاشية، ويتحرى جاذبيتها في عيون الرجال والنساء، والعمال والرأسماليين، ويختتم الكتاب بنظرة على انبعاث اليمين المتطرف من جديد في أوروبا حديثًا.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Political Science, Audiobook, Reference

158 pages

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 2 out of 5]

الفاشية هى شكل من أشكال الحكم الشمولى الذى يستند الى ايدلوجية قومية او دينية تحاول جعل الشعب فى حالة استنفار تام للدفاع عن شكل الدولة أو الأمة أو العقيدة و اعلاء ذلك على أى شىء اخر.

اكثر الحركات التاريخية تطابقا مع الفكر الفاشى هى الحركات التى نشأت فى أوروبا و بعض دول امريكا اللاتينية فى الفترة بين الحرب العالمية الأولى و الثانية.

الأنظمة الفاشية ما زالت قائمة فكريا فى الأحزاب النازية و الفاشية فى اوروبا و الحركات الشعبوية فى بلاد العالم الثالث.

الكتاب ملىء بالحشو التاريخى الذى يصل احيانا لدرجة الملل. خلال قراءتى للكتاب لم اكف عن مقارنة الحركات النازية و الفاشية التاريخية بحال مصر ما بعد الثالث من يوليو 2013 مع ارتفاع موجات الفاشية الشعبية التى كانت بدأت خلال حكم الاخوان و لكنها امتدت بعد عزل مرسى لتصبح فاشية رسمية بمباركة شعبية و صمت دولى يصل لحد التآمر.

لم يعجبنى فى الكتاب التهويل من شأن الانتهاكات ضد اليهود و تكرار اسطورة الستة مليون ضحية خلال موجات النازية. فى النهاية كان ممكنا للكتاب ان يكون اكثر وضوحا و اختصار الا انه لا يزال من الأهمية بمكان ما يجعلك تقبل على قراءته متحملا كل ما ذكرت من سلبيات

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of late, I have been seriously disturbed by the authoritarian trends displayed by the Hindu Right in India.

Contrary to the perception of the West, Hinduism is not essentially a peaceful and philosophical religion – though definitely it has that facet. Hinduism is a fascinating mix beliefs and practices ranging from the lofty heights of Upanishadic philosophy to the dark depths of sorcery involving child sacrifice. It is not a monolithic religion, rather a pot-pourri of beliefs cobbled together into a heterogeneous mix. However, it has one thing to recommend it – pluralism. It is a religion which contains atheism even its fold of legitimate belief.

The current wave of attacks on secular writers and minority communities spread across the length and breadth of India, combined with efforts to impose Hindu beliefs on the population at large (i.e. the ban on beef) have, however, damaged that tolerant visage a bit. Even though the government and its supporters dismiss these as stray incidents blown out of proportion by a desperate opposition, there is a cause for concern as the strident voices on the extreme right have risen in pitch and aggression ever since Narendra Modi took charge as the Prime Minister of India. It is as though they now feel that with “their” government in power, there can be no stopping of the Hindu juggernaut.

Ever since I read Hindutva by V.D. Savarkar – the book that is the cornerstone of the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the main Hindu Right Wing organisation in India – I have been struck by the similarity it bears to the Nazi philosophy. The basic premise is the identification of a people with a land, and making them the absolute custodians of the law pertaining to that land: then anybody who is deemed as a “foreigner” immediately becomes an enemy of the people. Coupled with this is the open admiration of Hitler espoused by many RSS members. Also, the takeover of cultural institutions with an aim to instil a fictitious “Hindu identity” on India also smacks of Nazi methodology.

So I decided it was time to understand fascism in general – to understand whether we are on the verge of repeating history we are too stupid to learn from.

-----------------------------------

In this VSI, before defining fascism, Kevin Passmore makes it very clear that to do so is very difficult – for fascism is always ‘A and not A’, as Ortega y Gasset says. So after pages and pages of telling us what fascism is not, he gives the following definition:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests – family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service – where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women’s movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers’ and women’s interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual’s national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

Quite a mouthful.

What Passmore is at pains do here, and throughout the rest of the book, is to distinguish fascism from other forms of authoritarian conservatisms. Authoritarian conservatives believed that the elites drove the society, and were supportive of traditional values like religion, family and civil society; and they left room for private enterprise. Fascists, in contrast, subjugated the individual totally to the nation, and worked for the total destruction off institutions other than the party. In this, they bear a lot of similarity towards authoritarian communism – only its concept of class struggle is discarded.

About half of the book is about the history of fascism, about how it was spread across Europe but succeeded in coming to power in Italy and Germany, mainly due to post-war disillusionment. This was especially true of Germany where the people felt betrayed by the weak Weimar Republic. (To tell the truth, I found this part of the book rather weak – like a boring history lecture. However, it was necessary background for the analysis of the later chapters.)

After doing a whirlwind tour of fascism across Europe and America (it leaves out Asia, Africa and the Middle east - a serious lack, IMO), the author poses the pertinent question: Is fascism still alive among us? He begins with an intriguing quote from Umberto Eco:

Ur-Fascism [a term meaning ‘eternal fascism’] is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us, if there appeared on the scene somebody saying, ‘I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares’. Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and point the finger at any of its new instances – every day and in every part of the world.

Stirring words: but Passmore does not agree fully. In today’s extreme right, he sees a slightly different shade of authoritarianism.

Whereas fascism sees the destruction of democracy as a precondition for the triumph of ultranationalism, the contemporary extreme right attempts to ethnically homogenize democracy and reserve its advantages for the dominant nationality. Their imagined society is perhaps closer to the South African Apartheid state or to the ideals of white separatists in the United States. I prefer to use the term ‘national-populist’ to describe this form of movement.

I have to say I agree with him – his words seem chillingly applicable to the Right in India.

Even today, fascism remains a term of abuse. So the extreme right has cleverly redefined ultranationalism, by translating xenophobia and intolerance into liberal democratic language. The rights given to minorities are called ‘preferential treatment’ and the claim to ‘equal rights’ is used to discriminate against them. In order to preserve the alleged distinctiveness of a given nation, the rights of those who are said to ‘threaten the identity of the nation’ are to be restricted. We can see this tendency all over the world, from the Tea Party activists in the USA to the Hindu Mahasabha in India.

Fascism is racist. All inhabitants of a territory are not treated as its citizens.

Citizenship and its benefits are accorded or denied on the basis of conformity to, or possession of, characteristics alleged to be ‘national’, be they biological, cultural, religious, or political. Nationalism and racism pervade all aspects of fascist practice, from welfare provision and family policy to diplomacy. Those deemed to be outside the nation face an uncertain future – extermination in the worst case.

Individual identity, distinct from the national identity, is not allowed. In case the difference is religious or political, the ‘others’ can be assimilated (perhaps to live as second class citizens). In case it’s biological or racial, expulsion or extermination is the only fate awaiting the unfortunates not falling under the fold of nationalism.

Fascism is against all other isms which tend to group people across nations under one umbrella, such as feminism and socialism. Women are accepted only so far as they conform to the interests of the nation state (or race) – usually as child-producing machines. Similarly, though class is denounced, equality is obtained only by total surrender to the nation-state.

-----------------------------------

Is fascism in the danger of making a comeback in the modern age? We may believe it is impossible in this age of enlightenment, when democratic values have seeped into the bottommost layers of society. Against this kind of optimism, Passmore has this to say:

It would be complacent to assume that democracy is now so deeply rooted as to make it impossible for the extreme right to win power, for democracy itself is not free from discriminatory tendencies. Democracy is deeply rooted, but it is not always connected to a belief that all human beings deserve equal treatment. For many, it means simply the right of the majority to do as it wishes, and national-populism has successfully exploited this conviction.

Seeing the direction democratic India is proceeding in nowadays, his words take on a frighteningly prophetic tone. As an ardent believer in a secular democracy, I sincerely hope I am mistaken.

[Fatma Al Zahraa Yehia · Rating 3 out of 5]

مشكلة سلسلة "مقدمة قصيرة جدا" هى إنها ليست بالبساطة التي قد
يتوقعها القارىء ذو الخلفية المحدودة أو المعدومة عن موضوع الكتاب.

يتضمن الكتاب تعريفاً وتأريخاً للفاشية. ولكن كان يتعين عليك ككقارىء قبل البدء في القراءة ان تكون عالما بالفروق الدقيقة وغير الدقيقة بالمصطلحات والاتجاهات السياسية مثل الماركسية والاشتراكية والراديكالية والكوربوراتية والمحافظين والرادكالية (بالمناسبة اللي يعرف يشرحهم لي يبقى كسب ثواب كبير فيا".
من أهم الافكار التي خرجت بها من هذا الكتاب هى ان كل اتجاه فكري او سياسي، يحمل بداخله اطيافا متعددة تحمل نفس اسم الفكر ولكن بأفكارا مختلفة.

كقارئة مبتدئة في العلوم السياسية استمتعت بالكتاب وبحالة "الأنتباه القصوى" التي جعلني عليها لاستطيع استيعاب "بعض" من افكاره. واتمنى ان اعود اليه مرة اخرى بعد ان اكون خلفية افضل عن تلك المصطلحات التي لم افهمها بشكل جيد.

[ياسمين Thabet · Rating 2 out of 5]

الفاشية من الفشولة
والامبريالية من الامبرة
:D :D

عذرا للالش بس القافية تحكم

الكتاب ده مفروض يكون مكتوب على غلافه الخارجي سلسلة بكتب كثيرة جدا تقراها الاول قبل ما تقراه
للاسف هو كتاب محتاج ناس اكاديمية متخصصة
ملمة بمصطلحات كتيرة جدا مش بشكل ظاهري بل بشكل عميق
ملمة وحافظة عن ظهر قلب احداث سياسية كثيرة تخص عديد من دول اوروبا

الكتاب ده ليس للعامة مثلي
وهذا ما جعلني اشعر ان قراءته مضيعة للوقت
حتى مفهوم الفاشية مثلا مذكور بعد اربعين صفحة من الكتاب!!!

طبعا مش معناه ان كله مش مفهوم اكيد في اجزاء مفهومة بس الفكرة انه كتاب بيتكلم في تفاصيل التفاصيل
فلازم يكون القارئ ملم بالتفاصيل دي
لا يكفي يكون قارئ عنده تصور عام فقط للقضية او للمعلومات المطروحة

و��اني مجرد قارئة عادية احاول ان افهم
ولم افهم شئ
فحكمي على الكتاب انه لم يفيدني على الاطلاق

[Mohammed Orabi · Rating 1 out of 5]

فى البداية يبدو كتيب صغير الحجم وعنوانه قد يجذبك للتعرف عن مجال فكرى ربما يكون بعيد عنك الى حد ما .. ولكن مع الاسف وعقب الخوض فى اعماقه وجدت انه وكما قال الكثير هنا لا يصلح للجميع او بمعنى ادق لن يفهمه الكثير .. مناسب لمن لديهم خلفية مسبقة بامور السياسة و مصطلحتها وايدولوجياتها المختلفة .. ولكن اختلف مع البعض بخصوص اسلوب المؤلف الغير بسيط بالمرة .. كان عليه خصوصا مع اختياره بان يلحق بعنوان الكتاب عبارة مقدمة قصيرة جدا على ان يكون الاسلوب اكثر سهولة وان يهتم بوجود ملحق من اجل شرح معظم المصطلحات التى جاءت بالكتاب .. اعتقد ان إكمال مثل تلك الكتب الغامضة قد يكون نوع من انواع جلد النفس

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unfortunately, we are all watching the rise of right-wing populism around the world. Scenes like those we saw in Charlottesville or Chemnitz more recently were unimaginable some time ago (to say nothing about the current governments in Hungary, Poland, and the USA).

I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in this subject. Passmore tries to build the concept of fascism narrowly to make it falseable. As a result, he offers a definition that excludes the majority of contemporaneous right-wing populists parties. In his view, the National Front or the Italian IMI isn't actual examples of fascism. The first because of the consistent defense of neoliberalism, and the second by the failure to stand against democracy.

I read the book in one day. Despite being a concise account of a complex subject, the book offers a consistent and useful definition of a concept whose importance increases each day. I think that he could make the historical accounts of Italian fascism and Nazism a bit shorter since these episodes in history are already well-known.

[Esteban del Mal · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Fascism has an enigmatic countenance because in it appears the most counterpoised contents. It asserts authoritarianism and organises rebellion. It fights against contemporary democracy and, on the other hand, does not believe in the restoration of any past rule. It seems to pose itself as the forge of a strong State, and uses means most conducive to its dissolution, as if it were a destructive faction or a secret society. Whichever way we approach fascism we find that it is simultaneously one thing and the contrary, it is Eh?/! and not Eh?/!"

-- José Ortega y Gasset, Sobre el Fascismo

[Qahtan Aljazrawi · Rating 2 out of 5]

الفاشية

كتاب ضعيف المضمون و فارغ المحتوى ، يقدم تعريف للفاشية و من ثم يناقضها بمفهوم ثانٍ ، لا يقدم للقارئ مضمون وافي و شافي للفكر الفاشي الذي يتداخل تعريفه و مفهومه مع عدد من المصطلحات مثل النازية و الماركسية و الشوفينية و الستالينية و الشمولية و غيرها من الادليوجيات الفاشلة التي تطبق في بلدان متخلفة و رجعية .

[آلاء · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fri, Apr 8, 2022.

[Ahmed · Rating 3 out of 5]

الفاشية (مقدمة قصيرة جدا) ..... كيفن باسمور

كيف لنا أن نفهم أيديولوجية جذبت المتطرفين والمثقفين ؟ أيديولوجية تندد بالبرجوازية و في الوقت ذاته تشكِّل تحالفات مع المحافظين ؟ أيديولوجية تتبنى نمطًا ذكوريًا و مع ذلك تروق لعدد كبير من النساء ؟ أيديولوجية تدعو للعودة إلى التقاليد وفي الوقت نفسه مفتونة بالتكنولوجيا ؟ أيديولوجية تعظّم الشعب و في الوقت عيه تحتقر الجماهير ؟ أيديولوجية تدعو للعنف باسم النظام ؟ إنها الفاشية ! : دائمًا الشئ ونقيضه .

في المجتمعات المتخلفة (كمجتمعاتنا العزيزة) لابد لنا من دراسة تاريخ الطغاة , ومحاولة فهم فكرهم , لأن من يحكمنا قريب لهم بصورة أو بأخرى , ولأن التاريخ يُعيد نفسه بطريقة أو أخرى , فلابد لنا من الاضطلاع على أخطاء الأولين لمحاولة فهم مشكلتنا .

هتلر , موسوليني , ستالين , فرانكو , سالازار , وغيرهم من الحكام الظالمين , لهم من البريق ما يجعلهم يخدعون مواطنيهم , ولهم من عظمة الحدث ما ضمن خلود اسمهم .

لمحاولة فهم الأنظمة الشمولية , لابد لنا من أن نضع في ذهننا بعض الاعتبارات و الشواهد والتي تمثل ظاهرة الشمولية , وهي :
.. حزب شعبي وحيد تحت قيادة رجل واحد يشكل النواة الصلبة للنظام , وعادة يكون أعلى من البيروقراطية الحكومية أو يكون مندمجا فيها .
.. نظام يمارس الإرهاب من خلال الشرطة , أو الشرطة السرية الموجهة ضد خصوم النظام الحقيقين و الوهميين على حد سواء .
.. سيطرة احتكارية على وسائل الإعلام .
.. سيطرة مركزية على الاقتصاد .

الشروط دي مش بس بتشرح لنا كيفية سير الأنظمة الشمولية الفاشية في القرن العشرين , بل توضح لنا أن معظم الأنظمة العربية ورثت تلك الفاشية ونفذتها (حتى لو نفذتها بفشل)

المهم : الكتاب جيد , وعرضه مميز , تطرق لشرح تفصيلي وتأريخ تأصيلي لفكرة الفاشية وما يشابهها من أنظمة (مثل النازية والستالينية وغيرها ) .
الكتاب مفصل لدرجة الصعوبة أحيانا , ولكنه في المجمل منطقي وشرحه كافي .

[Mohammad Mirzaali · Rating 3 out of 5]

حالا که اطلاق صفت «فاشیست» نقل‌ونبات شده باید این کتاب را خواند. پاسمور با تعریف فاشیسم و روایت سرگذشت قدرت‌گیری آن در آلمان و ایتالیا بر تفاوت‌های فاشیسم با ناسیونال‌پوپولیسم دست می‌گذارد و نشان می‌دهد که راست افراطی اگرچه شباهت‌هایی با فاشیست‌ها دارد اما با آن کاملا متفاوت است

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascism and Communism are the two major evil political systems that dominated the twentieth century politics. They both have their roots in the nineteenth century European ideas and circumstances, but have managed to have an unprecedented global impact. Unlike Communism, though, Fascism has been comparatively much less studied and even less understood. This primarily stems from the fact that there are no “canonical texts” of Fascism. It seems like a much more ad-hoc and opportunistic movement, and it embraced a vast variety of political regimes and institutions.

This very short introduction tries to present as a comprehensive of a view of Fascism as it’s possible in a book of such a short length. Instead of trying to give a single overarching definition, the book presents several different definitions and schools of thought on what Fascism is. This approach is probably the most intellectually honest for such a heterogeneous topic. The book gives the case studies of several important Fascist regimes, starting, of course, with the ur-Fascist regime in Italy. The Italian Fascism was also one of the longest lasting Fascist regimes, and one that most other such regimes tried to emulate. However, even within the context of Italian Fascism there have been many significant changes and developments over the years, the most notorious one being the embrace of anti-Semitism in the late 1930s in an attempt to more closely align itself with German Nazism. In fact, it is still an open question of Nazism and Fascism are indeed two manifestations of the same phenomenon, or if they are sufficiently different to be treated separately by political scientists and historian.

This is a very well written and an immensely informative book. The author manages to present his very clear mastery of this topic in a manner that is accessible to the widest imaginable audience. He manages to give a very coherent account of a pretty heterogeneous and difficult subject. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political history, or history and politics in general.

[Mina Mottahedin · Rating 2 out of 5]

اولش خوب شروع شد و رسید بکلیات و تعریف ها که خوب بود . فصل های وسطش خیلی جزئی شد همه چی پر از تاریخ و اسم آدمها و حزبهای مختلف در کشورهای مختلف و آورده بود که واسه من خیلی خسته کننده بود (من نمیدونم شایدم اینها همه دقت و حسن کتاب باشه) ولی باز دو سه فصل آخرش که بیشتر ارتباط فاشیسم و یه سری ایسم دیگه رو توضیح داده بود روان و بدرد بخور بود

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm amazed at what a lucid introduction to fascism this book is! Most amazing is that author and historian Kevin Passmore defines fascism as narrowly as he can, while seeking to incorporate all the components of any historical case of fascism. Fascism, he writes, is 1) the promotion of national unity based upon some social preconceptions, such as the patriarchal family and existing property relations, but only insofar as they are compatible with the national interest, and they favor the narrow view of the nation as a particular group, as, for example, a race; and 2) its members oppose all other 'isms,' especially feminism and socialism, yet they are willing to incorporate gender and class reforms so long as the reforms are subordinate to the national interest (adapted from p. 135). Without both these criteria, a government cannot be accused of being fascist. One of the consequences of this definition is that no contemporary regime is fascist, although some regime might bear some similarities to fascism. Passmore implies that other regimes that have been accused of being fascists are actually better considered of a different kind, and he calls this 'ism' 'national populism.' He also speculates that national populism has more of a chance to be an international force than fascism.

At the moment the prospects for national-populism are rather better than those of fascism proper, as the rise of the far right in France, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, the United States, and Russia demonstrates. The prevalence of racism in the West, the demonization of Islam, fears that globalization is corroding nation-states, the belief that immigrants will undermine some ill-defined national identity, and the conviction that politicians are all corrupt suggest that further victories might be on the way. It would be complacent to assume that democracy is now so deeply rooted as to make it impossible for the extreme right to win power, for democracy itself is not free from discriminatory tendencies. Democracy is deeply rooted, but it is not always connected to a belief that all human beings deserve equal treatment. For many, it means simply the right of the majority to do as it wishes, and national-populism has successfully exploited this conviction. (154-155)

Great read. Check it out for yourself.

[Tariq Alferis · Rating 3 out of 5]

.
‎" موسوليني يقودك للنصر دائما "


مش ممكن تكون مقدمة قصيرة ، أو حتي مختصر بسيط لشخص عادي ، كتاب اكاديمي بحث .

يتحدث عن وصف الشكلي للفاشية ، دكتاتورية او حكم قومي وطني شعبي .
‎يلخص موسوليني الفاشية بإن إرادة الشعب ليست الوسيلة للحكم وأنما الوسيلة هي القوة وهي التي تفرض القانون .
‎يتحدث عن نشأة الفكر الفاشي ماقبل الحرب العالمية الآولي ، كان الحزب الوطني يقول‫"‬ يجب ان نجد عدو مشترك يوحد الأمة الايطالية
‎‫الفاشية فكر ذكوري يعتمد علي القوة ، يجذب مقاتلي الشوارع ، الفاشية الوحشية كانت ليبيا أحد ضحايا وحشية النظام موسليني .‬
‎‫الجيد في الكتاب يوضح العلاقة بين الحركة الفاشية والنازية وحركة الفلانجية الاسبانية .‬
‎‫وصعود الفاشية في اوروبا الشرقية وانتشار الحكم الفاشي في امريكا لاتينية، يصف الكاتب كل الحركات الثلاثة بالفاشلة وارهابية ، وكأنه الانظمة الرأسمالية والدول الامبريالية ‬دول التحرر والسلام ، كتاب ركز علي سيئات دون دراسة واحدة لمميزات الحكم الفاشي ‫..


‎الفاشية والنازية ناتجة عن ثورة مضادة ضد الاحتكام السياسي والاضهاد الدول الرأسمالية ، حكومات وطنية ، دمرت الوطن ‫.‬

‎‫نحن نعيش تحت حكم الفاشية الدينية ،الدول العربية تطالب بحكومات وطنية ، ولا نريد حكومات فاشية عسكرية دينية .‬

‎‫الكتاب جيد لشخص مهتم بدراسة كيفية صعود الأحزاب في اوروبا والخلاف الدائم بين اليمين المتطرف واليسار والخ .‬

‎الدوتشي"موسوليني والزعيم هتلر.


‫ ‬

[Gamal elneel · Rating 3 out of 5]

الفاشية مجموعة متناقضة من الايدلوجيات والممارسات المتضاربة والمتشابكة
فهى متعصبة عنصرية قومية تعظم الشعب وتحتقر الجماهير
ولكن الفاشيون كانو يعتنقون رؤية عالمية مستوحاة جزئيا من رؤي كانت تعتبر آنذاك حديثة علمية
كالدارونية الاجتماعية وعلم النفس الجماعي وعلم الحشود والبيولوجيا الاجتماعية
والقناعة التى ترى ان الامة لابد ان تكون قوية متجانسةللتغلب ع النزوع الحتمى نحو الانحلال وللخروج حية من صراع البقاء الاممى
فتشكلت افكار الفاشية من خلال حداثة فنية لتسخير جميع الطبقات لتحقيق هدف قومى

[Helen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a fabulous volume examining the complex topic of what exactly is fascism - how did it start, what preceded it, what was the difference between Nazism and Fascism (with a capital letter F, that is, Italian Fascism) and what is the status of extreme right wing groups or parties as of when the book was written (second revised edition 2014). It'd be interesting to know what the author, Kevin Passmore, has to say about the rise of Trump since mid-2015.

Well, I'm not a scholar, but the racist aspects of Nazism, must be traced to the invention of racism as a concept used to "justify" the Atlantic slave trade, as well as the simultaneous colonization of the Americas. Racism made it "possible" for supposedly G0d-fearing Christians to mistreat people of other races, such as Africans and Native Americans, and to subject them to slavery, if they were deemed somehow racially inferior.

Antisemitism is a form of racism IMO - based on religious intolerance, exactly the same sort of religious intolerance the ancient Romans showed toward those who would not show respect for, or sacrifice to, the Roman gods, such as Christians, later the intolerant Christians, once they were in power, showed toward non-Christians.

Another trend that fed into the development of fascism, was the industrial revolution, the selling of the laborer's time vs. selling artifacts or goods they might produce one at a time. Labor became mobile and gravitated toward centers of employment, such as cities, and with the change, ancient social arrangements in towns were disrupted as workers were ripped from communities and social webs. Lives were somehow "devalued" in the new arrangement, as labor itself became depersonalized - with workers becoming interchangeable pieces of a production machine, rather than producers of entire products (artisans). A sense of meaninglessness/anomie set in for millions of industrial workers. Persistent crises of capitalism since the advent of the Industrial Revolution sent the message that workers were always expendable - yet the capitalist class somehow always recovered to start businesses up anew. To head off revolution, Germany was the first industrialized country to introduce welfare programs, so that workers could have some security in old age, or when unemployed, etc. - thus the State essentially replaced the community "web" from which the workers had been torn, when they flocked to cities to work in mills & factories. Of course, social programming is never completely perfect, and it's no accident that fascism/Nazism started in Western Europe, despite the advent of social programs (France, Italy, Germany). Essentially, fascism tries to lure in adherents by promising even more social programs, and/or political power, to workers, or the working class, but this program is a "cover" yet again for big business to deflect working class rage at dislocations/unemployment/poverty from the true culprits of Depressions/crises/wars - "captains of industry" and very often, their political puppets in government. Fascism might even "take on" big business - but is never serious about curbing capitalist power - but it's trademark is a vicious blend of racism/intolerance as a false explanation for economic dislocation; thus, the immigrant/outsider/persons of different religions/races are targeted as the "explanation" for a Depression/war and the "solution" for a country's problems is said to be the expulsion of the disfavored group. This again of course deflects anger onto a made-up "scapegoat" (just as racism itself was invented to "justify" slavery/exploitation/mistreatment of Africans and Native Americans in the New World) from the real reason the working class continually suffers, and is in fact at the mercy of, the 1%. It is no coincidence that Trumpism arose in the wake of the 2008 crash, which was correctly blamed on the 1% by most people, especially those who participated in the hundreds of Occupy encampments around the world a couple of years later. Bigs like Trump and his buddies on Wall St realized they had to do something to counter the absolutely correct anti capitalist explanation for the 2008 crash - the classic fascist ploy they hit upon was to blame the US's economic woes on an immigrant group that is also many times racially different from much of the US population: Mexicans. Secondarily, Trump whipped up paranoia/fear about Muslims, using Islamophobia to lure in followers. Every Islamist terrorist attack in the US and around the world then simply bolstered his contention that Muslims can't be trusted, they must be turned back at the border and so forth. This is another iteration of the classic fascist tactic of shifting blame for problems (economic, criminal, war) onto an "outsider" or minority religious group. Trump, though, showed his true colors when he could not say one bad thing about business in general - despite berating them for fleeing to Mexico and the Far East to take advantage of cheap labor - and in fact, sees big business as the "savior" wishes to give the rich and corporations fat tax breaks, so that "growth" can be re-ignited. The contradiction of business being bad (because they fled to Mexico & the Far East post-NAFTA) and business being good (and should be rewarded/given investment incentives in the form of big tax cuts) was lost in the manufactured uproar over Mexicans and Muslims - the ugly racist past in the US and Europe was resurrected by Trump, but this time, or at least at this time, the target wasn't Africans and Jews, it was Mexicans and Muslims. IMO once one group is targeted by racists, then any group can be targeted.

Fascism (with a lower-case letter F) was always a response by business to worker unrest, no matter who the characters were that "led" fascist movements. It's a fluid/ambiguous system - deliberately so - that draws ideas from both left and right, but the "philosophy" it espouses seeks to mask the real reason for its existence: To deflect popular anger and rage at economic/political failure from the elites, both political and economic, onto "convenient" targets such as minorities sometimes using phony racist "theories" (as in Nazism) as "logical" explanations for widespread worker misery/unemployment. Workers are further "soothed" and their anger deflected by the enactment or expansion of various social programs. The truth as to what happened in the Great Depression, and why the Great War was fought, and why there was a 19 C scramble for colonies, mirroring the colonization of the New Work a few centuries before that, is thus successfully kept from the people - as the elites continue to make money, especially from wars the poor people must die in.

Much the same thing has now happened in 21st C USA. The 2008 crash was purely finance-driven, caused by greedy bankers on Wall St - the victims were the mortgage holders, and the millions of laid off workers as the depression gripped the land. Wall St was actually lucky to have an extremely calm, matter-of-fact President who saved their hides in the bailout, as well as saved the entire auto industry, which is perhaps the linchpin of the economy. No Wall St banker went to jail, although so many were guilty as sin of gambling and losing billions of dollars that weren't their own. The aftermath of the crash dragged on for years. The focus on finance rather than re-investment in, or industrial expansion, took their toll. A few finance-centered cities prospered, but much of the rest of the US slumbered, with the lost industrial jobs gone for good and only dregs low-paying employment available. De-industrialization occurred throughout the West, not just in the USA as industry shifted to the PRC, given the infinite supply of cheap labor in China. Suddenly, it was clear this system is unsustainable - in Europe as in the US, in Africa as in Latin America. The same problems obtain everywhere except in China. Ideas such as a guaranteed wage whether one is working or not, or transfer of even more social benefits to the unemployed population, were recommended. The same old recommendations by the same old political elites were about to be implemented again, which would have had about the same probability of success as they had enjoyed before, that is, little to no success.

Trump and or Trumpism - which we can say is a form of fascism (right wing politics backed by big business disguised as "pro-worker" populism, drawing ideas from the left and right, deflecting popular anger onto various "targets" minorities, women, left wingers, the press, "elites," the judiciary) - represents the extreme right wing of American politics, headed up by a poorly educated non-politician, trained to use "shock" tactics in his years as a reality show-TV star since reality shows depend on "shock" plot reversals and sensation to maintain viewer interest/ratings & thus not be cancelled for lack of ratings. Trump used reality show tactics to ascend to the presidency - his actual political understanding is negligible, if not absent completely. He still relies on slogans, and still needs to tout his "ratings" - the election numbers, or the number of attendees at his Inaugural, otherwise, he probably does fear he'll be "canceled" that is, the presidency reality show he probably feels he's in, will be somehow "canceled" if he's not popular enough. Trump is unpopular, and only 25% of registered voters voted for him - but continuing to stage rallies (he will now have yet another, rather pointless, rally on 2/18/17 in Florida) will not hype his popularity, as his true colors were revealed with his cabinet choices: Trump, like all fascist figureheads, is a tool of big business. Worker rights, trade unions, benefits, protections, and so forth - will all be decimated under Trump - although some benefits or social programs may be expanded, to deflect anger away from the administration/business. Trump has no mandate, so when he speaks about doing this or that, he is only speaking for the probably much less than 25% of registered voters that voted him in - as many who voted him in have now become disillusioned about him, having seen what a phony he is in the wake of his cabinet choices. The popular anger he taps, which correctly should be directed to the Wall St bankers and captains of industry on Trump's cabinet, he deflects into racist fury at minorities who had nothing to do with the crash, and who suffered as much as Trump voters in the crash. Yet the lack of logic of Trump's "explanation" - that it's the Mexicans' fault somehow - doesn't occur to those who voted for Trump. The easy, "hate-filled" venting of their anger, not directed correctly to the system of capitalism, which is organized to shield/protect big business at the expense of the working class, is preferred by those looking for easy explanation, easy "scapegoats." The complexity of the explanation of what really happened and who is really to blame for the 2008 crash, is not "satisfying" enough. In fact, no mainstream politician, but least of all Trump who is basically a tool of the "elites" though he denies it, can admit that it's their backers/donors who caused the 2008 crash, and always profit from wars. The business elites back candidates from both parties and expect "protection" from the masses in return - as well as profitable wars. As long as our present system of campaign finance continues, this will remain the system, no matter what Trump or anyone else says. Mexicans, NAFTA, Muslims, etc. did not cause the crash. Trump's buddies on Wall Street caused the crash, and profited from the crash. And now Trump has rewarded his Wall Street buddies with jobs in key areas of this administration, where they can wield power to further enrich Wall St. As for de-industrialization and the plight of the working class? I'm sure Trump could care less, as he and his daughter Ivanka, both have their products made in China. Trump claiming he'll bring industrial jobs back to the Midwest - although many of those jobs had disappeared prior to NAFTA because of automation - is yet another Trump lie. Those jobs are not coming back to the West from China - globalization saw to that. "China makes, the world takes" as the saying goes. Trump unfortunately has zero imagination when it comes to thinking of things the population could do, given the dwindling number of good-paying industrial jobs.

So, yes, Trump is a lying fascist, offering his adoring followers easy explanations for complex and entrenched problems/issues (such as automation and globalization - the ease with which capital, information, and workers can move from place to place around the world). He should tell his supporters that the crash was caused by Wall St bankers who were over-leveraged, and caused one bank to fall after another. He should be able to explain the crashing of banks, since he's gone bankrupt himself several times, and like the Wall St bankers who caused the 2008 crash, he of course bounced back on his feet, and remains, at least as he boasts, a very rich man, exactly like the Wall St bankers who caused the 2008 crash. De-industrialization started in the 70s, with the advance of robotic technology, which transformed many industries. Computers/automation advances resulted in less jobs in many if not most sectors. None of this is surprising or mysterious - and none of it has anything to do with Mexicans or Muslims. The population of the Rust Belt began shifting to the growing SW, Texas, Florida, or California around that time - in the 70s - leaving depopulated cities from NYS to Michigan (and possibly beyond). This is all well-known and has been the narrative explaining what happened to cities like Buffalo and Detroit, for decades. Even before NAFTA, many of these cities had essentially "folded." Trump has offered zero new ideas as to how to re-invigorate these cities, other than to say he'll make industry come back. I strongly doubt that this backers, from Wall St or other business sectors, will allow him, a creature who is after all, only their puppet, to "dictate" to them. The departure/deportation/banning of Mexicans or Muslims is not going to make any difference, other than draw opprobrium to the US. Jobs will not return, in fact, business might be less apt to invest in the US. Of course he could make the devastated cities more "business-friendly" or foster the growth of various cooperative businesses. If there were jobs, of course people would move back to Buffalo or Detroit. But he doesn't think like this, because he doesn't think period.

The final chapter of fascism is "inventing" wars - out of thin air - to drive profits to the big business backers. Hitler invented the "suffering" of the Sudetenland Germans as a pretext to march into Czechoslovakia. Supposedly Poland's armed forces had provoked or fired on Germany, giving Germany a "plausible" excuse to invade Poland. Once Poland's allies France & England declared war on Germany, Hitler had what he needed to invade France and every country between Germany and France in order to get to France. The money kept rolling in to German industrialists as long as the Panzer tanks kept rolling over Europe. Meanwhile, trade unions were destroyed, but workers, now in uniform as part of the German invading armies, were promised benefits or profit from their military conquests. Germans and others acted in inhumane, indecent ways in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, possibly out of the belief that they could benefit or profit from victims' expropriated property, secondarily the property might keep the remaining population of the occupied countries quiet. The atrocities in the East and elsewhere were uniquely monstrous in the history of fascism - and the question will always be asked how could the Nazis have caused millions of Germans and others to murder innocents? Did the Germans of the Nazi era think that by acting as overlords they could remove the taint of having been impoverished and defeated, by the Depression and in the Great War? I doubt that fascism alone, although it is often violent, can explain the German Nazi crime against humanity. Revoltingly, big business in Germany benefited greatly from the war, including leasing slave or forced labor from the Nazis - and so, as long as the tanks kept rolling, and millions of civilians, as well as millions of soldiers, kept dying, the fat cats in Berlin who backed Hitler, kept raking in the profits. Antisemitism, a form of racism, just as in the era of Atlantic slave trade, and for the duration of the existence of African slavery in the New World, was another propaganda ploy or lie used to "justify" policies of mistreatment and mass murder, to Germans, by Hitler and his henchmen. In this era, capitalism in Germany truly showed its teeth, showed itself for what it really is, as it salivated at the prospect of benefiting from the expropriation of the minorities' businesses and property. Thus, on one level, we can say that fascism is just a way for big business to increase profits, or even grab property from defeated "enemies" - wartime enemies, or otherwise. Just as capitalism squeezes profit out of the exploitation of labor, including, if given the chance, slave labor, capitalism will, if given the chance, resort to violence (war) and outright theft/expropriation of property, to further amass capital and become even more loathsomely bloated with lucre. We can say, that fascism is just another game capitalism will play - to deflect popular anger away from them and also create opportunities for profit (war). A convenient demagogue, perhaps someone who was always ranting on the political margin, will be used to whip up mass hysteria and/or hatred. Once power is given to the demagogue, the capitalists will have free reign to arrange things to suit themselves - the workers be damned, or rather, doomed to further misery and most likely, war.

[Hajir Almahdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب عبارة عن مقدمة اكاديمية قصيرة عن تاريخ الفاشية، احدى اكثر الشرور التي عرفها القرن العشرين، وصعودهم للسلطة في إيطاليا عام 1922 بقيادة بينيتو موسوليني. حاول الكاتب تعريف الفاشية بطرق مختلفة من عدة اوجه لتسهيل شرحها للقارئ؛ فقعد عرف الفاشية ببساطة على انها حركة شمولية، ذكورية، متعصبة، غير ليبرالية، و تمثل شكل من أشكال التعصب القومي، الديني، الطبقي وغيرها من أشكال الهوية، فكراً و ممارسة و تعتبر الفاشية حركة من حركات اليمين المتطرف، وتتجسد في حزب جماهيري ذا طابع ذكوري عسكري. نشأت الفاشية مابين الحربين العالميتين، بعد شعور المحافظين من أنصار أحزاب اليمين بضعف موقفهم في مواجهة الإشتراكية و الحركات النسائية و الأزمات الإقتصادية و محاولتهم للحفاظ على الوحدة الوطنية، فأعتبروا الفاشيين اكثر وطنية و طالبوا بفرض النظام باسم الثورة، أنصار احزاب اليمين أكثر من اعتنق الفاشية، لكن يكمن ان تنشأ الفاشية في احزاب اليسار ايضا، وتعرف براديكالية الفاشية لكن هذا نادر الحدوث، فهي نتجت من شعور بخيانة اليسار للشعب، مثلا عن طريق الإهتمام المفرط باقليات العرقية والحركات النسائية. هذا التنوع في طريقة نشوءها يثبت الطبيعة المتناقضة للفاشية. عُرف الفاشيين بمعاداتهم للإشتراكية، الحركات النسائية والرأسمالية، واي حركة جامعة من منطلق انه هذي الأيديولوجيات تُعلي معايير اخرى، مثل الطبقة، ذكر ام انثى، المصالح الإقتصادية إلى آخره، فوق مصلحة الدولة. فهي نوع من انواع الدكتاتورية، اذ ان الفاشيين امنوا بالقومية لكن لم يأمنوا بالديمقراطية ، حيث يزعم الفاشيون عدم إمكانية اختيار الشعب زعيم لهم عن طريق الإستفتاء، انما يجب على الحزب الفاشي الإعتماد على حدسه في إختيار زعيم للأمة. اي ان النخب، لا الشعب هي التي يجب أن تتحدث بإسم الأمة في سبيل المحافظة على " إستقلالية " و " مصالح " الدولة، فهم مؤمنون إيمان كامل بوجوب ان تكون السلطة في يد حزب جماهيري يمثل تجسيدا لبقية الشعب ويسعى الحزب لإحتكار التمثيل السياسي وقمع اي فكر مغاير مع القضاء على سيادة القانون بحيث تضمن الحركة خضوع الشركات،الأسر والأفراد "للمصلحة الوطنية" . الفاشية تفضل الرأسمالية على الإشتراكية، اذ انها لا تهاجم رأس المال نفسه، لكن تلوم أنانية الشركات الكبرى وتعتبرها سبب رئيسي في فقر الطبقة العاملة مما يؤدي الى توجه هذه الطبقة الى احضان الإشتراكية. كما ترى الفاشية ان ولادة الأطفال واجب سياسي لكل فرد تجاه الأمة. كما كانت نظرتهم لنهضة الإقتصادية تتمثل في بسط سيطرتهم على اراضي جديدة مما ادى الى إعادة النظر في معاهدة فرساي و تحالفهم مع هتلر لزيادة النفوذ الإيطالي. عرض الكاتب ايضا اوجه الشبه بين النازية والفاشية، من الجليّ ارتباطها ارتباطاً وثيقا بالنازية من حيث مبدأ العنصرية والتطرف الراديكالي، مع تاريخ موجز لصعود الرايخ الثالث للسلطة في المانيا. تم ذكر انواع مختلفة من الفاشية ظهرت في اوروبا و الامريكتين في السنوات التي فصلت بين الحربين العالميتين على غرار كو كلوكس كلان في الولايات المتحدة، و تنظيم " القمصان الذهبية " في المكسيك، و الفيلق في رومانيا . كما تُعتبر ديكتاتورية الجنرال فرانكو الأسبانية على انها فاشية بحتة، حيث لم يختلف نظام فرانكو عن موسيليني في شيء، كلاهما تضمن وجود حزب يجمع بين الفاشيين المتشددين و اليمينين المتحفظين، لكن العنصر الفاشي في اسبانيا كان اقل عنفوان من إيطاليا و ألمانيا. ينتقل بعد ذلك لتاريخ المعاصر و إيطاليا بعد الفاشية، و حزب الجبهة الوطنية في الفرنسا تأسيسه و الفرق بينه وبين حزب فاشية موسيليني، فقد حاولت الجبهة الوطنية في بادئ الأمر أن تقدم الفاشية في شكل أكثر قبولا، بعد تجريدها من حكم الحزب الواحد، تقليل من جرعة العنصرية و إضافة طابع مدني، حوّلتها الى شيء مختلف نوعاً ما، اما بالنسبة لروسيا فبعد سقوط الإتحاد السوڤيتي في 1992 لم يكن من المفاجئ ان يُبعث اليمين المتطرف في روسيا من جديد، و ظهر ايضا في الولايات المتحدة، فقد تمثلت الراديكالية المينية داخل الحزب الجمهوري. بعد هذه الاحداث والاحزاب المختلفة تدرك انه كل الاحزاب التي حاولت تعديل و جعل اليمين المتطرف مقبولا نهجت مسارات مختلفة جذريا . اخيرا يتحدث الكاتب عن الفاشية واثرها في الأمم والأعراق ونظرة الفاشية الدونية للمرأة. في سابق كان الفاشيون يعلنون صراحة عنصريتهم، فالمواطنة و مايصاحبها من امتيازات تمنح على اساس مطابقة الفرد لمعايير بيولوجية، دينية او ثقافية خارجة عن سيطرة الفرد تحت شعارات القومية، اما الشعبويون القوميون المعاصرون يجدون شيئا من الإهانة في وصفهم بالعنصريون، حيث انه هذه الصفة مكروهة ومذمومة من قبل عامة الناس، وانا اقتبس " ينكر الفاشيون المعاصرون عنصريتهم، فهم يزعمون انهم على خطى اليمين الجديد اي أن العنصريين الحقيقيين هم مهندسو العولمة والتعددية الثقافية، الذين يقوّضون الاختلافات الوطنية. " . الخلاصة انه الفاشية مجموعة متناقضة من الأيديولوجيات والممارسات المتضاربة والمتشابكة التي لا يسهل تصنيفها. الكتاب كان تجربة رائعة، مفيدة و موضوعية.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

These little volumes are fun and addictive.

Passmore does more than a passable job at describing fascism. He defines it broadly enough to try and include all of its important features, but not so broadly as to include similar radical traditionalist or far right movements. He goes through the major examples of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but also minor examples like Romania, Spain, the Brazilian Integralists, etc. But it isn't just a text about Fascist regimes. He also discusses Fascism's relationship with gender and class. If you are TL;DR, the main thrust of the book is summed up in its opening quote from Jose Ortega y Gasset:

"Fascism has an enigmatic countenance because in it appears the most counterpoised contents. It asserts authoritarianism and organises rebellion. It fights against contemporary democracy and, on the other hand, does not believe in the restoration of any past rule. It seems to pose itself as the forge of a strong State, and uses means most conducive to its dissolution, as if it were a destructive faction or a secret society. Whichever way we approach fascism we find that it is simultaneously one thing and the contrary, it is A and not A . . ."

Interesting things are in here even for someone who already knows a little bit about Fascism. The Far Right in France is given considerable weight for example, though it is usually overlooked since Fascism never became a ruling ideology there (though other far right movements did.) The author seems to be a moderate functionalist on the Holocaust, and does a good job of portraying the disorder of Fascist governments.

The only minor problem I have with the book, is that it is written in an obviously leftist and anti-fascist tone. Not that being anti-fascist is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't like the mixing of normative and descriptive which goes on here. As a result of the leftist perspective, the author doesn't acknowledge similarities or affinity between American Progressivism and Fascism. He only acknowledges it as a right wing movement, and so tries to draw analogues with the KKK for example. Such examples are much weaker than the obvious one of progressivism.

The oppositional perspective also has the author blatantly dismissing the validity of much of Fascist theory. The notion of racial differences being important, for example is dismissed as obviously absurd, as is the idea of the moral supremacy of the nation, the fear of immigrants diluting national culture, etc. Words like "unfortunately" preface many otherwise descriptive passages. This is made all the more frustrating by the author's own statement towards the end of the book that much of the dialogue concerning fascism is based on biased premises.

Again, this isn't saying that Fascism is defensible, but if you want to attack it, write a political polemic, not a descriptive book about a historical movement.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Passmore sets out to define and explain fascism in the 20th century, it's relationship with reactionary nationalism, it's ability to combine left and right-wing elements, and what the modern narratives around it don't understand. Passmore rejects the notion that fascism is just violent reactionary politics or a form of leftism. He also rejects the Trotskyist narrative about fascism by looking at the actual voting blocs in Weimar Germany and Italy. He also talks about the Falange and the Iron Guard's relationship to the two more dominant mode of fascism. He briefly discusses fascism in the Americas, particularly Brazil, and Japan. Then he points out the overlap and differences between modern ultranationalist movements which are perhaps quasifascist, but are much more willing to use conventional electoral methods. Once you read this, if you want to go further I would suggest any of the works of Zeev Sternhell on the topic which go much deeper into origins but like Passmore set-up a very specific definition for what fascism is.

[Jonathon · Rating 2 out of 5]

My main problem with this book was that the author would drop the last names of people without giving any explanation as to who that person was. When he did that it was very confusing. It was an interesting read, however. I will be interested to see a 2nd edition of this book after the Presidential Election of 2016. Donald Trump has drummed up support from the Republican Party that the author says is needed in fascism, mainly fear of the other, whether it is illegal immigrants or Muslims entering the United States. His campaign could be argued as one of the most successful fascist campaigns post-World War II.

[Moja · Rating 4 out of 5]

در بین کتاب‌های "مختصر مفید" که من بیشترشون رو خوندم، این یکی از بهترین‌ها بود. خوبیِ کتاب اینه که اطلاعات تاریخی فقط بخشی از حاشیه کتابه، و اصلِ چیزی که بررسی می‌شه، آبشخور تفکرات فاشیسم در قرن‌های گذشته و تاثیرات اجتماعی-فرهنگی اونه. بعد هم بررسی راست افراطی و شباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌هاش با فاشیسم.

[Mahmoud El-saedy · Rating 3 out of 5]

المقدمة قصيرة جدا لكنها ليست مبسطة كما يتراءي لمن يقرأ عنوان الكتاب فيظن أنه سيقدم مفهوم مبسط عن موضوع الفاشية
والفاشية باختصار هي أيدولوجية سياسية نشأت في فترة ما بين الحربين العالميتين وتسعي لوضع مفهوم الولاء للأمة فوق كل اعتبار وبشكل أبسط هي شكل من أشكال الدولة العنصرية كالدولة النازية
الكتاب يبدأ ببعض المشاهدات التي حدثت قبل ظهور الفاشية والتي أكدت علي وجود مفاهيم التعصب القومي والولاء للأمة في مختلف بلدان أوروبا
مثل فرنسا ( مذبحة إيج مورت كمثال ) ورومانيا ( قضية كودريانو وقتله لأحد رجال الشرطة كمثال )
ينطلق بعدها لوضع تعريف عام للفاشية ويؤكد علي أن فكرة وجود تعريف شامل لأي مصطلح سياسي هو أمر يكاد يكون مستحيل لاختلاف النظرة الأيدولوجية للمصطلح قيد الدراسة من أيدولوجية لأخري ومثل علي ذلك بالتعريف الماركسي للفاشية والتعريف الفايبري ( نسبة إلي ماكس فيبر ) للفاشية
وفي نهاية هذا الفصل يضع تعريفه الخاص بالفاشية بأنها أيدولوجيات وممارسات تسعي لفرض الولاء للأمة ومعاداة الأفكار الاشتراكية والنسوية
بعدها يتحدث عن إرهاصات ما قبل الفاشية في العديد من الدول ( منظمة كو كلوكس كلان في أمريكا كمثال ) ومدي اختلافها أو اتفاقها مع الفاشية
يتحدث بعدها عن ظهور موسوليني وظهور الأفكار الفاشية وتوليه لزمام السلطة في إيطاليا بعد الحرب العالمية الأولي وكيف أن الفاشية هي نتيجة للحرب بسبب ما أحدثه من تغيرات جذرية في المجتمعات الأوروبية
يعقد مقارنة بين الفاشية والنازية وارتباطهما ويتحدث عن التيارات التي تتبني بعضا من سمات الفاشية في مختلف الدول وتحدث عن علاقة الفاشية بالمرأة وبالطبقات الاجتماعية
انبطاعي العام عن الكتاب أنه كتاب يحتاج إلي كتاب ليفسره ولن يكون سلس الفهم لمن لا يدرك الفروق بين المصطلحات السياسية المختلفة

[ash ☁️ · Rating 4 out of 5]

learned lots from this!! particularly strong and interesting in its sections about the relationship of fascism to gender and race

[Ahmed Omer · Rating 4 out of 5]

يجتهد الكاتب في الفصل الاول في الاصطلاح على تعريف يلم بكل نواحي الفاشية يشمل كل المرتكزات التي قامت عليها من القومية العنصرية والشعبوية الكارهة للبورجوازية والذكورية المناهضة لكل اشكال الحراك النسوي واقصاء اطياف اليسار والإرث الثقيل للحرب العالمية الاولى .. ثم في الفصول التالية يستعرض مراحل نهوضها و وصولها الى السلطة في عدة محطات ويحلل فشلها في امريكا اللاتينية وفرنسا وبريطانيا. يقدم مقارنات جيدة لممارسات توجهات الازمان اللاحقة .ومدى تأثرها بالفاشية خصوصا ما يتعلق بتحول العداء الموجه لليهود الى عداء للمسلمين في المقام الاول وكل المهاجرين

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Passmore adopts an anti-essentialist critique of definitions and theories. Ironically, he then relates a series of historical descriptions to loose categories.

[James Yu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was so well written that I have now converted to fascism

[Stephen Kowalkowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascism: A Very Short Introduction

The author begins by highlighting the contradictions within fascism:

“Fascism has an enigmatic countenance because in it appears the most counterpoised contents. It asserts authoritarianism and organises rebellion. It fights against contemporary democracy and, on the other hand, does not believe in the restoration of any past rule. It seems to pose itself as the forge of a strong State, and uses means most conducive to its dissolution, as if it were a destructive faction or a secret society. Whichever way we approach fascism we find that it is simultaneously one thing and the contrary, it is A and not A”

He takes us back to the origins of this political ideology, when novelist Auguste-Maurice Barres conceived of a sort of mystical nationalism:

“Barrès rejected the liberal and democratic view that the nation was the expression of the rational interests of individual (male) inhabitants of France. For him, the nation emanated from a spiritual feeling beyond normal human understanding – a view shaped by then trendy psychological ideas about the collective human unconscious, and by the literary symbolist movement, which believed that art could access the hidden myths underlying human behaviour. Barrès saw the nation as the product of history, tradition, and of the long contact of the French peasantry with the national soil.”

We can see in this vision the first traces of the “blood and soil” slogan that would come to haunt mid-twentieth century Europe. By 1898 Barres was calling himself a national socialist. But it wasn’t until Mussolini in 1919 that the label of fascism saw light of day. His ultranationalist movement that combined paramilitarism and supreme hostility to the left demonstrated a practical model that was wrapped up in the war mentality of that half century. Mussolini openly envisioned a “totalitarian” society, while up north Hitler sketched out plans for a racial Utopia. But again, contradictions. Take a look at the odd bedfellows that made up the fascist constituency:

“Yet how can we make sense of an ideology that appeals to skinheads and intellectuals; denounces the bourgeoisie while forming alliances with conservatives; adopts a macho style yet attracts many women; calls for a return to tradition and is fascinated by technology; idealizes the people and is contemptuous of mass society; and preaches violence in the name of order? Fascism, as Ortega y Gasset says, is always ‘A and not A’.”

The author shows the various ways in which fascism has been analyzed over the years, with Marxists, of course, focusing on class, while the Weberian view conceives of fascism as a kind of elite-driven anti-modernism. A third camp focuses on the almost-religious aspirations of fascism:

“For totalitarian theorists, fascist ideas are revolutionary, for to construct Utopia all existing structures must be levelled, whether parties, trade unions, families, or churches. Revolution also involves the creation of a ‘new fascist man’ – someone who lives only for the nation. Since real people are in fact diverse and far from perfectible, the only way to make them assume their places in Utopia is by force. Utopianism always leads to terror.”

The author takes care to differentiate fascism from authoritarian conservatism, highlighting the radical aspects that so often get ignored, how all-encompassing fascism truly is:

“Authoritarian conservatives defended the primacy of a constellation of conservative ‘interests’: property, church, family, the military, the administration. They were highly nationalist, but believed that the elites, not the people, spoke for the nation, and their nationalism was moderated by the need to preserve the autonomy of conservative interests. So they left some space for private initiative: they did not completely abolish ‘civil society’ – the free association of individuals for economic, political, or other reasons. They made less attempt to regulate the family or the economy in the name of the national interest.”

And since conservatism so often gets confused with fascism (or at least labeled as fascist), here’s the difference once more:

“Likewise, men and women’s egoism is said to cause them to put comfortable living or careers before the production of healthy babies for the nation. These convictions permit what conservatives would see as legislative ‘interference’ by fascist regimes in economy and family. Businesses were subjected to regulation; workers were forced to join fascist unions; childbirth became a political duty.”

And one last time:

“Authoritarian conservatism governs through the Church, civil service, army, and perhaps a monarchy. Authoritarian conservatism defends family and property tenaciously, and insofar as it is interested in mass mobilization, it organizes it under the leadership of the established authorities. Fascism, in contrast, endeavours to bring a new elite to power as representative of the mobilized people, and regards defence of property and family as subordinate to the needs of the mobilized nation.”

On fascists’ relationship with the masses:

“Furthermore, when fascists claim that the people’s will must predominate over that of the corrupt elites, or when they describe existing governments as ‘unrepresentative’, they are not appealing to democracy as it is understood in liberal societies. Idealization of the people as the source of the new elite is mixed with contempt, for fascists insist on the unequal distribution of talents in individuals, and fear that without heroic leadership the masses will degenerate. The people are not capable of choosing a leader through the ballot box – elections simply permit the mediocre masses to choose mediocre representatives.”

Whom fascism appeals to:

“Fascist supporters see themselves as neglected by existing parties of both left and right (whether they really are ignored is another matter). This feeling of abandonment reinforces fascist radicalism.”

Surprisingly these supporters can come from the left, as well:

“Fascism can also emerge from a crisis of the left. This was rare, but not unknown, in the inter-war years, but is more pronounced in the present. When fascism derives from the left, its distinctive combination of radicalism and reaction comes from the combination of residual leftist hostility to the establishment with the feeling that the left has betrayed the people – for example, by excessive attention to ethnic minorities or feminists.”

Fascism occurred within a specific historical context:

“The radical right did not, then, derive from ultranationalism or extreme antisocialism alone. It was a diffuse reaction, rooted in daily struggles for jobs, financial reward, educational success, and political honour against socialists, ethnic minorities, feminists, and liberals in a context of imperialism and nation-building.”

I’d read before that Franco’s regime was a sort of edge case. Sounds like it might have morphed over time:

“Franco’s regime was not dissimilar to Mussolini’s in that there was a single party that included hard-line fascists as well as conservatives. The fascist component was weaker in Spain, however, and contrary to what happened in Italy and Germany, the Church, army, and administration became stronger with time.”

Why fascism failed to take off in Latin America:

“Fascism rarely flourished in Latin America because levels of political mobilization in the poor societies of Latin America were very low. Neither had Latin America experienced anything like the Great War and its consequent brutalization and militarization of politics.”

On fascism and racism:

“As an ultranationalist ideology, fascism is unabashedly racist. Fascists do not treat all inhabitants of the territory as citizens, or as human beings possessed of equal rights. Citizenship and its benefits are accorded or denied on the basis of conformity to, or possession of, characteristics alleged to be ‘national’, be they biological, cultural, religious, or political. Nationalism and racism pervade all aspects of fascist practice, from welfare provision and family policy to diplomacy. Those deemed to be outside the nation face an uncertain future – extermination in the worst case.”

“Fascism won’t tolerate diversity of identities, or the notion that a person can simultaneously fulfil her or his duties as a citizen and espouse other identities.”

Great book overall, especially the care the author put into forming a comprehensive definition of fascism. Some of the histories found in the later chapters were more interesting than others, but all in all very interesting.

[Ayman · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب يغلب عليه الطابع الأكاديمي وهذا ما يجعله مملا في بعض فصوله، ولكنه مهم جدا في موضوعه نظرا لأننا نرى في عصرنا اليوم "العنقاء تبعث من تحت الرماد" على حد وصف الكاتب. أهم فصول الكتاب من وجهة نظري هما الفصل الأول الخاص بتعريف الفاشية، والفصل الأخير المتعلق بالنظرة الأخلاقية للفاشية ومدى إمكانية العمل على محاربتها وعدم ظهورها من جديد.

الفقرة الأهم في هذا الكتاب جاءت في الصفحة قبل الأخيرة، والتي يقول فيها المؤلف:

"في الوقت الحالي، تبدو فرصة الشعبوية القومية أفضل كثيرا من فرص الفاشية، وهذا واضح من صعود اليمين المتطرف في فرنسا وسويسرا والدنمارك والنمسا والولايات المتحدة وروسيا، علاوة على أن انتشار العنصرية في الغرب، وشيطنة الإسلام، والتخوف من أن تعمل العولمة على تآكل الدول القومية، والاعتقاد بأن المهاجرين يهدمون الهويات الوطنية الضعيفة، والاقتناع بأن السياسيين كلهم فاسدون، كلها شواهد تشير إلى أن المستقبل ربما يخبيء مزيدا من انتصارات الشعبوية القومية. لا يمكننا أن نطمئن إلى الافتراض بأن الديمقراطية الآن متجذرة عميقا بدرجة تجعل من المستحيل على اليمين المتطرف أن يفوز بالسلطة، فالديمقراطية نفسها لا تخلو من نزعات تمييزية. والديمقراطية ضاربة بجذورها "بالفعل"، لكنها لا ترتبط دائما بالقناعة بأن جميع البشر يستحقون معاملة متساوية. والكثيرون مقتنعون بأن الديمقراطية ببساطة هي حق الأغلبية في أن تفعل ما تشاء، وقد استغلت الشعبوية القومية هذه القناعة استغلالا ناجحا".

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I had the wrong expectations for this book; I was looking for an overview of fascism in order to better understand current world events. While the book is short, as promised, it's more dry and academic than I had hoped for; it's a condensed overview, but not really written in an approachable way. Passmore is a historian, so perhaps it's not overly surprising that most of the book is preoccupied with historical fascism, especially in Italy and Nazi Germany. There is some discussion of the modern far right, but overall, just not quite what I was looking for in terms of explaining the post-Trump era. Madeleine Albright's Fascism: A Warning might be a better choice.