Fascism

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RZDJ6TOAXJ5OE?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This book provides a useful overview of the phenomenon of “fascism,” although it highlights the problem with books about fascism. That problem is the same problem the Supreme Court had with defining “pornography”: it's hard to define but you know it when you see it. The author, Kevin Passmore, candidly admits this difficulty in both this edition and in the prior edition when he acknowledges that fascism is often defined so as to conform to various inconsistent and contradictory characteristics. In the second edition - this edition - Passmore notes “Now, scholars doubt the usefulness of a definition of fascism, even if it was possible to agree on one.”

One thing that seems clear is that whatever it was, fascism had a limited existence, being confined to the inter-war period in Europe. Even there, fascism failed to take off in certain countries. Passmore describes how the leader of Romania's Iron Guards was garrotted by the conservative Romanian monarchy who had no interest in the radical, one-party, ultranationalism of that movement. Fascist movement similarly failed to gain traction in other European countries; even the Germans often found it easier to deal with conservatives, rather than the home-grown fascists.

Passmore spends a lot of time in this book distinguishing between fascism and other rightwing political positions, including “populist nationalism” and authoritarian conservativism. The latter in particular is not fascist in that it is not revolutionary; it seeks to support the existing power structure, lacks any interest in recreating society or individuals, and doesn't put paramilitary organizations into the street. This book was written prior to 2016, so we are mercifully spared from any attempt to link Trump to fascism by way of “populist nationalism.”

I found portions of Passmore's presentation irritating when it came to “populist nationalism.” Passmore seemed to take it as given that inhabitants of a country had no reason other than atavistic racism to oppose mass immigration into their country. Again, this was written prior to the European meltdown precipitated by German Chancellor Merkel throwing the borders of Germany open to Middle-Eastern immigrants, but given the antipathy that a broad spectrum of Europeans had with mass immigration for decades, one might think that a political philosopher would reflect a bit on whether the government of such countries should reflect the desires of their voters.

I listened to the audiobook which represents a substantially different text than is found in the second edition. One takeaway I found in the audiobook is that Fascism simpliciter was a product of a unique historical moment. The interwar years produced a generation which had gone through a war, had become inured to the suffering of the front, had seen life treated as disposable, had found a twisted form of masculine comradery in marching, uniforms and militarism, and had learned to put nation over literally everything. Accordingly, I found the inevitable portion of this book that seemed to assume that western democracies are susceptible to the fascist impulse to be wrongheaded. If all those things come together to replicate the interwar period, then maybe, but until then, let's not feed paranoia.