Some Myths of the Struggle against Fascism

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R18DMVDHCKU7O?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is a short, informative, accessible text that examines the historical phenomenon of fascism. Since “fascism” has come to mean “anything the left doesn't like,” this book is useful for overturning the lazy conventional thinking that many lazy people have fallen into.

Here are a couple of excerpts to give you a flavor of the book:

“Generally speaking, there are two portraits of fascist movements. One, generally favored by “leftist” interpretations, emphasizes the “right-wing” nature and affiliations of fascist movements and their links with the traditional right. Fascism is seen as a modern form of reactionary extremism. This view, whatever its justification (and it does contain a hard core of sense), has lent itself to political misuses. The familiar tactic of smearing conservatism by linking it with fascism is one such abuse. A less noticed, but perhaps more insidious, practice of the left is to subtly adjust the image of fascism to make it seem more “conservative” than it actually was. The views of the contemporary left are close to, but not quite identical with, some notions widespread in the 1930s. George Orwell summarized these views as the idea that “Nazism is capitalism with the lid off,” the most extreme and logical forms of bourgeois society. In its original, literal form, it actually held that Hitler and the Nazis were the puppets of German industrialists. While the absurdity of this last idea was generally recognized by the end of the 1930s, today leftist interpreters still attempt to incriminate German capitalism, blaming it for supporting Nazism and enabling Hitler to come to power.”

And:

“The various fascist movements shared enough features to distinguish them from both the right-wing political movements known before 1914 and from the communists. Unlike most right-wing extremists before World War I, fascist movements attempted to create a mass basis; they at least tried to appeal to all classes of society. They purported to be movements of all classes, aiming at the good of society. In practice, they appealed primarily to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, professing to offer protection against both organized labor and big business. All were anti-Marxist, sought a one-party state under an all-powerful idealized leader, and emphasized extreme nationalism or racism justified by a “myth of origin.” All claimed to defend the values of family and nation, but not religion. (The Romanian Iron Guard, whose ideology incorporated a fanatical version of orthodox Christianity, was an exception.) Mostly, fascists outside the Latin world were anti-Semitic. All fascist movements had a “socialist” element.”

And:

“Like communists, fascists—except for pretenses assumed for tactical purposes—rejected religion and any supernatural basis for their beliefs; they tended to justify themselves through dubious appeals to science. Nevertheless, the difference in philosophical basis between fascism and communism, with communism's materialist, international class and supposed egalitarian orientation, is quite clear. Yet contrary to what has often been said, communism has never actually been egalitarian in aim. Marx and Engels sought to abolish classes, not create equality. Stalin in 1931 stigmatized egalitarianism as a “petty-bourgeois” deviation. Many followers of Marxist and communist movements, and their enemies, have, nevertheless, interpreted the abolition of classes as egalitarianism. While the communists based the necessity of communism on the modern myth of progress—communism was in fact a primary factor in turning progress from a fact back into a myth—fascism was, if anything, based on the ancient myth of eternal recurrence. Ironically, of course, fascist movement failed to form societies in which great cultural achievements could be made. They proved even worse than the communists in this respect, failing in their aim of preserving culture as spectacularly as the communists have failed to create a classless society.”

Fascism had socialist elements, but was not socialist. It was not internationalist. It did not appeal to a particular class as its basis for unity. Instead, it appealed to the nation qua nation for unity but was willing to tolerate different, unequal classes. Fascism was not essentially anti-semitic, as shown by the fascist movements in Italy.

This is a quick read for a solid introduction to the subject.