I think I agree in terms of Levy’s article and the lack of clear cut definition on Fascism. He dismantles many of the orthodox arguments such as Payne’s separation of pre and post war fascism being distinctly different things. When you read Duggan’s piece, Italian fascism appears a reaction against socialism, but then Levy’s article presents cases like Hungary, where the existing authoritarianism meant there was no left wing base for fascism to react against, yet it still occured.
Both seem to focus on notion of bonding nation and state to create order and the idea that fascism came to prominence with the assistance of liberals and conservatives who initially were content to use it for their own gain.
A very interesting point from Levy I thought was the fusing and interconnected nature of fascism and religion. I would tend to think of fascism, especially Nazism as entirely Atheistic but then you had Clerics collaborating with fascists across Croatia, Spain, Belgium and Finland.
The notion that Italian fascism arose from the squadrismos is one that can be easily related to modern fascist or neo fascist incarnations in Europe I think. Young men, in a void, excited by the prospect of violence and an escape from mundanity of their life, is easily transferable to organisations such as the EDL for example (the revelation about cocaine use also quite telling…) – more about the process than the ideology.
With this week being the anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street it is interesting to see how Fascism swelled and took over in many parts of Europe whilst it was squashed here in the UK.
Thanks for this summary, Siobhan, and for the perceptive comment highlighting that the definition of fascism arising from the two pieces does not appear to be clearcut. As you note, Levy highlights the difficulty of isolating a fascist minimum when fascism (necessarily?) varies between countries. I think debates have moved on since, but this is still an important idea which we need to get our heads around.
I think, along with with what Neil is saying, that this partly point to the difficulties of isolating what fascism is when it emerged/operated differently in very different contexts. I wonder what we think of the relationship of fascism to conservatism that Levy points to: fascism often relied on conservatives to get into power, yet there were also conservatives who opposed fascism and what it stood for. This appears to be an intractable problem – perhaps we’re framing it in the wrong way?
I think I agree in terms of Levy’s article and the lack of clear cut definition on Fascism. He dismantles many of the orthodox arguments such as Payne’s separation of pre and post war fascism being distinctly different things. When you read Duggan’s piece, Italian fascism appears a reaction against socialism, but then Levy’s article presents cases like Hungary, where the existing authoritarianism meant there was no left wing base for fascism to react against, yet it still occured.
Both seem to focus on notion of bonding nation and state to create order and the idea that fascism came to prominence with the assistance of liberals and conservatives who initially were content to use it for their own gain.
A very interesting point from Levy I thought was the fusing and interconnected nature of fascism and religion. I would tend to think of fascism, especially Nazism as entirely Atheistic but then you had Clerics collaborating with fascists across Croatia, Spain, Belgium and Finland.
The notion that Italian fascism arose from the squadrismos is one that can be easily related to modern fascist or neo fascist incarnations in Europe I think. Young men, in a void, excited by the prospect of violence and an escape from mundanity of their life, is easily transferable to organisations such as the EDL for example (the revelation about cocaine use also quite telling…) – more about the process than the ideology.
With this week being the anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street it is interesting to see how Fascism swelled and took over in many parts of Europe whilst it was squashed here in the UK.
Thanks for this summary, Siobhan, and for the perceptive comment highlighting that the definition of fascism arising from the two pieces does not appear to be clearcut. As you note, Levy highlights the difficulty of isolating a fascist minimum when fascism (necessarily?) varies between countries. I think debates have moved on since, but this is still an important idea which we need to get our heads around.
I think, along with with what Neil is saying, that this partly point to the difficulties of isolating what fascism is when it emerged/operated differently in very different contexts. I wonder what we think of the relationship of fascism to conservatism that Levy points to: fascism often relied on conservatives to get into power, yet there were also conservatives who opposed fascism and what it stood for. This appears to be an intractable problem – perhaps we’re framing it in the wrong way?