I am just starting a book 1 by Robert Paxton called The Anatomy of Fascism. In his Introduction, Paxton says that he
... proposes to set aside, for the moment, both the bestiary and the essence .... When we are done, we be better able to give fascism an appropriate definition.
This surprised me; I thought that it had been fairly well agreed that fascism was an authoritarian movement of those who had lost in the transition to the modern, who were not against certain technologies of the modern, and who were willing to make alliances with capitalists and conservatives against communist authoritarians. Perhaps my understanding is wrong; or perhaps I am looking at the same universe that Paxton is, but am out of focus. We shall see.
By `authoritarian', I mean people who organize their lives with metaphors based on attitudes that a friend said were those of bronze age warriors: be strong, but know to submit to the stronger, regard external discipline as a method for inducing internal discipline in others, be touchy about honor.
By `losing in the transition to the modern', I mean people who fail to become as rich or successful as they had hoped, even though society is going through vast changes. Thus, during the early part of the 20th century, people were adopting telephones, buses, and electric motors. Some thrived in the new world; others did not.
But unlike those who avoided modern technologies, and wished to be like the Amish, I mean people who favored cars and airplanes.
Also, I mean people who disliked communists more than conservatives and were willing to ally themselves with them.
This latter alliance led to a form of oligopolistic capitalism that proved less efficient than the kind of partially oligopolistic and partially competitive capitalism adopted by the United States. It was attractive both because it provided oligopolistic profits to the powerful and because each group had its place. For many, it provided a crucial enough predictability for many people to survive what otherwise to them are upsetting and dangerous times.
This form of economic organization was, as Philip Bobbitt 2 said, defeated by communism and parliamentarianism. (Parliamentarianism then defeated communism. Bobbitt argues that The [newly emerging] market-state offers a different covenant: it will maximize the opportunity of its people. .....)
These are the ideas that encumber me as I begin Paxton's book; I am looking forward to reading it. I will try to report my conclusions.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page