The Nature of Fascism by Roger Griffin (PDF)

Description

Roger Griffin offers a radically new conceptual framework for the study of fascism by locating its driving force in a distinctive form of utopian myth, that of the regenerated national community destined to rise up from the ashes of a decadent society (“palingenetic ultra-nationalism”).

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: About the Author Roger Griffin is Professor in Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, UK. His major work is “The Nature of Fascism” (1991), which established the first new theory of generic fascism for over a decade. It is a theory that continues to have a major influence on the teaching and development of fascist studies by political scientists and historians alike. This is his first authored book since that 1991 breakthrough. He has also edited “Fascism,” a documentary reader of primary sources relating to fascism published by OUP (1995), “International Fascism. Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus,” a documentary reader of secondary sources published by Arnold in 1998, and the five volumes of secondary sources relating to fascism in Routledge’s “Critical Concepts in Political Science” series (1993).

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐_The Nature of Fascism_ by Roger Griffin provides a unique contribution to the field of fascist studies. Griffin attempts to provide a definition for the essence of a series of movements and political regimes which were given rise to in the earlier part of this last century and which he believes constitute “fascism”. The term fascism has fallen into much abuse and misuse in modern times, and it has become a part of our common linguistic currency used to define or demolish any movement which appears to have totalitarian or authoritarian underpinnings or which is overly oppressive. For instance, Marxist historians are especially prone to label as fascist any movement which is contrary to their own particular political ideology of history as class struggle. (This is particularly ironic because Marxism itself appears to be an extremely violent and oppressive ideology, not all that dissimilar from the ideologies of Mussolini or Hitler, in a word – fascist.) Griffin contends that there is such a thing as “generic fascism” of which the National Socialism of Hitler’s Germany (Nazism) and the Fascism of Mussolini’s Italy are two particular instances of. Griffin defines this generic fascism as: “Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism. (p. 26)”. Thus, fascism is a utopian revolutionary ideology which attempts to revive a form of ultra-nationalism – represented frequently by the myth of the phoenix, the mythical bird which arises new each day from its own ashes. Griffin argues against Eric Voegelin’s thesis that fascism (particularly National Socialism) is a form of political religion, a revival of the Gnostic heresy with roots in the apocalyptic tradition represented by the medieval monastic Joachim of Fiore. (Here, I disagree slightly with Griffin’s somewhat overly simplistic rejection of Voegelin. Voegelin is famous for saying that one must avoid the “immanentization of the eschaton”, the attempt to create the Kingdom of God on Earth.) Once Griffin has succeeded in defining generic fascism to his satisfaction, he then goes on to explore the various political movements and regimes which are instances of it or which bear a resemblance to his definition but which fail to fulfill all of its requirements. First, Griffin discusses Italian Fascism, beginning with the proto-fascism (not fully fascist) in Italy before the rise of Benito Mussolini. The Italian proto-fascism arose out of various movements of Italian interventionists who combined with certain aspects of neo-syndicalism (whose principal expositor is that of Georges Sorel). Individuals such as D’Annunzio, Papini, and the Futurist movement in the arts led by Marinetti, combined under Mussolini to form the fascist movement in Italy. Griffin then discusses various aspects of Italian Fascism once it had come to full development in a totalitarian dictatorship under Mussolini, and also examines the various forms of postwar fascism in Italy. Next, Griffin turns his attention towards German Fascism (represented by National Socialism). In Germany, various forms of proto-fascism existed which finally completed itself in the fully fascist Third Reich regime under Adolf Hitler. Conservative revolutionaries, reactionary modernists, Volkish ideologues, and various proto-Nazi occultists were combined into a movement that gave rise to German National Socialism (Nazism). Griffin discusses the development of Nazism under Hitler and its completion in the demise of the Third Reich and the subsequent death of Hitler. Next, Griffin examines what he terms “abortive inter-war fascisms”. These are various attempts to create a fascist movement in European nations (particularly those occupied by the Nazis). Griffin contends that fascist forces were always marginalized before they had the chance to come to full power. These movements include various “para-fascisms” (attempts to create a movement with the external trappings of fascism) among which are Vichy France and Franco’s Spain (which was strongly reactionary but not truly and fully fascist). Finally, Griffin turns to non-European and postwar fascisms. These include regimes in South Africa (based on racialism) and Japan, which Griffin contends failed to become truly fascist. Griffin also examines mimetic forms of fascism (including NeoNazism) and various movements which are to be considered ultra-Right or conservative revolutionary. The book concludes with discussions on the psycho-historical bases of fascism (including examinations of myth and focusing on the theories of Arthur Koestler) and the socio-political determinants of fascism’s success (which attempts to show why modern fascist movements have failed and been increasingly marginalized). I believe Griffin goes too far in labeling certain “New Right” intellectuals such as Alain de Benoist or Julius Evola with the fascist label. This label has been conveniently used by liberals to discredit different right wing thinkers who call for a “return to tradition” and a “renewal of the West”. Also, I believe the most dangerous form of fascism in the modern world comes not from nationalist groups but from the global democratic elite themselves. In an era in which global hegemony is being concentrated into the hands of an ever decreasing in size select group of globalist profiteering elite, it is apparent that a new form of “fascism” is arriving upon us in the form of a New World Order. By itself, palingenetic movements are not necessarily to be avoided. It may be that a certain type of palingenetic movement is the only one possible to assure our survival of the viscitudes of modernity.

⭐The Palingenic Myth Thesis.Griffin knows his work, and this book presents a great scholarly labor; however, the palingenic myth thesis subverts what the . . . ideologically neutral? theory of State fascism *is* in-itself –a palliative to invasive social forces and forms, a defensive measure vis-a-vis one designed to project force. It takes control of a government and orchestrates by dictate administrative-bureaucratic oligarchies the modern state provides, to the end of being the puppet master of a society deemed to be incapable of surviving apart from it, and with it its direction organizing it into an ‘organic unity’ such that can withstand an entropic social and moral state in which a society’s laws and customs merely serve to goad its slide into historical non-existence with ever growing anarchy ect. ect.”It may be that a certain type of palingenetic movement is the only one possible to assure our survival of the viscitudes of modernity.”-Great statement by another reviewer; and in fact, ANY coherent social identity of ANY kind present THE sole threat to white liberal progressives of New Left and NeoConservative right; something to which end libertarians are so often caricatured as being ‘reactionary closet fascists’ ect. These archeypes are most succinctly apparent in the television program “Family Guy”, where those schizoidal regime/establishment conceptions occur to obsessive degrees. That is to say -Griffin’s thesis is the praxis of another tyranny and fascist monopoly on the functions of state, of an invidious imperialism of a sort lower than the open and honest aggressive chauvinism of old-style and patriotic nationalist regimes from the last century. I leave them and this transparent evil unnamed, but as Winston Churchill once truly stated “The next fascists will be the anti-fascists.” God knows the regime is full of *them*, of *IT*.-Amen. May the next crop of patriots continue their worthy efforts unperturbed by the pharisee and philistine alike.

⭐Excellent straight-forward academic attempt to give a minimum definition of generic fascism – the shared essentials of Italy and those cases which followed. Written by an historian of ideas, the work starts with the ideology of fascism in its positive aspects rather than the historical and socio-political particularities of its origin or its characteristics as a movement or a regime. Essential to its ideology, Griffin says, is a palingenetic (look it up) myth of rebirth or renewal, from a time of decay, achieved by a movement of populist ultra-nationalism.Two good introductory chapters on the semantic muddle of the word “fascism” today and on the basic method of using social-scientific concepts to study history.

⭐”The most influential recent attempt to define fascism comes from Roger Griffin, ‘The Nature of Fascism’ (London: Routledge, 1994), and ‘International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus’ (London: Arnold, 1998), though his zeal to reduce fascism to one pithy sentence seems to me more likely to inhibit than to stimulate analysis of how and with whom it worked” (Robert Paxton “The Anatomy of Fascism” loc. 4302).”Rather, he’s a right-wing populist, or perhaps an “apartheid liberal” in the words of Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism. He doesn’t want to overthrow the existing democratic system. He doesn’t want to scrap the Constitution. He doesn’t romanticize violence itself as a vital cleansing agent of society. He’s simply a racist who wants to keep the current system but deny its benefits to groups he’s interested in oppressing” (Dylan Matthews “I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here’s what they said” ‘Vox’ Updated May 19, 2016).

⭐Roger Griffith offers an analytic and incisive analysis of the nature of fascism, as an idea and as a historical phenomenon. It is especially good at addressing the circumstances under which fascism succeeded in taking power, and delineating it from other forms of right-wing, but non-fascist political movements (always a useful distinction to know). He addresses two questions. What was it? Why was it so destructive?The book is better at addressing the first question than the second. Fascism offered a myth of regeneration against the backdrop of national decadence and the entire political community (as fascists defined it) would partake in a project of national renewal. The ‘myth’ making of fascism should not be taken to mean as a concoction of the irrational. Fascist myth could make sense in two circumstances. First of all, in countries with established but weak liberal institutions unable to cope with repeated crisis, such as Weimar Germany, the fascist myth of decadence could make a lot of sense. Likewise, the fascist myth of renewal, if rooted in a real (albeit idealised) past could easily make sense as the obvious alternative, if this symbolism was widely shared. In Italy, fascism successfully co-opted the myth of Roman greatness as a kind of idealised standard to emulate, and could appeal to unrealised aspirations of the Risorgimento movement of the 19th Century, to ensure that its message had broader appeal. Fascists were not the creation of the capitalist bourgeoisie or an expression of the hang ups of the middle class. They were mass movements with cross class appeal in the places in which they took hold. The appeal of fascist myth did not mean that (say) each and every German, or even the bulk of them, were fanatical Nazis. Opportunism, pragmatism and conformity (backing the winning side when the going looks good, abandoning it when the cause is clearly lost) were just as strong motives as ideological devotion. Fascism did not succeed not because each and every one of its subject population had been brainwashed. It could just create enough hype to convince the bulk of the population go along with it, if only for pragmatic, conformist motives. One thinks just how rapidly the ranks of the German left melted in the immediate years after their seizure of power, achieved without mass repression of the Social Democratic and Communist rank and file.However, in countries with authoritarian, right-wing governments, fascism made little headway, because these governments were able to take the sorts of repressive measures that countries like Weimar Germany could not do. In countries with stronger liberal institutions, institutions that proved resilient in the face of a crisis like the Great Depression, the fascist myth of decadence and the supposed necessity of national regeneration commanded little appeal. In contemporary countries (such as in sub-Sahara Africa) with weak national identity and institutions, the sort of mass politics that could allow movements like fascism to flourish simply do not exist. Since WW2, the peace and prosperity that Europe has enjoyed made fascist myths of decadence look absurd. Of course, contemporary Europe is in crisis but there is no compelling evidence that the resurrection of fascism aka Italy and Germany in the 20s and 30s has a remote chance of making a comeback. It is worth bearing in mind why: the 1930s showed that mass unemployment and crisis are not sufficient conditions for the emergence of fascism. Resilient institutions can contain fascism, as they did in many places in the 20s and 30s. Then, as now, fascists were outnumbered by their opponents. Additionally, chance and contingency were huge factors accounting for initial fascist successes in Italy and Germany, contingencies hardly likely to arise in the same pattern again.The question as to why fascism was so destructive does not receive adequate treatment although the discussions around some of the psychological issues is interesting. So neither question is settled once and for all – one doubts that it ever will be. But it does help clear up a lot of muddle that has arisen around this word, a word that usually generates more heat than light. It’s also worth reading to complement to Stanley Payne’s excellent History of Fascism.

⭐Lucid analysis of fascism. Griffin’s book is seminal in the search for a fascist minimum, which is fundamental for understanding and discussing fascist movements both past and present.

⭐This book is a must-have for all those who are fascinated by the very interesting yet horrifying ideology that is fascism. Griffin limits the number of political movements that can truly be seen as fascist by explaining in detail his ‘fascist minimum’ model. He explains how Mussolini and Hitler achieved power, yet only realised a travesty of the society they had proposed. Other European, non-European and post-war fascisms are discussed to show how diverse and flexible fascism can be at the surface. I strongly recommend this book.

Keywords

Free Download The Nature of Fascism in PDF format
The Nature of Fascism PDF Free Download
Download The Nature of Fascism 2002 PDF Free
The Nature of Fascism 2002 PDF Free Download
Download The Nature of Fascism PDF
Free Download Ebook The Nature of Fascism