"THE ALLURE OF FASCISM"

Ian Kershaw, Hell and Back: Europe 1914-1949 (New York: Viking, 2016) ("Some of the movements of the extreme, radical Right explicitly copied the methods, symbols and language used by the followers of Mussolini and Hitler, and proudly called themselves 'fascist' or 'national socialist'. Others shared some, even most, of the ideas of the openly fascist movements while rejecting the label for themselves. The issue is largely one of definition--and trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Each of the myriad movements of the extreme Right had its distinctive features and emphasis. And since each of them claimed to represent in 'true', 'real' of 'essential' form a specific nation and based much of their hyper-nationalist appeal on the presumed uniqueness of that nation [Note: each nations' version of "exceptionalism"!!], there could be no genuine international organization representing the radical Right, equivalent to the Comintern on the Left. When an attempt was made , at a meeting of representatives of the extreme Right from thirteen countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland) in December 1934 on the shores of Lake Geneva, to establish a framework for collaborative action, the most important country, Nazi Germany boycotted the gathering--which found itself unable to agree even on the basis of a common doctrine." [Note: This is why, for example, even though an American politician might self-describe himself as an "admirer of Mussolini," it may be difficult for others to label him a "fascist" given how poorly defined the concept is.] "Some common ideological features of the extreme Right, whether or not a movement called itself 'fascist', nonetheless existed: hyper-nationalist emphasis on the unity of an integral nation, which gained its very identity through the 'cleansing' of all those deemed not to belong--foreigners, ethnic minorities, 'undesirables'; racial exclusiveness (though not necessarily biological racism like Nazism's variety) expressed though insistence in the 'special', 'unique' and 'superior' quality of the nation; radical, extreme and violent commitment to the utter destruction of political enemies--Marxists quite especially, but also liberals, democrats and 'reactionaries'; stress upon discipline, 'maniliness' and militarism (usually involving paramilitary organizations); and belief in authoritarian leadership. Other features were important, indeed sometimes central, to the ideology of a specific movement, but not omnipresent. Some movements directed their nationalism towards irredentist or imperialist goals, with devastating effect, but not all were intrinsically expansionist. Some, though not all had a strong anti-capitalist tendency. Often though not invariably, they favored reorganizing the economy along 'corporatist' lines, abolishing independent trade unions and regulating economic policy by 'corporations of interests directed by the state." Id. at 228-229. [NOTE: In reading the previous passage, one can readily understand how difficult, at least from a historical perspective, for 'some form of fascism to take root in American as a populous movement. Americans are, or at least believe themselves to be, too individualistic and independent to willingly subject themselves to an authoritarian leadership. However, since 9/11 Americans have quite willingly given up or comporomised, much of their constitutional liberties for what they take for greater security. How has that worked out for us? Moreover, what if the choice were between, on the one hand, a authoritarian leadership that promises to "make America great again!', promises to defeat terrorism next week, promises to bring back those manly manufacturing jobs,promises to return America to being a White, Gun-totting, Christian power structure, etc., and, on the other hand, a liberal, small "d" democratic leadership that acknowledges that change is inevitable and the old ways are gone forever? Might those individualistic and independent Americans, fearing change, fearing the unknown, fearing the loss of exceptionaism, opt for the authoritarian turn?  Especially when so few Americans are actually willing to do what they need to do to maintain America as a representative democracy. American democracy has dodged a few political bullets over the years. Will it, will we, continue to be so lucky? GIMME SHELTER! WAR, RAPE, MURDER AND, YES, FASCISM, IS ALL JUST A SHOT AWAY.] Food for thought!).