Fascism's Return, Scandal, Revision, and Ideology since 1980s. (Book Reviews).

Andrew McCulloch 

Richard J. Golsan (ed.)

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1998, pp. 330

ISBN 0-832-70720-2 (pbk) $25.00

The book's title in parts misleading. Most of contributions in this edited collection focus on the question of French fascism its history and denial; and the responsibility of memory in France. The political significance of the National Front is discussed as it is the raison d'etre of post modernism's beginning in France. This theoretical development is seen, and rightly so, as part of the denial of the ghost of Vichy France Post-modernism, it is argued, works within the tradition of existentialism and pessimism that fascist thin-called their own. The other side of this extentialisation of social existence is the elevation of technology as a solution to social problems; a line of development which reaches from Italian fascims to French plantification personified by Monnet, one of the founders of the process of European integration.

In addition to the chapters on France, there is a. chapter each on Italy, Germany, and the USA's friendly fascism' abroad, exemplified in a case-study on its involvement in El Salvador during the 198os. Nevertheless, the French Question' is decisive. Fascism's Return focuses on scandals, revision and ideology since 1980.

The chapters by Neaman and Dasenbrock are most interesting. They deal with the attractiveness of occultism and esotericism and show their continuing significance as a rallying cry of the Zeitgeist where the idleness of thought is celebrated and where schemes of technocratic solutions to and functionalist designs for social regulation are advocated. Both reject modernism and bourgeois constitutionalism in favour of a politics of a 'third way'. The issues of the cultural pessimism and existentialism are most interesting in the contemporary context of 'globalisation'. Here, commentators talk about the globalisation of culture and that is, the 'denationalisation' of 'identities' and their replacement by global 'signs' and cultural images. The reason why contemporary commentators analyse these developments through the lenses of the cultural pessimism of the right, is not discussed explicitly in the volume. Yet, this connection can be drawn from the discussion in these chapters. Unfortunately, the Italian left fasc ist currents (fascista di sinistra) are not analysed and taken into account.' Without doubt, a critical assessment of left fascist concerns and their contemporary relevance would have improved the argument immensely.

What, then, is to be understood by fascism's 'return'? Does 'return' mean that the sort of fascism that reared its ugly and deadly head at the beginning of this century is in the 'process' of returning? Or does 'return' mean that we see the assertion of a fascism that is 'adequate' to contemporary conditions? If Fascism is indeed returning, would this mean that fascism was dead in 1945 and is now, after all these years, in the process of returning? For some, these thoughts might seem idle word-play. Yet, they are not. If, as indeed the contributors to the volume seem to accept, historical fascism amounted to an epochal event, would it not follow that it casts its 'achievements' onto subsequent developments? In short, either fascism is an epoch and because of this casts its shadow onto the present; or it was not an epoch and for this reason amounted to no more than a footnote in history, with no consequences for capitalist development once historical fascism ended. The issue, then, is one of the dialectic of c ontinuity and change. In the current volume, no such dialectic obtains.

Overall, the volume fails to convince. It analyses the return of fascism as something brought about by revisionist writings during the 1980s. The volume, then, criticises the disgraceful attempts at 'normalising' the past for contemporary political purposes and it rejects the deplorable state of affairs of intellectual fashion. This is all very well. However, the volume fails to take into account the conditions upon which fascism rests. Of course, capital is not interested in fascism. It is interested in profits. The understanding, then, of the relationship between capitalism and fascism? requires a detailed analysis of the conditions through which historical fascism emerged and through which fascism is said to return. The volume fails to provide such analysis. Its focus is on the legacy and history of fascist ideas and their 'return' since the 1980s. The question why specific political forms of social organisation gain influence and achieve credibility is not posed. Except, that is; if one follows the book's trend. These ideas have come to the fore again because the last generation involved in fascism has come to the end of its political influence and seeks to leave an impression in order to justify its former involvement and to re-emphasise' the rightfulness of its earlier 'action' for future generations. This is, of course, an interesting point of view which, admittedly, not all contributors share.

Finally, the volume seeks to defend liberal constitutional values against the re-emergence of fascism. In this context, it would be worthwhile to consider Lipset's definition' offascism' as the extremism of the political centre. Unfortunately, the current volume 'does 'not see it this' way. Fascism is conceived as an anti-libeial current. For liberals, for example Schumpeter, the democratisation of society is the main enemy of democracy. (2) Schumpeter, of course, was not a fascist. Yet, would it be unfair to say that he was not a radical of the political centre? In short, the volume view of fascism denies the' link between capitalism and fascism. The liberal view hat democracy has to protect minority interests focuses this link. What would happen to liberal democracy if it would be transformed into the democracy of the majority, i.e. 'the dependent masses, and how would it defend itself against such mass democratic demands and practice? Historically, such a defence resulted in a state of emergency, a warfare state. (3) Of course, such a state takes different forms, fascism being one of them.

Notes

(1.) On this see J. Agnoli, Faschismus ohne Revision, Ca ira, Freiburg, 1997.

(2.) S.M. Lipset, Political Man, London, 1963; J. Schumpeter Socialism and Democracy, London, 1943.

(3.) On this see R. Luxemburg, Sozialreform oder Revolution?, in Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 1/1 Berlin, 1974, p. 398ff.

Werner Bonefeld, a member of CSE, is the editor of The Politics of Europe: Monetary Union and Class, St. Martins Press, 2001. He teaches at the Department of Politics, University of York.