As
ProfessorAllardycehas
pointedout,I haveelsewhereindicated mydisagreemenwtithanyunifascistheory.
Nolte - 1979 - [What Fascism Is Not- Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept]- Comment
?
?
?
[What Fascism Is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept]: Comment Author(s): Ernst Nolte
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Apr. , 1979), pp. 389-394 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/1855139 .
Accessed: 14/11/2014 01:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www. jstor. org/page/info/about/policies/terms. jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor. org.
.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www. jstor. org
Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments:
GILBERT ALLARDYCE 'S ESSAY IS A WELCOME DEFLATION of the excesses and reificationfrequentleyncounteredin theorizingabout "fascism. "Most ofthe keeneststudentsofthemajor,putativelyfascistmovementosr regimeshave becomeextremelyuncomfortablweiththeairyandunempiricalgeneral- izationscommonlybandied about as eitherdefinitionosr interpretationosf fascism. Closerexaminationalmostalwaysrevealsthatthesegeneralizations do notapplytomany,orevenmost,ofthefascistmovements-andsometimes tononeatall. TheproblemhasbecomeparticularlyacuteinGermanyw,here writersand scholars(commonlyofMarxian,or whatpasses forMarxian, inspiration)generatefirmabstractionsabout "fascism,"chieflyon thebasis of the German experience. 'Since theyfrequentlyavoid empiricalanalysis almostaltogethert,heproblemhas oftendegeneratedintoa purelysemantic debateaboutlabels. 2In general,thereforeI,emphaticallyagreethatwhatis referretdo as Europeanfascismcannotbe reducedto an exactgenericoncept ofuniformcontentt,oa commonideologyo,rtosomesortofuniquepersonal- itytype. As ProfessorAllardycehas pointedout,I haveelsewhereindicated mydisagreemenwtithanyunifascistheory.
Yet one questionremains:is anycomparativedefinitionof"fascism"fea- sible-if we grantthatwe are notdealingwitha unifiedgenericoncept-or should the termbe avoided as a politicalcategoryin any sense? At the conclusionofthesectiondealingwithfascismas a genericoncept,Professor Allardycebrieflyconsidersthealternativeofa shortdescriptivceomparative typologyor "fascistminimum. "He concludesthata setofcommoncharac- teristicsmaybe constructedwitha greateror lesserdegreeofaccuracybut doubtstheutilityevenofthis. To thequestionofwhetherornottheformula- tionof any sortof "fascistminimum"or pluralistcategorizationis of any value,however,I wouldrespondwitha qualified"yes. " Historicalunder- standingrequiresus to identifycertaincommonfeaturesor qualitiesofnew forceswithina givenperiod,ifonlyto recognizeand clarifytheirdifferences and uniqueness.
A slightlydifferenwtayofrestatingthedilemmawouldbetoobservethata seriesofradicalnationalistmovementwsithrevolutionarayimsthatwereat oneandthesametimeanti-Marxiana,ntiliberala,nd anticonservativ(ienthe conventionaploliticalsense)appearedinEuropebetweentheworldwars. Do theymeritrecognitionas a categoryin somecautiouslydelimitedand plural- isticschemaforpurposesofpoliticalanalysisand classificationO? r is itmore
1Fora solidanalysisofsomeofthemainproblemsinvolvedintheGermanMarxianinterpretationsse,e A. G. Rabinbach,"Toward a MarxistTheoryofFascismand NationalSocialism,"NewGermaCnritique3, (1974): 127-53.
2 WolfgangSchiederhas accentuatedthisproblem;see the introductoryremarksand summaryto Schieder,ed. , Faschismuasls sozialeBewegun(gHamburg,1976).
389
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 390
Comments
accurateand satisfactortyoemphasizetheirdifferenceasnd perforcseubsume them into some broader categoryof radical or revolutionarymass move- ments? Thisisamostdifficulqtuestionofhistorical-politictaalxonomya;nd, thoughtheradicallyparticularistihcistorian-interestedonlyin thenomi- nalistapproach-may respondthatforhimthequestiondoesnotapply,those interestedin systematicc,omparativeanalysiscannotelude it.
Putativefascistshad greatdifficultwyrestlingwiththisproblemin the 1930S andwereunabletoresolveitsatisfactorileyvenforthemselvesA. lthoughin
1930 HitlerbrieflyagreedthatNationalSocialismwouldbringthe"fascistiza- tion"ofGermanyand althoughMussolinihailedHitler'striumphin I933 as thevictoryof"Germanfascism,"3duringI934-35thefascistirealizedthat major,indeedprofoundd,ifferencesxistedbetweentheItalianand German movementsand broadcasttheirfindingwiththeircustomaryrhetoricand hyperbole. S4imilarlyd,uringthelateI920S and1930s,theMussoliniregime, because of its "conservative"and "capitalist" cast, alienated the leading figuresofvariousputativelyfascistmovementsW. hentheItalianstriedto identifyand developa sortof fascistInternationalt,heyprovedunable to defineadequatelyeithertheirownideologyora commonsetofdoctrines. This was due to thegreatgap betweentheirowntheoryand practicein Italy and totheabsenceofanyfoundingcreedorsacredwritinga,s wellas tothe extremedifferencebsetweenthe approachesofvariousnationalgroupsor theirlackofideologicalclarity. Doctrinesofraceand anti-Semitismwerea majorstumblingblockand theonlymutualgrounderstwhilefascistscould findwasacommonstressonradicalnationalismh,owevervariouslydefined.
The questionofgeneric"fascism"was a majorproblemforSpanishFalang- ists,whoshowedan increasingaversiontotheword. ProfessorAllardyce showsthatDoriot'sPPF disavowedtheterm,as did,I mightadd, theBelgian Rexistsin theirearlyyears. Radical, nationalist,multiclass"new parties" tendedtomoveinan increasinglyauthoritariandirectionb,utthisdidnotby itselfmakethemnecessarily"fascist. "Ultimatelys,uchunityas was achieved stemmedfromNaziinfluencew,hichgrewwiththeGermanimperiumI. tis not an exaggerationto speak of the Nazificationof radical nationalistor fascistmovementsin Europe after1937-38. That trend,however,reflected increasinggreat-powerdominanceoverotherwisemultiformpoliticalmani- festationasnddidnotlastlongenoughorgofarenough-owingbothtolack oftimeand to inherentcontradictions-toproduceanythingthatcould be calleda singlegenus.
THE PROBLEM REMAINS whetherit is usefulto set the new revolutionary nationalistsoffin somefashionfromotherradicalor revolutionargyroups, such as Communists,socialists,and anarchistson the Left and rightist
3See Meir Michaelis,"I rapportitrafascismoe nazismoprimadell'aventodi Hitleral potere(1922- 1933)," RivistaStoricaItaliana,85(1973):544-600.
' For some excellentexamples,see Denis Mack Smith'sridiculings,ometimesmisleadingMussolini's RomanEmpire(London, 1976),44-58.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 39'
radicalsand traditionalisrteactionarieson the Right. I believethat,despite all theconceptualand empiricalqualificationtshatmustbe recognizedt,he answer is still yes, as long as we recognizethat we are dealing with a multiformh,ypotheticalcategoryand not a unifiedphenomenonwitha commonideology,commonstructurec,ommoncauses, or evencommon motivations.
Postulationofa carefullydelineatedfascistidealtypedoesnotrequireany of the Procrusteanfittingosr reductionistheoriesthatProfessorAllardyce has so effectiveclyriticizedI. t simplyrecognizesthattherevolutionarnyation- alistsofinterwarEuropehad certainthingsincommonthatsetthemoffrom otherpartiesor groups,eventhoughtheypossessedno absolutecommon identityamongthemselveasnd infactdisagreedprofoundlys,ometimesvio- lently,about major aspects of policyand doctrine. Such an ideal typeor criteriadlefinitioneednotbecalled"fascist,"saveforconvenience'sakeor out of respectforhistoricalprecedent. The typologywould serveto distin- guishthemorerevolutionaryau,thoritarianationalistgroupsfromtheradi- cal right-winaguthoritarianst,heHitlersfromtheHugenbergs,as itwere, and fromthemoremoderateconstitutionaluthoritariansl,iketheBrunings and Gil Robleses. Space forbidsuchan exercisehere,and whetheror notitis reallyworthwhilweillprobablydependontheimportanceindividualscholars attachto generalanalyticalcategories. Politicalscientiststudyingpolitical historypresumablyrequiresomethingofthesort,butparticularistihcisto- rians,whoaregiventodescriptivkeindsofradicalnominalismm,ayfindthe constructeitherunnecessaryortoo abstractand artificiaflortheirindividual studies.
Evena multiformtypologyoffascismwouldproperlyreferto movements ratherthanto regimes. Onlytwooftheputativelyfascistmovementdsevel- oped regimes,and theyhad littlein commonotherthanvaryingdegreesof authoritarianismand varyingdegreesofnationalism. A "single-party-sys- tem"typologywouldcutbroadlyacrossall categoriesofregimes. Indeed,if the choice lies betweenreified,totallyabstract,or narrowlyreductionist unifascistheoriesand notypologyatall,thelatteriscertainlypreferableI. do notbelieve,however,thatthealternativeasre quitethatstark.
STANLEY G. PAYNE UniversiotfyWisconsin, Madison
GILBERT ALLARDYCE HAS BROUGHT UP THE HEAVY ARTILLERY to bombardthe enemyposition:thatofgenericfascismor,as hecallsit,"unifascism. "ButI fear that the cannon he uses are too large. In the attack on secondary
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments
positions-such as the "bipolar viewpoint"-one wonders,furthermore, whetherhe shootswithliveammunitionorjust withblanks.
"Ockham's razor," to use ProfessorAllardyce'smetaphor,cannot be stoppedarbitrarilyf,oritslicesoffall generalconceptsbydeclaringthemto bemereflatuvsocis-or"constructs,"tousethemodernexpressionB. utwedo not need to fighthe controversybetweennominalistsand realistsall over againinordertoseethata historicaclonceptisnotuselessmerelybecauseit coversa varietyofverydifferenpthenomena. "Constitutionalism,"liberal- ism," and "parliamentarianisma"re conceptsthathave had verydifferent meaningsin variousEuropeancountriesat differenttimes. To discardthese and otherconceptsforthatreasonwouldbetoabandonthecapacitytoorder and makecomprehensibltehegreatmassofhistoricalfactswithwhichthey areconcerned. One neednotbea "realist"inthemedievalsensetoregard conceptsassomethingmorethanmereintellectuaclonstructionsW. henwe speakof"brothers,"wemeana groupofmenwhoseresemblanceisobviously establishedby nature itself. But how many differencecsan be discerned amongthemat thefirstcloselook! Hence,itis oftenbetterto differentiateo, speak,forexample,of"unitary,""dualistic,"or "federalconstitutionalism. " Neverthelesst,heremustalwaysbe a "centralmeaning":all kindsofconstitu- tionalismmustbe distinguishablferomall kindsofabsolutism.
ProfessorAllardyceis doubtlesscorrectin his opinionthattheword"fas- cism"isoneofthe"mostabusedandabusive"termsinourpoliticalvocabu- lary. In scholarlyusage,however,thetermhas beengivena centralsignifi- cance so generalthatdistinctionasre unavoidableand yetso concretethat clearchronologicalimitsforthephenomenoncan be establishedI. fI maycite myownworkas an example,Hitler'sNationalSocialismwas "radicalfas- cism" and was verydifferenftromMussolini's"normalfascism. "Yet both were anti-Marxistmovementsthat sought"to destroythe enemyby the evolvemenotfa radicallyopposedand yetrelatedideologyand bytheuseof almostidenticalandyettypicallymodifiedmethodsa,lways,howeverw,ithin theunyieldingframeworkofnationalself-assertioand autonomy. "'In my opinionthisdefinitionis validonlyfortheperiodbetweentheworldwars,the periodduringwhichthesekindsof movementscharacteristicallayppeared, and theperiodthatmust,thereforeb,e describedas the"epoch offascism". I cannotsee thatanyofthedifferencecsitedbyAllardyceis so graveand so unnoticedin the discussionup to thispointas to requireor evenmake advisablethe abandonmentofthisconceptwhenused withscholarlycaution forscholarlypurposes.
ProfessorAllardycehimselfcannotdo withoutheconcept. Atonepointhe seeksto substitutetheexpression"throngsofnationalistradicals,"butelse- wherehespeaksofthe"menwhocamefromtheLeft"andwhohadplayeda roleinalmosteveryallegedlyfascistorganizationI. n anotherplaceheasserts again thatHitlerand Mussoliniwerethefirsto makelyinga publicvirtue.
' ErnstNolte,ThreeFacesofFascismt,rans. Leila Vennewitz(New York, 1966),20-21.
392
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 393
"Throngsofnationalistradicals"also existedbeforetheFirstWorldWar,but theywerenotas a ruleattractivetomenoftheextremeLeft. Nordidany leaderofa largepartyorchiefofstateinEuropeduringthatperiodemploythe lieas a standardtechniqueofpropaganda. Powerfuplartiesand successful regimesoftheextremeRight,whichattractednumerousand knownmenof theLeftand employednewtechniquesofpropagandaand dominationa,re so patentlydifferenftrom"throngsofnationalistradicals" thatone is compelled toforma newconcept,ifnewwineisnottobepouredintooldbottles. To summarize:in attackingfascismas a genericoncept,Allardyceitherstrikes merelyat thesloganthatonceplayedsuchan importanptartinthepolitical struggleand has recentlyreappeared,or he followstoo closelythetrailofthe nominalistsf,orwhomall conceptsand,hence,everyhistoricailnterpretation is a mere"construct"oftheintellect(thelastsentenceofAllardyce'sarticle actuallypointsin thisdirection).
Certainlyt,hecommondenominatorofthemovementasnd regimesbelong- ingtothe"fascisttype"isdifficultograsp,sincenotonlywereall fascist partiesembeddedin theirrespectivenationalenvironmentsb,ut,beingna- tionalistict,heydefinitelwyantedtobesoembedded. Yettheutterancesby DoriotandMosley,citedbyProfessorAllardycew,erespokeninaparticular contextand can be easilymatchedbyotherutterancebsythesamementhat acknowledgecertainuniversalvalues. Fascism begins at the point where nationalismbecomesradicalizedand, thereforec,hanged. To contrastthe multiplicitoyfEuropeannationalfascismsin theera oftheworldwarswith the alleged uniformitoyf the "Communistworld movement"is not very helpful. That uniformitryestedon uncontestedominationbytheCommu- nistPartyoftheSovietUnionas theonlygoverningCommunistParty. After WorldWar II thatunityquicklybrokeapartundertheimpactofthediffer- ences and conflictsbetween nations and states. At the risk of over- simplificationo,ne could say thatthe twentiethcenturyis no longerclearly orientedin a nationaldirection,but notyetin an internationadlirection. Fascistas wellas Communistpartiesbearwitnesstothisfundamentaflact despitetheirdeep differences.
OnsomepointsProfessoArllardyce'scriticismisvaluablebecauseitreveals how manypossibleinterpretationhsave been workedout or refurbishebdy non-Marxistsduringthelastfifteeynears. Fromthispointofview,thelogical inconsistencoyfhisthreeprincipalpoints(namely,iffascismis nota "generic concept,"therecan eo ipsobe no "fascistideology"and no "fascistpersonality type") is no obstacle. The applicationofmodernizationtheorycan, indeed, lead to variegatedresults,and it is certainlytruethatthe fasclstideologyis notan ideologyin thesame sensethatthegreatdoctrinesofthenineteenth centurywere. I cannotdetectwhereAllardyce'spreferencelsie: he appears notto acceptA. F. K. Organski'sviewofHitleras "odd manout"; obviously he would liketo separatethestudyofsmallermovementtshatare oftencalled fascisticfromtheItalian-Germanmodel;he is notsatisfiedwiththebipolar patternofinterpretatiobnecausetheHitlerianepisodeis unique;butthenhe
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 394 Comments
himselfemploysthe "unifascist"conceptbymaintainingthatthememoryof theFinalSolutionwillprobablyalwayskeeptheideaoffascism(! ) alive.
THE QUESTIONS PROFESSOR ALLARDYCE RAISES are legitimateand necessary. I would,however,answerthemwiththesesthatdifferfromhis:
i. There is a politicalcatchword,"fascism,"whichhas notbeen simplyfabricateda,nd whichcan thereforbee transformeidntoa conceptthatcan be usefulto scholars.
2.
The conceptoffascismis difficultto establishbecause it relates toa phenomenonthatismarkedbyparadoxes. Itwassimultane- ouslynationaland internationalr,eactionaryand revolutionary, bourgeoisand populist,modernand antimodern.
3. Fromthemultiplicityofformscomesa multiplicityofinter- pretationst,heconsequenceofwhichshouldbe notabandoning oftheconcept,butdifferentiatianmgongtheformstoarriveata historicaldescriptionthatis as comprehensivaes possible.
ERNST NOLTE FreeUniversiotfyBerlin
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
As ProfessorAllardycehas pointedout,I haveelsewhereindicated mydisagreemenwtithanyunifascistheory.
Yet one questionremains:is anycomparativedefinitionof"fascism"fea- sible-if we grantthatwe are notdealingwitha unifiedgenericoncept-or should the termbe avoided as a politicalcategoryin any sense? At the conclusionofthesectiondealingwithfascismas a genericoncept,Professor Allardycebrieflyconsidersthealternativeofa shortdescriptivceomparative typologyor "fascistminimum. "He concludesthata setofcommoncharac- teristicsmaybe constructedwitha greateror lesserdegreeofaccuracybut doubtstheutilityevenofthis. To thequestionofwhetherornottheformula- tionof any sortof "fascistminimum"or pluralistcategorizationis of any value,however,I wouldrespondwitha qualified"yes. " Historicalunder- standingrequiresus to identifycertaincommonfeaturesor qualitiesofnew forceswithina givenperiod,ifonlyto recognizeand clarifytheirdifferences and uniqueness.
A slightlydifferenwtayofrestatingthedilemmawouldbetoobservethata seriesofradicalnationalistmovementwsithrevolutionarayimsthatwereat oneandthesametimeanti-Marxiana,ntiliberala,nd anticonservativ(ienthe conventionaploliticalsense)appearedinEuropebetweentheworldwars. Do theymeritrecognitionas a categoryin somecautiouslydelimitedand plural- isticschemaforpurposesofpoliticalanalysisand classificationO? r is itmore
1Fora solidanalysisofsomeofthemainproblemsinvolvedintheGermanMarxianinterpretationsse,e A. G. Rabinbach,"Toward a MarxistTheoryofFascismand NationalSocialism,"NewGermaCnritique3, (1974): 127-53.
2 WolfgangSchiederhas accentuatedthisproblem;see the introductoryremarksand summaryto Schieder,ed. , Faschismuasls sozialeBewegun(gHamburg,1976).
389
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 390
Comments
accurateand satisfactortyoemphasizetheirdifferenceasnd perforcseubsume them into some broader categoryof radical or revolutionarymass move- ments? Thisisamostdifficulqtuestionofhistorical-politictaalxonomya;nd, thoughtheradicallyparticularistihcistorian-interestedonlyin thenomi- nalistapproach-may respondthatforhimthequestiondoesnotapply,those interestedin systematicc,omparativeanalysiscannotelude it.
Putativefascistshad greatdifficultwyrestlingwiththisproblemin the 1930S andwereunabletoresolveitsatisfactorileyvenforthemselvesA. lthoughin
1930 HitlerbrieflyagreedthatNationalSocialismwouldbringthe"fascistiza- tion"ofGermanyand althoughMussolinihailedHitler'striumphin I933 as thevictoryof"Germanfascism,"3duringI934-35thefascistirealizedthat major,indeedprofoundd,ifferencesxistedbetweentheItalianand German movementsand broadcasttheirfindingwiththeircustomaryrhetoricand hyperbole. S4imilarlyd,uringthelateI920S and1930s,theMussoliniregime, because of its "conservative"and "capitalist" cast, alienated the leading figuresofvariousputativelyfascistmovementsW. hentheItalianstriedto identifyand developa sortof fascistInternationalt,heyprovedunable to defineadequatelyeithertheirownideologyora commonsetofdoctrines. This was due to thegreatgap betweentheirowntheoryand practicein Italy and totheabsenceofanyfoundingcreedorsacredwritinga,s wellas tothe extremedifferencebsetweenthe approachesofvariousnationalgroupsor theirlackofideologicalclarity. Doctrinesofraceand anti-Semitismwerea majorstumblingblockand theonlymutualgrounderstwhilefascistscould findwasacommonstressonradicalnationalismh,owevervariouslydefined.
The questionofgeneric"fascism"was a majorproblemforSpanishFalang- ists,whoshowedan increasingaversiontotheword. ProfessorAllardyce showsthatDoriot'sPPF disavowedtheterm,as did,I mightadd, theBelgian Rexistsin theirearlyyears. Radical, nationalist,multiclass"new parties" tendedtomoveinan increasinglyauthoritariandirectionb,utthisdidnotby itselfmakethemnecessarily"fascist. "Ultimatelys,uchunityas was achieved stemmedfromNaziinfluencew,hichgrewwiththeGermanimperiumI. tis not an exaggerationto speak of the Nazificationof radical nationalistor fascistmovementsin Europe after1937-38. That trend,however,reflected increasinggreat-powerdominanceoverotherwisemultiformpoliticalmani- festationasnddidnotlastlongenoughorgofarenough-owingbothtolack oftimeand to inherentcontradictions-toproduceanythingthatcould be calleda singlegenus.
THE PROBLEM REMAINS whetherit is usefulto set the new revolutionary nationalistsoffin somefashionfromotherradicalor revolutionargyroups, such as Communists,socialists,and anarchistson the Left and rightist
3See Meir Michaelis,"I rapportitrafascismoe nazismoprimadell'aventodi Hitleral potere(1922- 1933)," RivistaStoricaItaliana,85(1973):544-600.
' For some excellentexamples,see Denis Mack Smith'sridiculings,ometimesmisleadingMussolini's RomanEmpire(London, 1976),44-58.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 39'
radicalsand traditionalisrteactionarieson the Right. I believethat,despite all theconceptualand empiricalqualificationtshatmustbe recognizedt,he answer is still yes, as long as we recognizethat we are dealing with a multiformh,ypotheticalcategoryand not a unifiedphenomenonwitha commonideology,commonstructurec,ommoncauses, or evencommon motivations.
Postulationofa carefullydelineatedfascistidealtypedoesnotrequireany of the Procrusteanfittingosr reductionistheoriesthatProfessorAllardyce has so effectiveclyriticizedI. t simplyrecognizesthattherevolutionarnyation- alistsofinterwarEuropehad certainthingsincommonthatsetthemoffrom otherpartiesor groups,eventhoughtheypossessedno absolutecommon identityamongthemselveasnd infactdisagreedprofoundlys,ometimesvio- lently,about major aspects of policyand doctrine. Such an ideal typeor criteriadlefinitioneednotbecalled"fascist,"saveforconvenience'sakeor out of respectforhistoricalprecedent. The typologywould serveto distin- guishthemorerevolutionaryau,thoritarianationalistgroupsfromtheradi- cal right-winaguthoritarianst,heHitlersfromtheHugenbergs,as itwere, and fromthemoremoderateconstitutionaluthoritariansl,iketheBrunings and Gil Robleses. Space forbidsuchan exercisehere,and whetheror notitis reallyworthwhilweillprobablydependontheimportanceindividualscholars attachto generalanalyticalcategories. Politicalscientiststudyingpolitical historypresumablyrequiresomethingofthesort,butparticularistihcisto- rians,whoaregiventodescriptivkeindsofradicalnominalismm,ayfindthe constructeitherunnecessaryortoo abstractand artificiaflortheirindividual studies.
Evena multiformtypologyoffascismwouldproperlyreferto movements ratherthanto regimes. Onlytwooftheputativelyfascistmovementdsevel- oped regimes,and theyhad littlein commonotherthanvaryingdegreesof authoritarianismand varyingdegreesofnationalism. A "single-party-sys- tem"typologywouldcutbroadlyacrossall categoriesofregimes. Indeed,if the choice lies betweenreified,totallyabstract,or narrowlyreductionist unifascistheoriesand notypologyatall,thelatteriscertainlypreferableI. do notbelieve,however,thatthealternativeasre quitethatstark.
STANLEY G. PAYNE UniversiotfyWisconsin, Madison
GILBERT ALLARDYCE HAS BROUGHT UP THE HEAVY ARTILLERY to bombardthe enemyposition:thatofgenericfascismor,as hecallsit,"unifascism. "ButI fear that the cannon he uses are too large. In the attack on secondary
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments
positions-such as the "bipolar viewpoint"-one wonders,furthermore, whetherhe shootswithliveammunitionorjust withblanks.
"Ockham's razor," to use ProfessorAllardyce'smetaphor,cannot be stoppedarbitrarilyf,oritslicesoffall generalconceptsbydeclaringthemto bemereflatuvsocis-or"constructs,"tousethemodernexpressionB. utwedo not need to fighthe controversybetweennominalistsand realistsall over againinordertoseethata historicaclonceptisnotuselessmerelybecauseit coversa varietyofverydifferenpthenomena. "Constitutionalism,"liberal- ism," and "parliamentarianisma"re conceptsthathave had verydifferent meaningsin variousEuropeancountriesat differenttimes. To discardthese and otherconceptsforthatreasonwouldbetoabandonthecapacitytoorder and makecomprehensibltehegreatmassofhistoricalfactswithwhichthey areconcerned. One neednotbea "realist"inthemedievalsensetoregard conceptsassomethingmorethanmereintellectuaclonstructionsW. henwe speakof"brothers,"wemeana groupofmenwhoseresemblanceisobviously establishedby nature itself. But how many differencecsan be discerned amongthemat thefirstcloselook! Hence,itis oftenbetterto differentiateo, speak,forexample,of"unitary,""dualistic,"or "federalconstitutionalism. " Neverthelesst,heremustalwaysbe a "centralmeaning":all kindsofconstitu- tionalismmustbe distinguishablferomall kindsofabsolutism.
ProfessorAllardyceis doubtlesscorrectin his opinionthattheword"fas- cism"isoneofthe"mostabusedandabusive"termsinourpoliticalvocabu- lary. In scholarlyusage,however,thetermhas beengivena centralsignifi- cance so generalthatdistinctionasre unavoidableand yetso concretethat clearchronologicalimitsforthephenomenoncan be establishedI. fI maycite myownworkas an example,Hitler'sNationalSocialismwas "radicalfas- cism" and was verydifferenftromMussolini's"normalfascism. "Yet both were anti-Marxistmovementsthat sought"to destroythe enemyby the evolvemenotfa radicallyopposedand yetrelatedideologyand bytheuseof almostidenticalandyettypicallymodifiedmethodsa,lways,howeverw,ithin theunyieldingframeworkofnationalself-assertioand autonomy. "'In my opinionthisdefinitionis validonlyfortheperiodbetweentheworldwars,the periodduringwhichthesekindsof movementscharacteristicallayppeared, and theperiodthatmust,thereforeb,e describedas the"epoch offascism". I cannotsee thatanyofthedifferencecsitedbyAllardyceis so graveand so unnoticedin the discussionup to thispointas to requireor evenmake advisablethe abandonmentofthisconceptwhenused withscholarlycaution forscholarlypurposes.
ProfessorAllardycehimselfcannotdo withoutheconcept. Atonepointhe seeksto substitutetheexpression"throngsofnationalistradicals,"butelse- wherehespeaksofthe"menwhocamefromtheLeft"andwhohadplayeda roleinalmosteveryallegedlyfascistorganizationI. n anotherplaceheasserts again thatHitlerand Mussoliniwerethefirsto makelyinga publicvirtue.
' ErnstNolte,ThreeFacesofFascismt,rans. Leila Vennewitz(New York, 1966),20-21.
392
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 393
"Throngsofnationalistradicals"also existedbeforetheFirstWorldWar,but theywerenotas a ruleattractivetomenoftheextremeLeft. Nordidany leaderofa largepartyorchiefofstateinEuropeduringthatperiodemploythe lieas a standardtechniqueofpropaganda. Powerfuplartiesand successful regimesoftheextremeRight,whichattractednumerousand knownmenof theLeftand employednewtechniquesofpropagandaand dominationa,re so patentlydifferenftrom"throngsofnationalistradicals" thatone is compelled toforma newconcept,ifnewwineisnottobepouredintooldbottles. To summarize:in attackingfascismas a genericoncept,Allardyceitherstrikes merelyat thesloganthatonceplayedsuchan importanptartinthepolitical struggleand has recentlyreappeared,or he followstoo closelythetrailofthe nominalistsf,orwhomall conceptsand,hence,everyhistoricailnterpretation is a mere"construct"oftheintellect(thelastsentenceofAllardyce'sarticle actuallypointsin thisdirection).
Certainlyt,hecommondenominatorofthemovementasnd regimesbelong- ingtothe"fascisttype"isdifficultograsp,sincenotonlywereall fascist partiesembeddedin theirrespectivenationalenvironmentsb,ut,beingna- tionalistict,heydefinitelwyantedtobesoembedded. Yettheutterancesby DoriotandMosley,citedbyProfessorAllardycew,erespokeninaparticular contextand can be easilymatchedbyotherutterancebsythesamementhat acknowledgecertainuniversalvalues. Fascism begins at the point where nationalismbecomesradicalizedand, thereforec,hanged. To contrastthe multiplicitoyfEuropeannationalfascismsin theera oftheworldwarswith the alleged uniformitoyf the "Communistworld movement"is not very helpful. That uniformitryestedon uncontestedominationbytheCommu- nistPartyoftheSovietUnionas theonlygoverningCommunistParty. After WorldWar II thatunityquicklybrokeapartundertheimpactofthediffer- ences and conflictsbetween nations and states. At the risk of over- simplificationo,ne could say thatthe twentiethcenturyis no longerclearly orientedin a nationaldirection,but notyetin an internationadlirection. Fascistas wellas Communistpartiesbearwitnesstothisfundamentaflact despitetheirdeep differences.
OnsomepointsProfessoArllardyce'scriticismisvaluablebecauseitreveals how manypossibleinterpretationhsave been workedout or refurbishebdy non-Marxistsduringthelastfifteeynears. Fromthispointofview,thelogical inconsistencoyfhisthreeprincipalpoints(namely,iffascismis nota "generic concept,"therecan eo ipsobe no "fascistideology"and no "fascistpersonality type") is no obstacle. The applicationofmodernizationtheorycan, indeed, lead to variegatedresults,and it is certainlytruethatthe fasclstideologyis notan ideologyin thesame sensethatthegreatdoctrinesofthenineteenth centurywere. I cannotdetectwhereAllardyce'spreferencelsie: he appears notto acceptA. F. K. Organski'sviewofHitleras "odd manout"; obviously he would liketo separatethestudyofsmallermovementtshatare oftencalled fascisticfromtheItalian-Germanmodel;he is notsatisfiedwiththebipolar patternofinterpretatiobnecausetheHitlerianepisodeis unique;butthenhe
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 394 Comments
himselfemploysthe "unifascist"conceptbymaintainingthatthememoryof theFinalSolutionwillprobablyalwayskeeptheideaoffascism(! ) alive.
THE QUESTIONS PROFESSOR ALLARDYCE RAISES are legitimateand necessary. I would,however,answerthemwiththesesthatdifferfromhis:
i. There is a politicalcatchword,"fascism,"whichhas notbeen simplyfabricateda,nd whichcan thereforbee transformeidntoa conceptthatcan be usefulto scholars.
2.
The conceptoffascismis difficultto establishbecause it relates toa phenomenonthatismarkedbyparadoxes. Itwassimultane- ouslynationaland internationalr,eactionaryand revolutionary, bourgeoisand populist,modernand antimodern.
3. Fromthemultiplicityofformscomesa multiplicityofinter- pretationst,heconsequenceofwhichshouldbe notabandoning oftheconcept,butdifferentiatianmgongtheformstoarriveata historicaldescriptionthatis as comprehensivaes possible.
ERNST NOLTE FreeUniversiotfyBerlin
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Apr. , 1979), pp. 389-394 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/1855139 .
Accessed: 14/11/2014 01:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www. jstor. org/page/info/about/policies/terms. jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor. org.
.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www. jstor. org
Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments:
GILBERT ALLARDYCE 'S ESSAY IS A WELCOME DEFLATION of the excesses and reificationfrequentleyncounteredin theorizingabout "fascism. "Most ofthe keeneststudentsofthemajor,putativelyfascistmovementosr regimeshave becomeextremelyuncomfortablweiththeairyandunempiricalgeneral- izationscommonlybandied about as eitherdefinitionosr interpretationosf fascism. Closerexaminationalmostalwaysrevealsthatthesegeneralizations do notapplytomany,orevenmost,ofthefascistmovements-andsometimes tononeatall. TheproblemhasbecomeparticularlyacuteinGermanyw,here writersand scholars(commonlyofMarxian,or whatpasses forMarxian, inspiration)generatefirmabstractionsabout "fascism,"chieflyon thebasis of the German experience. 'Since theyfrequentlyavoid empiricalanalysis almostaltogethert,heproblemhas oftendegeneratedintoa purelysemantic debateaboutlabels. 2In general,thereforeI,emphaticallyagreethatwhatis referretdo as Europeanfascismcannotbe reducedto an exactgenericoncept ofuniformcontentt,oa commonideologyo,rtosomesortofuniquepersonal- itytype. As ProfessorAllardycehas pointedout,I haveelsewhereindicated mydisagreemenwtithanyunifascistheory.
Yet one questionremains:is anycomparativedefinitionof"fascism"fea- sible-if we grantthatwe are notdealingwitha unifiedgenericoncept-or should the termbe avoided as a politicalcategoryin any sense? At the conclusionofthesectiondealingwithfascismas a genericoncept,Professor Allardycebrieflyconsidersthealternativeofa shortdescriptivceomparative typologyor "fascistminimum. "He concludesthata setofcommoncharac- teristicsmaybe constructedwitha greateror lesserdegreeofaccuracybut doubtstheutilityevenofthis. To thequestionofwhetherornottheformula- tionof any sortof "fascistminimum"or pluralistcategorizationis of any value,however,I wouldrespondwitha qualified"yes. " Historicalunder- standingrequiresus to identifycertaincommonfeaturesor qualitiesofnew forceswithina givenperiod,ifonlyto recognizeand clarifytheirdifferences and uniqueness.
A slightlydifferenwtayofrestatingthedilemmawouldbetoobservethata seriesofradicalnationalistmovementwsithrevolutionarayimsthatwereat oneandthesametimeanti-Marxiana,ntiliberala,nd anticonservativ(ienthe conventionaploliticalsense)appearedinEuropebetweentheworldwars. Do theymeritrecognitionas a categoryin somecautiouslydelimitedand plural- isticschemaforpurposesofpoliticalanalysisand classificationO? r is itmore
1Fora solidanalysisofsomeofthemainproblemsinvolvedintheGermanMarxianinterpretationsse,e A. G. Rabinbach,"Toward a MarxistTheoryofFascismand NationalSocialism,"NewGermaCnritique3, (1974): 127-53.
2 WolfgangSchiederhas accentuatedthisproblem;see the introductoryremarksand summaryto Schieder,ed. , Faschismuasls sozialeBewegun(gHamburg,1976).
389
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 390
Comments
accurateand satisfactortyoemphasizetheirdifferenceasnd perforcseubsume them into some broader categoryof radical or revolutionarymass move- ments? Thisisamostdifficulqtuestionofhistorical-politictaalxonomya;nd, thoughtheradicallyparticularistihcistorian-interestedonlyin thenomi- nalistapproach-may respondthatforhimthequestiondoesnotapply,those interestedin systematicc,omparativeanalysiscannotelude it.
Putativefascistshad greatdifficultwyrestlingwiththisproblemin the 1930S andwereunabletoresolveitsatisfactorileyvenforthemselvesA. lthoughin
1930 HitlerbrieflyagreedthatNationalSocialismwouldbringthe"fascistiza- tion"ofGermanyand althoughMussolinihailedHitler'striumphin I933 as thevictoryof"Germanfascism,"3duringI934-35thefascistirealizedthat major,indeedprofoundd,ifferencesxistedbetweentheItalianand German movementsand broadcasttheirfindingwiththeircustomaryrhetoricand hyperbole. S4imilarlyd,uringthelateI920S and1930s,theMussoliniregime, because of its "conservative"and "capitalist" cast, alienated the leading figuresofvariousputativelyfascistmovementsW. hentheItalianstriedto identifyand developa sortof fascistInternationalt,heyprovedunable to defineadequatelyeithertheirownideologyora commonsetofdoctrines. This was due to thegreatgap betweentheirowntheoryand practicein Italy and totheabsenceofanyfoundingcreedorsacredwritinga,s wellas tothe extremedifferencebsetweenthe approachesofvariousnationalgroupsor theirlackofideologicalclarity. Doctrinesofraceand anti-Semitismwerea majorstumblingblockand theonlymutualgrounderstwhilefascistscould findwasacommonstressonradicalnationalismh,owevervariouslydefined.
The questionofgeneric"fascism"was a majorproblemforSpanishFalang- ists,whoshowedan increasingaversiontotheword. ProfessorAllardyce showsthatDoriot'sPPF disavowedtheterm,as did,I mightadd, theBelgian Rexistsin theirearlyyears. Radical, nationalist,multiclass"new parties" tendedtomoveinan increasinglyauthoritariandirectionb,utthisdidnotby itselfmakethemnecessarily"fascist. "Ultimatelys,uchunityas was achieved stemmedfromNaziinfluencew,hichgrewwiththeGermanimperiumI. tis not an exaggerationto speak of the Nazificationof radical nationalistor fascistmovementsin Europe after1937-38. That trend,however,reflected increasinggreat-powerdominanceoverotherwisemultiformpoliticalmani- festationasnddidnotlastlongenoughorgofarenough-owingbothtolack oftimeand to inherentcontradictions-toproduceanythingthatcould be calleda singlegenus.
THE PROBLEM REMAINS whetherit is usefulto set the new revolutionary nationalistsoffin somefashionfromotherradicalor revolutionargyroups, such as Communists,socialists,and anarchistson the Left and rightist
3See Meir Michaelis,"I rapportitrafascismoe nazismoprimadell'aventodi Hitleral potere(1922- 1933)," RivistaStoricaItaliana,85(1973):544-600.
' For some excellentexamples,see Denis Mack Smith'sridiculings,ometimesmisleadingMussolini's RomanEmpire(London, 1976),44-58.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 39'
radicalsand traditionalisrteactionarieson the Right. I believethat,despite all theconceptualand empiricalqualificationtshatmustbe recognizedt,he answer is still yes, as long as we recognizethat we are dealing with a multiformh,ypotheticalcategoryand not a unifiedphenomenonwitha commonideology,commonstructurec,ommoncauses, or evencommon motivations.
Postulationofa carefullydelineatedfascistidealtypedoesnotrequireany of the Procrusteanfittingosr reductionistheoriesthatProfessorAllardyce has so effectiveclyriticizedI. t simplyrecognizesthattherevolutionarnyation- alistsofinterwarEuropehad certainthingsincommonthatsetthemoffrom otherpartiesor groups,eventhoughtheypossessedno absolutecommon identityamongthemselveasnd infactdisagreedprofoundlys,ometimesvio- lently,about major aspects of policyand doctrine. Such an ideal typeor criteriadlefinitioneednotbecalled"fascist,"saveforconvenience'sakeor out of respectforhistoricalprecedent. The typologywould serveto distin- guishthemorerevolutionaryau,thoritarianationalistgroupsfromtheradi- cal right-winaguthoritarianst,heHitlersfromtheHugenbergs,as itwere, and fromthemoremoderateconstitutionaluthoritariansl,iketheBrunings and Gil Robleses. Space forbidsuchan exercisehere,and whetheror notitis reallyworthwhilweillprobablydependontheimportanceindividualscholars attachto generalanalyticalcategories. Politicalscientiststudyingpolitical historypresumablyrequiresomethingofthesort,butparticularistihcisto- rians,whoaregiventodescriptivkeindsofradicalnominalismm,ayfindthe constructeitherunnecessaryortoo abstractand artificiaflortheirindividual studies.
Evena multiformtypologyoffascismwouldproperlyreferto movements ratherthanto regimes. Onlytwooftheputativelyfascistmovementdsevel- oped regimes,and theyhad littlein commonotherthanvaryingdegreesof authoritarianismand varyingdegreesofnationalism. A "single-party-sys- tem"typologywouldcutbroadlyacrossall categoriesofregimes. Indeed,if the choice lies betweenreified,totallyabstract,or narrowlyreductionist unifascistheoriesand notypologyatall,thelatteriscertainlypreferableI. do notbelieve,however,thatthealternativeasre quitethatstark.
STANLEY G. PAYNE UniversiotfyWisconsin, Madison
GILBERT ALLARDYCE HAS BROUGHT UP THE HEAVY ARTILLERY to bombardthe enemyposition:thatofgenericfascismor,as hecallsit,"unifascism. "ButI fear that the cannon he uses are too large. In the attack on secondary
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments
positions-such as the "bipolar viewpoint"-one wonders,furthermore, whetherhe shootswithliveammunitionorjust withblanks.
"Ockham's razor," to use ProfessorAllardyce'smetaphor,cannot be stoppedarbitrarilyf,oritslicesoffall generalconceptsbydeclaringthemto bemereflatuvsocis-or"constructs,"tousethemodernexpressionB. utwedo not need to fighthe controversybetweennominalistsand realistsall over againinordertoseethata historicaclonceptisnotuselessmerelybecauseit coversa varietyofverydifferenpthenomena. "Constitutionalism,"liberal- ism," and "parliamentarianisma"re conceptsthathave had verydifferent meaningsin variousEuropeancountriesat differenttimes. To discardthese and otherconceptsforthatreasonwouldbetoabandonthecapacitytoorder and makecomprehensibltehegreatmassofhistoricalfactswithwhichthey areconcerned. One neednotbea "realist"inthemedievalsensetoregard conceptsassomethingmorethanmereintellectuaclonstructionsW. henwe speakof"brothers,"wemeana groupofmenwhoseresemblanceisobviously establishedby nature itself. But how many differencecsan be discerned amongthemat thefirstcloselook! Hence,itis oftenbetterto differentiateo, speak,forexample,of"unitary,""dualistic,"or "federalconstitutionalism. " Neverthelesst,heremustalwaysbe a "centralmeaning":all kindsofconstitu- tionalismmustbe distinguishablferomall kindsofabsolutism.
ProfessorAllardyceis doubtlesscorrectin his opinionthattheword"fas- cism"isoneofthe"mostabusedandabusive"termsinourpoliticalvocabu- lary. In scholarlyusage,however,thetermhas beengivena centralsignifi- cance so generalthatdistinctionasre unavoidableand yetso concretethat clearchronologicalimitsforthephenomenoncan be establishedI. fI maycite myownworkas an example,Hitler'sNationalSocialismwas "radicalfas- cism" and was verydifferenftromMussolini's"normalfascism. "Yet both were anti-Marxistmovementsthat sought"to destroythe enemyby the evolvemenotfa radicallyopposedand yetrelatedideologyand bytheuseof almostidenticalandyettypicallymodifiedmethodsa,lways,howeverw,ithin theunyieldingframeworkofnationalself-assertioand autonomy. "'In my opinionthisdefinitionis validonlyfortheperiodbetweentheworldwars,the periodduringwhichthesekindsof movementscharacteristicallayppeared, and theperiodthatmust,thereforeb,e describedas the"epoch offascism". I cannotsee thatanyofthedifferencecsitedbyAllardyceis so graveand so unnoticedin the discussionup to thispointas to requireor evenmake advisablethe abandonmentofthisconceptwhenused withscholarlycaution forscholarlypurposes.
ProfessorAllardycehimselfcannotdo withoutheconcept. Atonepointhe seeksto substitutetheexpression"throngsofnationalistradicals,"butelse- wherehespeaksofthe"menwhocamefromtheLeft"andwhohadplayeda roleinalmosteveryallegedlyfascistorganizationI. n anotherplaceheasserts again thatHitlerand Mussoliniwerethefirsto makelyinga publicvirtue.
' ErnstNolte,ThreeFacesofFascismt,rans. Leila Vennewitz(New York, 1966),20-21.
392
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 393
"Throngsofnationalistradicals"also existedbeforetheFirstWorldWar,but theywerenotas a ruleattractivetomenoftheextremeLeft. Nordidany leaderofa largepartyorchiefofstateinEuropeduringthatperiodemploythe lieas a standardtechniqueofpropaganda. Powerfuplartiesand successful regimesoftheextremeRight,whichattractednumerousand knownmenof theLeftand employednewtechniquesofpropagandaand dominationa,re so patentlydifferenftrom"throngsofnationalistradicals" thatone is compelled toforma newconcept,ifnewwineisnottobepouredintooldbottles. To summarize:in attackingfascismas a genericoncept,Allardyceitherstrikes merelyat thesloganthatonceplayedsuchan importanptartinthepolitical struggleand has recentlyreappeared,or he followstoo closelythetrailofthe nominalistsf,orwhomall conceptsand,hence,everyhistoricailnterpretation is a mere"construct"oftheintellect(thelastsentenceofAllardyce'sarticle actuallypointsin thisdirection).
Certainlyt,hecommondenominatorofthemovementasnd regimesbelong- ingtothe"fascisttype"isdifficultograsp,sincenotonlywereall fascist partiesembeddedin theirrespectivenationalenvironmentsb,ut,beingna- tionalistict,heydefinitelwyantedtobesoembedded. Yettheutterancesby DoriotandMosley,citedbyProfessorAllardycew,erespokeninaparticular contextand can be easilymatchedbyotherutterancebsythesamementhat acknowledgecertainuniversalvalues. Fascism begins at the point where nationalismbecomesradicalizedand, thereforec,hanged. To contrastthe multiplicitoyfEuropeannationalfascismsin theera oftheworldwarswith the alleged uniformitoyf the "Communistworld movement"is not very helpful. That uniformitryestedon uncontestedominationbytheCommu- nistPartyoftheSovietUnionas theonlygoverningCommunistParty. After WorldWar II thatunityquicklybrokeapartundertheimpactofthediffer- ences and conflictsbetween nations and states. At the risk of over- simplificationo,ne could say thatthe twentiethcenturyis no longerclearly orientedin a nationaldirection,but notyetin an internationadlirection. Fascistas wellas Communistpartiesbearwitnesstothisfundamentaflact despitetheirdeep differences.
OnsomepointsProfessoArllardyce'scriticismisvaluablebecauseitreveals how manypossibleinterpretationhsave been workedout or refurbishebdy non-Marxistsduringthelastfifteeynears. Fromthispointofview,thelogical inconsistencoyfhisthreeprincipalpoints(namely,iffascismis nota "generic concept,"therecan eo ipsobe no "fascistideology"and no "fascistpersonality type") is no obstacle. The applicationofmodernizationtheorycan, indeed, lead to variegatedresults,and it is certainlytruethatthe fasclstideologyis notan ideologyin thesame sensethatthegreatdoctrinesofthenineteenth centurywere. I cannotdetectwhereAllardyce'spreferencelsie: he appears notto acceptA. F. K. Organski'sviewofHitleras "odd manout"; obviously he would liketo separatethestudyofsmallermovementtshatare oftencalled fascisticfromtheItalian-Germanmodel;he is notsatisfiedwiththebipolar patternofinterpretatiobnecausetheHitlerianepisodeis unique;butthenhe
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 394 Comments
himselfemploysthe "unifascist"conceptbymaintainingthatthememoryof theFinalSolutionwillprobablyalwayskeeptheideaoffascism(! ) alive.
THE QUESTIONS PROFESSOR ALLARDYCE RAISES are legitimateand necessary. I would,however,answerthemwiththesesthatdifferfromhis:
i. There is a politicalcatchword,"fascism,"whichhas notbeen simplyfabricateda,nd whichcan thereforbee transformeidntoa conceptthatcan be usefulto scholars.
2.
The conceptoffascismis difficultto establishbecause it relates toa phenomenonthatismarkedbyparadoxes. Itwassimultane- ouslynationaland internationalr,eactionaryand revolutionary, bourgeoisand populist,modernand antimodern.
3. Fromthemultiplicityofformscomesa multiplicityofinter- pretationst,heconsequenceofwhichshouldbe notabandoning oftheconcept,butdifferentiatianmgongtheformstoarriveata historicaldescriptionthatis as comprehensivaes possible.
ERNST NOLTE FreeUniversiotfyBerlin
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
As ProfessorAllardycehas pointedout,I haveelsewhereindicated mydisagreemenwtithanyunifascistheory.
Yet one questionremains:is anycomparativedefinitionof"fascism"fea- sible-if we grantthatwe are notdealingwitha unifiedgenericoncept-or should the termbe avoided as a politicalcategoryin any sense? At the conclusionofthesectiondealingwithfascismas a genericoncept,Professor Allardycebrieflyconsidersthealternativeofa shortdescriptivceomparative typologyor "fascistminimum. "He concludesthata setofcommoncharac- teristicsmaybe constructedwitha greateror lesserdegreeofaccuracybut doubtstheutilityevenofthis. To thequestionofwhetherornottheformula- tionof any sortof "fascistminimum"or pluralistcategorizationis of any value,however,I wouldrespondwitha qualified"yes. " Historicalunder- standingrequiresus to identifycertaincommonfeaturesor qualitiesofnew forceswithina givenperiod,ifonlyto recognizeand clarifytheirdifferences and uniqueness.
A slightlydifferenwtayofrestatingthedilemmawouldbetoobservethata seriesofradicalnationalistmovementwsithrevolutionarayimsthatwereat oneandthesametimeanti-Marxiana,ntiliberala,nd anticonservativ(ienthe conventionaploliticalsense)appearedinEuropebetweentheworldwars. Do theymeritrecognitionas a categoryin somecautiouslydelimitedand plural- isticschemaforpurposesofpoliticalanalysisand classificationO? r is itmore
1Fora solidanalysisofsomeofthemainproblemsinvolvedintheGermanMarxianinterpretationsse,e A. G. Rabinbach,"Toward a MarxistTheoryofFascismand NationalSocialism,"NewGermaCnritique3, (1974): 127-53.
2 WolfgangSchiederhas accentuatedthisproblem;see the introductoryremarksand summaryto Schieder,ed. , Faschismuasls sozialeBewegun(gHamburg,1976).
389
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 390
Comments
accurateand satisfactortyoemphasizetheirdifferenceasnd perforcseubsume them into some broader categoryof radical or revolutionarymass move- ments? Thisisamostdifficulqtuestionofhistorical-politictaalxonomya;nd, thoughtheradicallyparticularistihcistorian-interestedonlyin thenomi- nalistapproach-may respondthatforhimthequestiondoesnotapply,those interestedin systematicc,omparativeanalysiscannotelude it.
Putativefascistshad greatdifficultwyrestlingwiththisproblemin the 1930S andwereunabletoresolveitsatisfactorileyvenforthemselvesA. lthoughin
1930 HitlerbrieflyagreedthatNationalSocialismwouldbringthe"fascistiza- tion"ofGermanyand althoughMussolinihailedHitler'striumphin I933 as thevictoryof"Germanfascism,"3duringI934-35thefascistirealizedthat major,indeedprofoundd,ifferencesxistedbetweentheItalianand German movementsand broadcasttheirfindingwiththeircustomaryrhetoricand hyperbole. S4imilarlyd,uringthelateI920S and1930s,theMussoliniregime, because of its "conservative"and "capitalist" cast, alienated the leading figuresofvariousputativelyfascistmovementsW. hentheItalianstriedto identifyand developa sortof fascistInternationalt,heyprovedunable to defineadequatelyeithertheirownideologyora commonsetofdoctrines. This was due to thegreatgap betweentheirowntheoryand practicein Italy and totheabsenceofanyfoundingcreedorsacredwritinga,s wellas tothe extremedifferencebsetweenthe approachesofvariousnationalgroupsor theirlackofideologicalclarity. Doctrinesofraceand anti-Semitismwerea majorstumblingblockand theonlymutualgrounderstwhilefascistscould findwasacommonstressonradicalnationalismh,owevervariouslydefined.
The questionofgeneric"fascism"was a majorproblemforSpanishFalang- ists,whoshowedan increasingaversiontotheword. ProfessorAllardyce showsthatDoriot'sPPF disavowedtheterm,as did,I mightadd, theBelgian Rexistsin theirearlyyears. Radical, nationalist,multiclass"new parties" tendedtomoveinan increasinglyauthoritariandirectionb,utthisdidnotby itselfmakethemnecessarily"fascist. "Ultimatelys,uchunityas was achieved stemmedfromNaziinfluencew,hichgrewwiththeGermanimperiumI. tis not an exaggerationto speak of the Nazificationof radical nationalistor fascistmovementsin Europe after1937-38. That trend,however,reflected increasinggreat-powerdominanceoverotherwisemultiformpoliticalmani- festationasnddidnotlastlongenoughorgofarenough-owingbothtolack oftimeand to inherentcontradictions-toproduceanythingthatcould be calleda singlegenus.
THE PROBLEM REMAINS whetherit is usefulto set the new revolutionary nationalistsoffin somefashionfromotherradicalor revolutionargyroups, such as Communists,socialists,and anarchistson the Left and rightist
3See Meir Michaelis,"I rapportitrafascismoe nazismoprimadell'aventodi Hitleral potere(1922- 1933)," RivistaStoricaItaliana,85(1973):544-600.
' For some excellentexamples,see Denis Mack Smith'sridiculings,ometimesmisleadingMussolini's RomanEmpire(London, 1976),44-58.
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 39'
radicalsand traditionalisrteactionarieson the Right. I believethat,despite all theconceptualand empiricalqualificationtshatmustbe recognizedt,he answer is still yes, as long as we recognizethat we are dealing with a multiformh,ypotheticalcategoryand not a unifiedphenomenonwitha commonideology,commonstructurec,ommoncauses, or evencommon motivations.
Postulationofa carefullydelineatedfascistidealtypedoesnotrequireany of the Procrusteanfittingosr reductionistheoriesthatProfessorAllardyce has so effectiveclyriticizedI. t simplyrecognizesthattherevolutionarnyation- alistsofinterwarEuropehad certainthingsincommonthatsetthemoffrom otherpartiesor groups,eventhoughtheypossessedno absolutecommon identityamongthemselveasnd infactdisagreedprofoundlys,ometimesvio- lently,about major aspects of policyand doctrine. Such an ideal typeor criteriadlefinitioneednotbecalled"fascist,"saveforconvenience'sakeor out of respectforhistoricalprecedent. The typologywould serveto distin- guishthemorerevolutionaryau,thoritarianationalistgroupsfromtheradi- cal right-winaguthoritarianst,heHitlersfromtheHugenbergs,as itwere, and fromthemoremoderateconstitutionaluthoritariansl,iketheBrunings and Gil Robleses. Space forbidsuchan exercisehere,and whetheror notitis reallyworthwhilweillprobablydependontheimportanceindividualscholars attachto generalanalyticalcategories. Politicalscientiststudyingpolitical historypresumablyrequiresomethingofthesort,butparticularistihcisto- rians,whoaregiventodescriptivkeindsofradicalnominalismm,ayfindthe constructeitherunnecessaryortoo abstractand artificiaflortheirindividual studies.
Evena multiformtypologyoffascismwouldproperlyreferto movements ratherthanto regimes. Onlytwooftheputativelyfascistmovementdsevel- oped regimes,and theyhad littlein commonotherthanvaryingdegreesof authoritarianismand varyingdegreesofnationalism. A "single-party-sys- tem"typologywouldcutbroadlyacrossall categoriesofregimes. Indeed,if the choice lies betweenreified,totallyabstract,or narrowlyreductionist unifascistheoriesand notypologyatall,thelatteriscertainlypreferableI. do notbelieve,however,thatthealternativeasre quitethatstark.
STANLEY G. PAYNE UniversiotfyWisconsin, Madison
GILBERT ALLARDYCE HAS BROUGHT UP THE HEAVY ARTILLERY to bombardthe enemyposition:thatofgenericfascismor,as hecallsit,"unifascism. "ButI fear that the cannon he uses are too large. In the attack on secondary
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? Comments
positions-such as the "bipolar viewpoint"-one wonders,furthermore, whetherhe shootswithliveammunitionorjust withblanks.
"Ockham's razor," to use ProfessorAllardyce'smetaphor,cannot be stoppedarbitrarilyf,oritslicesoffall generalconceptsbydeclaringthemto bemereflatuvsocis-or"constructs,"tousethemodernexpressionB. utwedo not need to fighthe controversybetweennominalistsand realistsall over againinordertoseethata historicaclonceptisnotuselessmerelybecauseit coversa varietyofverydifferenpthenomena. "Constitutionalism,"liberal- ism," and "parliamentarianisma"re conceptsthathave had verydifferent meaningsin variousEuropeancountriesat differenttimes. To discardthese and otherconceptsforthatreasonwouldbetoabandonthecapacitytoorder and makecomprehensibltehegreatmassofhistoricalfactswithwhichthey areconcerned. One neednotbea "realist"inthemedievalsensetoregard conceptsassomethingmorethanmereintellectuaclonstructionsW. henwe speakof"brothers,"wemeana groupofmenwhoseresemblanceisobviously establishedby nature itself. But how many differencecsan be discerned amongthemat thefirstcloselook! Hence,itis oftenbetterto differentiateo, speak,forexample,of"unitary,""dualistic,"or "federalconstitutionalism. " Neverthelesst,heremustalwaysbe a "centralmeaning":all kindsofconstitu- tionalismmustbe distinguishablferomall kindsofabsolutism.
ProfessorAllardyceis doubtlesscorrectin his opinionthattheword"fas- cism"isoneofthe"mostabusedandabusive"termsinourpoliticalvocabu- lary. In scholarlyusage,however,thetermhas beengivena centralsignifi- cance so generalthatdistinctionasre unavoidableand yetso concretethat clearchronologicalimitsforthephenomenoncan be establishedI. fI maycite myownworkas an example,Hitler'sNationalSocialismwas "radicalfas- cism" and was verydifferenftromMussolini's"normalfascism. "Yet both were anti-Marxistmovementsthat sought"to destroythe enemyby the evolvemenotfa radicallyopposedand yetrelatedideologyand bytheuseof almostidenticalandyettypicallymodifiedmethodsa,lways,howeverw,ithin theunyieldingframeworkofnationalself-assertioand autonomy. "'In my opinionthisdefinitionis validonlyfortheperiodbetweentheworldwars,the periodduringwhichthesekindsof movementscharacteristicallayppeared, and theperiodthatmust,thereforeb,e describedas the"epoch offascism". I cannotsee thatanyofthedifferencecsitedbyAllardyceis so graveand so unnoticedin the discussionup to thispointas to requireor evenmake advisablethe abandonmentofthisconceptwhenused withscholarlycaution forscholarlypurposes.
ProfessorAllardycehimselfcannotdo withoutheconcept. Atonepointhe seeksto substitutetheexpression"throngsofnationalistradicals,"butelse- wherehespeaksofthe"menwhocamefromtheLeft"andwhohadplayeda roleinalmosteveryallegedlyfascistorganizationI. n anotherplaceheasserts again thatHitlerand Mussoliniwerethefirsto makelyinga publicvirtue.
' ErnstNolte,ThreeFacesofFascismt,rans. Leila Vennewitz(New York, 1966),20-21.
392
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? WhatFascismIs Not 393
"Throngsofnationalistradicals"also existedbeforetheFirstWorldWar,but theywerenotas a ruleattractivetomenoftheextremeLeft. Nordidany leaderofa largepartyorchiefofstateinEuropeduringthatperiodemploythe lieas a standardtechniqueofpropaganda. Powerfuplartiesand successful regimesoftheextremeRight,whichattractednumerousand knownmenof theLeftand employednewtechniquesofpropagandaand dominationa,re so patentlydifferenftrom"throngsofnationalistradicals" thatone is compelled toforma newconcept,ifnewwineisnottobepouredintooldbottles. To summarize:in attackingfascismas a genericoncept,Allardyceitherstrikes merelyat thesloganthatonceplayedsuchan importanptartinthepolitical struggleand has recentlyreappeared,or he followstoo closelythetrailofthe nominalistsf,orwhomall conceptsand,hence,everyhistoricailnterpretation is a mere"construct"oftheintellect(thelastsentenceofAllardyce'sarticle actuallypointsin thisdirection).
Certainlyt,hecommondenominatorofthemovementasnd regimesbelong- ingtothe"fascisttype"isdifficultograsp,sincenotonlywereall fascist partiesembeddedin theirrespectivenationalenvironmentsb,ut,beingna- tionalistict,heydefinitelwyantedtobesoembedded. Yettheutterancesby DoriotandMosley,citedbyProfessorAllardycew,erespokeninaparticular contextand can be easilymatchedbyotherutterancebsythesamementhat acknowledgecertainuniversalvalues. Fascism begins at the point where nationalismbecomesradicalizedand, thereforec,hanged. To contrastthe multiplicitoyfEuropeannationalfascismsin theera oftheworldwarswith the alleged uniformitoyf the "Communistworld movement"is not very helpful. That uniformitryestedon uncontestedominationbytheCommu- nistPartyoftheSovietUnionas theonlygoverningCommunistParty. After WorldWar II thatunityquicklybrokeapartundertheimpactofthediffer- ences and conflictsbetween nations and states. At the risk of over- simplificationo,ne could say thatthe twentiethcenturyis no longerclearly orientedin a nationaldirection,but notyetin an internationadlirection. Fascistas wellas Communistpartiesbearwitnesstothisfundamentaflact despitetheirdeep differences.
OnsomepointsProfessoArllardyce'scriticismisvaluablebecauseitreveals how manypossibleinterpretationhsave been workedout or refurbishebdy non-Marxistsduringthelastfifteeynears. Fromthispointofview,thelogical inconsistencoyfhisthreeprincipalpoints(namely,iffascismis nota "generic concept,"therecan eo ipsobe no "fascistideology"and no "fascistpersonality type") is no obstacle. The applicationofmodernizationtheorycan, indeed, lead to variegatedresults,and it is certainlytruethatthe fasclstideologyis notan ideologyin thesame sensethatthegreatdoctrinesofthenineteenth centurywere. I cannotdetectwhereAllardyce'spreferencelsie: he appears notto acceptA. F. K. Organski'sviewofHitleras "odd manout"; obviously he would liketo separatethestudyofsmallermovementtshatare oftencalled fascisticfromtheItalian-Germanmodel;he is notsatisfiedwiththebipolar patternofinterpretatiobnecausetheHitlerianepisodeis unique;butthenhe
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? ? 394 Comments
himselfemploysthe "unifascist"conceptbymaintainingthatthememoryof theFinalSolutionwillprobablyalwayskeeptheideaoffascism(! ) alive.
THE QUESTIONS PROFESSOR ALLARDYCE RAISES are legitimateand necessary. I would,however,answerthemwiththesesthatdifferfromhis:
i. There is a politicalcatchword,"fascism,"whichhas notbeen simplyfabricateda,nd whichcan thereforbee transformeidntoa conceptthatcan be usefulto scholars.
2.
The conceptoffascismis difficultto establishbecause it relates toa phenomenonthatismarkedbyparadoxes. Itwassimultane- ouslynationaland internationalr,eactionaryand revolutionary, bourgeoisand populist,modernand antimodern.
3. Fromthemultiplicityofformscomesa multiplicityofinter- pretationst,heconsequenceofwhichshouldbe notabandoning oftheconcept,butdifferentiatianmgongtheformstoarriveata historicaldescriptionthatis as comprehensivaes possible.
ERNST NOLTE FreeUniversiotfyBerlin
? This content downloaded from 128. 135. 12. 127 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:37:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
