Raphael Vago

Roger Griffin, Werner Loh, Andreas Umland, eds. Fascism Past and Present, West and East, Stuttgart, 2006.

 

At first glance this volume might be misleading, perhaps even seeming to be a classic example of "disinformatsia" that was once the trademark of the KGB, and to some extent of its present day heirs. The front cover of the book, published in the "Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society" series, shows the Nazi-style banner of the Russian National Bolshevik Party (NBP). Indeed, the book does touch on the NBP, which was founded, among others, by Aleksandr Dugin in 1993, thus justifying somewhat its publication in this series; most of it, however, does not focus on Russian fascism as practiced by this party.

Nonetheless, if the careful reader discards her expectations that the book deals with post-Soviet politics, and especially the NBP, she will find a very stimulating discussion, appropriately labeled, "An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right."

The debate is basically between Roger Griffin, one of the best known younger interpreters and analysts of theories of fascism, and a serious group of largely German scholars, who argue – mostly in German texts in the book – against Griffin's theories. At the core of the Griffean definition of fascism, coined in 1991, is a short sentence whose meaning and interpretation usually occupies this reviewer's seminars on "Native Fascism" in Eastern and Central Europe” for an entire semester. Griffin, to the amusement of my students, defined fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism."

In what the book defines as the "Main Article" (Hauptartikel) written by Griffin under the title "Fascism's New Faces (and New Facelessness) in the 'Post-fascist' Epoch," he sums up an entire array of theories on the nature of fascism, reviewing, in fact, his numerous and valuable contributions since the early 1990s to an understanding of the extreme right's past and present. Griffin, among others, recognizes the singularity of Nazism, yet attempts to understand it as an "outstanding example of a fascist regime." (p. 29)

This introduction is followed by the comments and contributions of fifteen German and fourteen American and British scholars, and Griffin’s responses. Those who remain in the arena – some contributors apparently drop out – conduct a second round of discussions, progressing toward an analysis of current "post-fascist” fascism, as practiced in Russia by the NBP. National regeneration is the knot binding fascists everywhere, in the past and in the present. Other factors, such as the use of violence, one-party regimes, and militarism are also common links. Griffin refers frequently to his belief that a "new consensus" is emerging around his theories in the period since his early studies on "generic fascism." While his insistence on the correctness of his theories is understandable, it often seems from the debates in this volume that the aim is to validate Griffin's school of thought. Some articles read as if they were contributions to a Festschrift honoring the retirement of a great scholar − and judging from his output in the past twenty years, Griffin will certainly deserve such a tribute, but in the more distant future. Nevertheless, other authors such as A. James Gregor (pp. 115−22) beg to differ with him.

Griffin is an artist in coining terminology, and he makes use of some interesting biological terms such as "rhizome structure" and "slime mold," to which two German colleagues respond in their piece. "Those Metaphors Again! Rhizom, Schleimpilkz, Parasiten und die Arbeit am Text." (pp. 381−89)

He and his supporters also use heavy theoretical formulations, such as Griffin's own "palingenetic" expression, but some participants in the volume, such as Friedrich Pohlman, insist that since fascist practice was more important than ideology, any comparative study of fascism should focus on practice as well as theory.

Indeed, while scholars of fascism of the interwar period do not differ much in their characterizations, focusing mostly on practice, the debates in this volume also include the post-modern period, starting from 1945. A. James Gregor − referred to by Tamir Bar-On and others (p. 87) as the "old guard" of fascist studies − asks whether China can be characterized as "fascist," since its regime contains elements that appear to fit Griffin's definition of fascism. (p. 119) The same might be asked of the Black Muslims’ racist ideas, especially their virulent antisemitism. (p. 117) Moreover, is there such a thing as "Islamo-fascism," or are we, in fact, conceptualizing radical Islam in order, perhaps, to upgrade or downgrade it? How radical does an Islamist have to be in order to be labeled "Islamo-fascist"?

Leonard Weinberg, a leading scholar of American extremism, summed up well the dilemmas of the researcher dealing with our modern world, reflecting that "once upon a time fascism manifested itself as masses of black shirts or brown shirts on parade." Now it appears as "groupuscules" with websites, or even single individuals such as Timothy McVeigh. (p. 235) Roger Eatwell, also from the younger generation of leading scholars of fascism, recalled that "in his 1991 magnum opus," Roger Griffin set out his main arguments, one of them being that "fascism, far from dying in the ruins of 1945, lived on as an important force especially in various 'groupuscules' which are growing now in importance." (p. 105)

The nature and importance of some of the "groupuscules" leads to a debate over Dugin's NBP. Andreas Umland, editor of the "Soviet and Post-Soviet Society and Politics" series and one of the editors of this volume, defends Dugin's characterization as a fascist. A. James Gregor argues, however, that "Dugin may think of himself as a 'fascist’, but there appears to be little reason why we should. His political notions are certainly quaint, but hardly fascist." (p. 470) This conclusion sums up some aspects of the debates in the book relating to Griffin's definition: one is a fascist if he says so, as well as to the question, is someone a fascist if he denies it but nevertheless fits conveniently into our definitions?

While there are some alarmist voices in the volume as to the shape of things to come, the brief afterword of illustrious historian Walter Laqueur (pp. 501−3), who warned of the rise of fascism in Russia in the early 1990s, adopts a more cautious note. He foresees that among the coming generation of historians and social scientists interpretations of fascism will not figure as highly as they do today; "I do not think," he says, "that these radical forces with their breathtaking loans from communist and fascist ideology, not to mention, neofascism, Oriental mysticism, Eurasianism, astrology, and what not, will go very far." (p. 501)

This volume is a welcome addition to Griffin's valuable contributions to the understanding not only of theoretical aspects of fascism, but of Nazism and Italian fascism, too. The sometimes dense discussions on terminology and definitions do not diminish its importance for the more knowledgeable reader seeking new definitions and conceptualizations of fascist phenomenon of the past, present and, in all likelihood, of the future.