Passmore - Chapter 10 “Fascism and Us”

Passmore - Chapter 10 “Fascism and Us” ● What was the approach of Martin Broszat in 1985 to viewing Nazism in a modern light, what argument does he make regarding this? ○ What are the implications of the argument? ○ Why would some view it favorably and others unfavorably? “Broszat’s argument that the welfare policies of modern Germany permitted critics to accuse him of presenting Nazism in a positive light. With some justice, these critics argued that he had artificially isolated the modernization process from other aspects of Nazism, and therefore neglected the racist nature of the Nazi welfare policy.” (150) ● Passmore develops a new working definition of fascism: “Fascism is a contradictory set of interrelated and contest ideologies and practices that cannot easily be categorized in terms of binary opposites such as tradition and modernity or radical and reactionary.” (151) ○ What are our thoughts on this new working definition from our course thus far? ○ Does it work in tandem with other definitions and theories regarding fascism? ● Passmore argues: “ … We must not confuse morality with academic research. Moral positions can’t be deduced from the study of the past … they [actions of the past fascist regimes] will be seen as crimes only if the reader shares the moral perspective of the writer. Anyway, the question of whether or not the modern far right’s stance is ‘fascist’ has no bearing on the moral acceptability of its proposals.” (152) ○ Do you agree or disagree with Passmore’s argument? ○ What role do academics play in defining fascism/crimes? Is this role necessary for determining these terms or for recalling the context in which they developed? ○ What implications does this assertion have for how we define fascism and crimes and morality in these spheres? ○ Passmore further argues: “To reduce the far right to its similarities with fascism carries the risk of obscuring what is new about it and of diverting attention from the possibility that fascists may not be alone in advocating or practicing policies that others would regard as morally wrong.” (152) ■ How does this apply to his previous statement? ■ Why does “reducing” the far right to “its similarities” with fascism potentially diminish or “divert” attention that fascists are the only ones who could commit wrongdoing? Do you agree with this argument? ● Passmore writes: “Although one cannot afford to be complacent, contemporary academics do not usually assume that history is regulated by scientific laws, and still less that knowledge of these laws provides a moral standard … A proper scholarly method is intrinsically antifascist, in that it threats skeptically what fascists regard as beyond criticism. Academic enquiry accepts that its insights depend on perspective, that other perspectives will be possible, and that their answers 1 will always be superseded. This necessary mutual criticism can only happen in a democratic environment.” (154) ○ Again, what role do academics play in determining definitions of fascism and its characteristics according to Passmore? ○ How ought we in the modern day to evaluate shifting discourses in academic research regarding fascism while parsing through the history of these terms while trying to craft a definition of fascism? Umberto Eco - Chapter 1 “Ur-Fascism” “Some Italians now say that the legend of Resistance is a Communist lie True, the Communists did exploit the Resistance as if it were their own private property, given that they placed a primary role in it …” (5) “Nonetheless, even though political regimes can be overturned, and ideologies criticized and delegitimized, behind a regime and its ideology there is always a way of thinking and feeling, a series of cultural habits, a nebula of obscure instincts and unfathomable drives. Is there then another ghost wandering through Europe (not to mention other parts of the world)? (6-7) Do we agree or disagree? (8) 2 (10) “The term ‘fascism’ fits everything because it is possible to eliminate one or more aspects from a Fascist regime and it will always be recognizable Fascist.” (15) ● What is Ur-Fascism or ‘eternal facsim’ and what are the charateristics of it as argued by Eco? ○ 1. “Cult of tradition” (16-18) ○ 2. “Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism” (18-19) ○ 3. “Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake” (19) ○ 4. “No form of syncretism can accept criticism.” (19-20) ○ 5. “Dissent is moreover a sign of diversity.” (20) ○ 6. “Ur-Fascism springs from individual or social frustration.” (20) ○ 7. “To those with no social identity at all …” (20-21) ○ 8. “The disciples must feel humiliated by the enemy’s vaunted wealth and power.” (21-22) ○ 9. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, a ‘life for struggle.’” (22) ○ 10. “Elitism is a typical aspect of all areactionary ideologies, insofar as it is basically aristocratic.” (22-23) ○ 11. “From this point of view, everyone is trained to become a hero.” (23-24) ○ 12. “Since both permanent war and herosim are difficult games to play, the UrFascist transfers his will to power onto sexual questions.” (24) ○ 13. “Ur-Fascism is based on ‘qualitative populism.’” (24-26) ○ 14. “Fascism uses newspeak.” (26) ● How do these characteristics work with our definitions and understandings of fascism thus far? 3 ● ● ● Does fascism lead to a freedom of speech and expression for all parties as Eco suggests? (27) Why does Eco continually invoke statements from Roosevelt? 4