What do you think?
Rate this book
Confronting Fascism: Discussion Documents for a Militant Movement
New discussions questioning and then overturning established radical theories about world fascism, it's revival, and what to do about it. From the ranks of militant anti-fascist activists, and produced in conjunction with Chicago Anti-Racist Action and Arsenal magazine. With contributions from Xtn, Don Hamerquist, J Sakai and Mark Salotte.
- GenresNonfictionTheoryPolitics
169 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
3 people are currently reading
220 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 8, 2017
3 stars because while it is an interesting text, it was difficult to get through due to the meandering, truncated, poorly edited quality of the writing.
The main idea presented by Hamerquist is that fascism has the potential to become a mass movement with a substantial and genuine element of revolutionary anti-capitalism. Fascism is not merely a tool used by capitalists when their power weakens that they can completely control and turn "on and off" at will; rather, modern fascism is "rooted in populist nationalist anti-capitalism and [has] an intransigent hostility to various state and supra-state institutions." Hamerquist believes third position fascism, a fascist variant that presents itself as rejecting left and right politics as well as white supremacy (at least superficially), poses a new threat which leftist groups are unprepared to confront, especially because of its anti-capitalist, anti-global imperialist ideals. Hamerquist says, "There is no meaningful sense in which fascism can be strategically defeated while capitalism survives. [...] On the other hand, if capitalism were to collapse or be politically defeated anywhere in the world, this would not necessarily mean an end to the dangers of fascism. Under some conditions, fascism might both contribute to this collapse and be its major beneficiary.” Therefore being anti-capitalist and being anti-fascist are not synonymous with each other as some leftists still believe.
Sakai's counter article further develops Hamerquist's points while also gently disagreeing with some of them. For example, Hamerquist presents no definition of fascism in his article. Sakai offers this definition: that fascism is a revolutionary movement of the right against both the bourgeoisie and the left, consisting of middle class and declassed men, that arises in zones of protracted crises. Sakai further explains what Hamerquist means when he says fascism has a "revolutionary" anti-capitalist agenda: fascism is not revolutionary in the sense that leftists think of the word, but it does have a class agenda that will change and violently reorganize the class relations of production, thereby "revolutionizing" them, but with a right-wing repressive intent. Fascism seeks to unseat the bourgeoisie as the ruling class and replace it with the middle class and declassed men that make up fascism's main base of support. This de-proletarianizes the economic system by eliminating the working class, which is then replaced with slave labor. Sakai argues that this makes fascism anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist, as fascism remains based on fundamentally pro-capitalist classes.
Overall this text is provides an interesting analysis of modern fascism but fails to strengthen its arguments with clear and organized writing, leaving me uncertain as to what my main takeaway from this text should be. (Note that this could also be because I have just started to investigate anti-fascist theory and probably lack some of the necessary context.)
The main idea presented by Hamerquist is that fascism has the potential to become a mass movement with a substantial and genuine element of revolutionary anti-capitalism. Fascism is not merely a tool used by capitalists when their power weakens that they can completely control and turn "on and off" at will; rather, modern fascism is "rooted in populist nationalist anti-capitalism and [has] an intransigent hostility to various state and supra-state institutions." Hamerquist believes third position fascism, a fascist variant that presents itself as rejecting left and right politics as well as white supremacy (at least superficially), poses a new threat which leftist groups are unprepared to confront, especially because of its anti-capitalist, anti-global imperialist ideals. Hamerquist says, "There is no meaningful sense in which fascism can be strategically defeated while capitalism survives. [...] On the other hand, if capitalism were to collapse or be politically defeated anywhere in the world, this would not necessarily mean an end to the dangers of fascism. Under some conditions, fascism might both contribute to this collapse and be its major beneficiary.” Therefore being anti-capitalist and being anti-fascist are not synonymous with each other as some leftists still believe.
Sakai's counter article further develops Hamerquist's points while also gently disagreeing with some of them. For example, Hamerquist presents no definition of fascism in his article. Sakai offers this definition: that fascism is a revolutionary movement of the right against both the bourgeoisie and the left, consisting of middle class and declassed men, that arises in zones of protracted crises. Sakai further explains what Hamerquist means when he says fascism has a "revolutionary" anti-capitalist agenda: fascism is not revolutionary in the sense that leftists think of the word, but it does have a class agenda that will change and violently reorganize the class relations of production, thereby "revolutionizing" them, but with a right-wing repressive intent. Fascism seeks to unseat the bourgeoisie as the ruling class and replace it with the middle class and declassed men that make up fascism's main base of support. This de-proletarianizes the economic system by eliminating the working class, which is then replaced with slave labor. Sakai argues that this makes fascism anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist, as fascism remains based on fundamentally pro-capitalist classes.
Overall this text is provides an interesting analysis of modern fascism but fails to strengthen its arguments with clear and organized writing, leaving me uncertain as to what my main takeaway from this text should be. (Note that this could also be because I have just started to investigate anti-fascist theory and probably lack some of the necessary context.)
May 23, 2017
Confronting Fascism has some important insights into the nature of the most deadly of isms. Mainly that it is possible for fascism to develop into a popular, mass movement rooted in the lower and middle classes that is entirely autonomous from the ruling class. This point is echoed in two other books I recently finished: David Renton's Fascism: Theory and Practice and Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism.
Renton describes fascism as a form of reactionary mass politics and Paxton does a deep dive into the early stages of the development of fascist parties. Paxton's book is the most useful as it gives a blow-by-blow account of how fascism began as a vaguely revolutionary movement started by an eclectic mix of artists, intellectuals, ex-leftists, and decommissioned soldiers; took root by physically confronting working class organizations; and ultimately came to power by a combination of incompetence, inertia, and cynical plotting among the traditional elite.
Paxton's account is extraordinarily rigorous and also provides a brief overview of the conditions that made fascism attractive to people (world war, depression, the beginnings of mass democracy, a strong left). This separates it from the other two books. Confronting does not provide nearly enough evidence for its claims and twice dips into conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Theory and Practice is too heavy on the former and too light on the latter. It's more accurately a collection of how different thinkers have defined fascism. But all three reach the same, important conclusion: that fascism is a specific danger outside the normal functioning of society that has to be stopped before it can take power.
Renton describes fascism as a form of reactionary mass politics and Paxton does a deep dive into the early stages of the development of fascist parties. Paxton's book is the most useful as it gives a blow-by-blow account of how fascism began as a vaguely revolutionary movement started by an eclectic mix of artists, intellectuals, ex-leftists, and decommissioned soldiers; took root by physically confronting working class organizations; and ultimately came to power by a combination of incompetence, inertia, and cynical plotting among the traditional elite.
Paxton's account is extraordinarily rigorous and also provides a brief overview of the conditions that made fascism attractive to people (world war, depression, the beginnings of mass democracy, a strong left). This separates it from the other two books. Confronting does not provide nearly enough evidence for its claims and twice dips into conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Theory and Practice is too heavy on the former and too light on the latter. It's more accurately a collection of how different thinkers have defined fascism. But all three reach the same, important conclusion: that fascism is a specific danger outside the normal functioning of society that has to be stopped before it can take power.
December 9, 2010
The two essays in this book basically destroy the 'official left' theory of fascism in the 1930s as a disciplinary measure of Big Capial and give it a life of its own. The consequences are that the actual policies and actions of fascists from futurist Italy to the Taliban's Afghanistan are much more frightening and more comprehensible than they seem to be according to the old way of thinking. Sakai in particular is able to fit the superficial anti-capitalism of early Nazism, the genocidal fantasies of the Turner Diaries and the mass 'house arrest' of women under the Taliban into a single scary new narrative. Fascism is re-considered as a radical movement of de-privileged men (students, professionals, officers, etc.) against the bourgeoisie which can make common cause with everyone from misguided leftists to the aristocracy. Fascists in power turn out to be just as capitalist as the bourgeoisie they overthrew, and oftentimes as in the Nazi case, their capitalism is much more apocalyptic, and their vision of society much more radical- sometimes even more radical than competing visions on the left. I won't spoil things because I'll inevitably botch my descriptions. Sakai's essay is online (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/b... ) but to read what he's responding to you should track down the book.
January 29, 2008
This book is available from the Kersplebedeb Literature Rack. You can
September 25, 2019
Just found this really difficult to get through. I highlighted some specific text I found useful but found the way the essays hung together to be very fragmentary and uneasy.
Read
January 30, 2024A collection of very instructive, if not necessarily always correct, essays on fascism in the late 90s-early 00s.
June 9, 2021
Good documents on fascism, as a potential anti-imperialist movement, and how fascism is not simply a tool of the bourgeoisie, as some allege. Could be longer, but it opens some key questions, and discusses e.g. fascism among the oppressed nation in a, i believe, controversial, but needed way.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews