What do you think?
Rate this book
Fascistas
Trata-se de um estudo que se foca nos seis países onde o fascismo se tornou dominante (Itália, Alemanha, Áustria, Hungria, Roménia e Espanha). Ao longo do livro, analisam-se as crenças e acções das pessoas que se tornaram fascistas numa tentativa de ver o fascismo pelos olhos dos seus protagonistas. O resultado é um retrato original do fascismo como um "nacionalismo transcendente e violento", e uma perspectiva única que difere largamente de outras teorias sobre o fascismo.
500 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
Michael Mann
99 books84 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Michael Mann is a British-born professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Visiting Research Professor at Queen's University Belfast. Mann holds dual British and United States citizenships. He received his B.A. in Modern History from the University of Oxford in 1963 and his D.Phil. in Sociology from the same institution in 1971. Mann is currently visiting Professor at the University of Cambridge.
Mann has been a professor of Sociology at UCLA since 1987; he was reader in Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science from 1977 to 1987. Mann was also a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History Journal.
In 1984, Mann published The Autonomous Power of the State: its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results in the European Journal of Sociology. This work is the foundation for the study of the despotic and infrastructural power of the modern state.
Mann's most famous works include the monumental The Sources of Social Power and The Dark Side of Democracy, spanning the entire 20th century. He also published Incoherent Empire, where he attacks the United States' 'War on Terror' as a clumsy experiment of neo-imperialism.
Mann is currently working on The Sources of Social Power: Globalizations, the third volume in the series. [wikipedia]
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Michael Mann is a British-born professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Visiting Research Professor at Queen's University Belfast. Mann holds dual British and United States citizenships. He received his B.A. in Modern History from the University of Oxford in 1963 and his D.Phil. in Sociology from the same institution in 1971. Mann is currently visiting Professor at the University of Cambridge.
Mann has been a professor of Sociology at UCLA since 1987; he was reader in Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science from 1977 to 1987. Mann was also a member of the Advisory Editors Council of the Social Evolution & History Journal.
In 1984, Mann published The Autonomous Power of the State: its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results in the European Journal of Sociology. This work is the foundation for the study of the despotic and infrastructural power of the modern state.
Mann's most famous works include the monumental The Sources of Social Power and The Dark Side of Democracy, spanning the entire 20th century. He also published Incoherent Empire, where he attacks the United States' 'War on Terror' as a clumsy experiment of neo-imperialism.
Mann is currently working on The Sources of Social Power: Globalizations, the third volume in the series. [wikipedia]
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 8, 2016
This book started as a side-project: While Mann was attempting to write a grand sociological treatise on the twentieth century, he realized that describing fascism was more involved than he thought, and he wound up doing a book-length study. This could explain his unfamiliarity with the breadth of the literature on the subject, and why he so frequently misunderstands what others have written on it, despite an impressively long bibliography with most of the major names on it. That, at least, is the generous interpretation. Less generously, one might accuse him of misrepresenting others’ arguments in order to make his own appear more original and convincing than they actually are. Either way, specialists in the field of fascism will probably be disappointed with this book overall.
That said, there are some good points, which I’d like to take the time to talk about. Let’s start with Mann’s theory of generic fascism, which reads thus: “fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism.” That’s not terribly original, but it has its good points. The first is the addition of the state to the typical recognition of (hyper-,ultra-, etc) nationalism. So far as I can recall, no other theorist has brought out the importance of a strong, centralized state as an equal partner to nationalism in fascist theory. It’s one of those “duh!” moments that all of us should be smacking our heads for (I know I did). Of course fascists emphasize the primary power of the state as a necessary tool for remaking society – this is the very thing that left or right libertarians criticize when they use the term derogatively. If this whole book had consisted of Mann showing examples of public and private fascist writings that demonstrated this relationship, he would have produced a book that added to the current literature. Even as it is, this part of his thesis remains worth examining. I think it is more useful than the now-unpopular term “totalitarianism” which tried to link fascist and communist states, in part because there are arguably examples of authoritarian communism and fascism which do not appear to aspire to total control of every aspect of individual life, but merely assert the primacy of state interests over the individual.
The second part of this statement that deserves (re-)examination is the part on paramilitarism, although I’m less happy with the phrasing and theoretization of this part. It is also less new, but discussion of the importance of paramilitarism to fascism has largely fallen from favor since the 1970s, but it seems to me that it could be worth integrating more explicitly into working definitions: all fascist organizations created paramilitaries and many authoritarian non-fascists (for example Salazar) emulated them by creating paramilitary units “from above.” My problem with Mann’s approach to this is twofold: First, he never theorizes or even defines what he means by “paramilitarism.” This makes it hard to know what is an is not a “true” paramilitary, or whether there are scales or degrees of paramilitarism. Are the SA and SS interchangeable? Is the Hitler Youth a paramilitary? Are the Boy Scouts? Why aren’t skinheads? What about differences before and after state power is gained – the SS went from being a paramilitary organization to a vast bureaucracy with state functions such as controlling the police, ideological functions regarding racial purity, and an actual military wing, the Waffen SS. These types of questions cannot be addressed without explicit definition of the concept. The second problem I have is the primacy he places on it with the preposition “through.” This appears to make paramilitarism the primary and only method fascists use to pursue their goal. Mann never puts it in those terms – he acknowledges especially the importance of electoral politics to fascist methods – but this is how the definition reads.
Apart from this, Mann has compiled a good deal of statistical data (often from arrest records) on fascist movements in six countries: Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Spain. He gives brief narratives of their activities and the apparent sociological reasons why they did or did not come to power. The problem I have here is probably a problem with sociology: he looks for material reasons to explain everything, and discounts ideological ones as “psychology.” In the end, although he claims to be criticizing historians for clinging to Marxist theories of class (this is one of his many mis-readings of the literature, mentioned above), he actually winds up making class primary to much of his discussion, if only because it is the easiest data for him to collect. With each new case study, he begins by asserting that class explanations are too simplistic, something every Western historian has agreed on since the sixties, then performs a class analysis and comes out admitting that class does play some role, but only in this instance. It would be comical if it weren’t so tedious. He does try to bring in other sociological categories, such as religion and generation, but these are used unevenly and ignored completely in certain cases, and unconvincingly in others (the Nazis, apparently, were all Protestants).
So, what else does he get wrong? One of his worst blunders is to claim that Roger Griffin, acknowledged by many as the foremost theorist on the subject, is an advocate of the theory that fascism is a kind of “political religion” (page 12). Not only does Griffin not put forward such an argument on the page Mann cites, but this page follows only shortly after a multi-page rebuttal of this concept. Ironically, the page Mann does cite is one where Griffin talks about the importance of paramilitarism, which Mann claims Griffin is silent about. Another example: to back up his idea that historians endorse the Marxist theory of fascism-as-class-struggle, he cites the openly Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm (page 20). It would seem he is on safe ground setting up this straw man, but in the very next sentence after that quoted, Hobsbawm says this view has “too much agitational rhetoric” to be valuable. The throw-the-book-across-the-room moment comes, however, on page 160, when Mann claims without any source that Hitler was “a painter forced to paint houses” (!!!). That huge bibliography at the back suddenly crumbles like a cheap façade in an earthquake when you realize that Mann’s knowledge of Hitler comes from old allied propaganda films. And he has the arrogance to say in the next chapter that “historians could benefit from a little more sociology!”
In short, while this book was interesting, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t often see it cited in articles in Brill’s Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies, and that Michael Mann has hardly displaced Griffin among those who regard him as primary. I would like to see further efforts to theorize “statism” and “paramilitarism” in fascist studies, and I hope Mann’s weaknesses can be overlooked in taking up these and other challenges laid down by this book in future studies.
That said, there are some good points, which I’d like to take the time to talk about. Let’s start with Mann’s theory of generic fascism, which reads thus: “fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism.” That’s not terribly original, but it has its good points. The first is the addition of the state to the typical recognition of (hyper-,ultra-, etc) nationalism. So far as I can recall, no other theorist has brought out the importance of a strong, centralized state as an equal partner to nationalism in fascist theory. It’s one of those “duh!” moments that all of us should be smacking our heads for (I know I did). Of course fascists emphasize the primary power of the state as a necessary tool for remaking society – this is the very thing that left or right libertarians criticize when they use the term derogatively. If this whole book had consisted of Mann showing examples of public and private fascist writings that demonstrated this relationship, he would have produced a book that added to the current literature. Even as it is, this part of his thesis remains worth examining. I think it is more useful than the now-unpopular term “totalitarianism” which tried to link fascist and communist states, in part because there are arguably examples of authoritarian communism and fascism which do not appear to aspire to total control of every aspect of individual life, but merely assert the primacy of state interests over the individual.
The second part of this statement that deserves (re-)examination is the part on paramilitarism, although I’m less happy with the phrasing and theoretization of this part. It is also less new, but discussion of the importance of paramilitarism to fascism has largely fallen from favor since the 1970s, but it seems to me that it could be worth integrating more explicitly into working definitions: all fascist organizations created paramilitaries and many authoritarian non-fascists (for example Salazar) emulated them by creating paramilitary units “from above.” My problem with Mann’s approach to this is twofold: First, he never theorizes or even defines what he means by “paramilitarism.” This makes it hard to know what is an is not a “true” paramilitary, or whether there are scales or degrees of paramilitarism. Are the SA and SS interchangeable? Is the Hitler Youth a paramilitary? Are the Boy Scouts? Why aren’t skinheads? What about differences before and after state power is gained – the SS went from being a paramilitary organization to a vast bureaucracy with state functions such as controlling the police, ideological functions regarding racial purity, and an actual military wing, the Waffen SS. These types of questions cannot be addressed without explicit definition of the concept. The second problem I have is the primacy he places on it with the preposition “through.” This appears to make paramilitarism the primary and only method fascists use to pursue their goal. Mann never puts it in those terms – he acknowledges especially the importance of electoral politics to fascist methods – but this is how the definition reads.
Apart from this, Mann has compiled a good deal of statistical data (often from arrest records) on fascist movements in six countries: Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Spain. He gives brief narratives of their activities and the apparent sociological reasons why they did or did not come to power. The problem I have here is probably a problem with sociology: he looks for material reasons to explain everything, and discounts ideological ones as “psychology.” In the end, although he claims to be criticizing historians for clinging to Marxist theories of class (this is one of his many mis-readings of the literature, mentioned above), he actually winds up making class primary to much of his discussion, if only because it is the easiest data for him to collect. With each new case study, he begins by asserting that class explanations are too simplistic, something every Western historian has agreed on since the sixties, then performs a class analysis and comes out admitting that class does play some role, but only in this instance. It would be comical if it weren’t so tedious. He does try to bring in other sociological categories, such as religion and generation, but these are used unevenly and ignored completely in certain cases, and unconvincingly in others (the Nazis, apparently, were all Protestants).
So, what else does he get wrong? One of his worst blunders is to claim that Roger Griffin, acknowledged by many as the foremost theorist on the subject, is an advocate of the theory that fascism is a kind of “political religion” (page 12). Not only does Griffin not put forward such an argument on the page Mann cites, but this page follows only shortly after a multi-page rebuttal of this concept. Ironically, the page Mann does cite is one where Griffin talks about the importance of paramilitarism, which Mann claims Griffin is silent about. Another example: to back up his idea that historians endorse the Marxist theory of fascism-as-class-struggle, he cites the openly Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm (page 20). It would seem he is on safe ground setting up this straw man, but in the very next sentence after that quoted, Hobsbawm says this view has “too much agitational rhetoric” to be valuable. The throw-the-book-across-the-room moment comes, however, on page 160, when Mann claims without any source that Hitler was “a painter forced to paint houses” (!!!). That huge bibliography at the back suddenly crumbles like a cheap façade in an earthquake when you realize that Mann’s knowledge of Hitler comes from old allied propaganda films. And he has the arrogance to say in the next chapter that “historians could benefit from a little more sociology!”
In short, while this book was interesting, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t often see it cited in articles in Brill’s Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies, and that Michael Mann has hardly displaced Griffin among those who regard him as primary. I would like to see further efforts to theorize “statism” and “paramilitarism” in fascist studies, and I hope Mann’s weaknesses can be overlooked in taking up these and other challenges laid down by this book in future studies.
March 4, 2017
Livro panorâmico e esclarecedor sobre os regimes fascistas do entreguerras, suas marcas distintas (principalmente em relação aos demais regimes autoritários da época) e suas respectivas trajetórias históricas. Quem eram os fascistas e o que os motivava? O que estava por trás do triunfo (e do fracasso) destes movimentos? É possível falar em algo como o Fascismo nos dias de hoje?
Todas essas questões são tratadas de maneira ampla e suficientemente detalhada pelo autor, que recorreu a dados empíricos e numerosas fontes secundárias com o fito de explicar um movimento político de massas inserido no cerne da modernidade e cuja abordagem é indispensável à compreensão do turbulento século XX.
Todas essas questões são tratadas de maneira ampla e suficientemente detalhada pelo autor, que recorreu a dados empíricos e numerosas fontes secundárias com o fito de explicar um movimento político de massas inserido no cerne da modernidade e cuja abordagem é indispensável à compreensão do turbulento século XX.
February 13, 2023
Correcte, sense més. L'haguera gaudit si no m'hagueren avisat de llegir un totxo de 500 pàgines en semana i mitja per preparar una presentació de quaranta minuts. Però això són queixes del màster que del llibre. La part més interessant és la que fan referència als moviments feixistes que no són tan coneguts. Els capítols d'Hongria i Romania són prou més interessants que les pàgines sobre Itàlia, Alemanya o Àustria. Per la resta, tampoc m'apanya molt que continuament faja referència al seu futur llibre perque em dona la sensació d'estar llegir spam sesut i bó, no sé si és per la traducció o perque aixina redacta Mann però hi ha certes línies que resulten complicades d'entendre el point: comença a contar, a contar, a contar, i mai aplega a una afirmació... En fi, no és el millor llibre que he llegit sobre feixisme però he après coses interessants que és el principal.
July 18, 2020
O livro “Fascistas” de Michael Mann é uma das melhores análises dos fascismos europeus entreguerras. Mann inicia sua obra com o objetivo de analisar a chegada ao poder dos fascistas no período entreguerras. Quais foram as causas, as características, os elementos, os tipos dos vários fascismos existentes na Europa após a I GM?
A obra tem dez capítulos, sendo os dois primeiros uma análise sociológica dos movimentos fascistas, e o último, uma revisão dos principais pontos que configuraram os fascismos históricos europeus. Do capítulo três ao nove, o autor analisa os fascismos da Itália, Alemanha, Áustria, Hungria, Romênia e Espanha.
Primeiramente, Mann considera que os fascismos precisam ser levados a sério. Não se pode tratá-los por meio de rótulos desqualificadores que impedem a investigação séria. Há muitas definições de fascismo, até porque o movimento não era coeso. O autor conceitua o fascismo como “a tentativa de construção de um Estado-nação transcendente e expurgado por meio do paramilitarismo” p. 26. Cinco são os termos-chave que caracterizam o fascismo:
a) nacionalismo: defesa de uma nação orgânica e coesa, não plural.
b) estatismo: defesa de um Estado corporativo autoritário que pode resolver crises e gerar desenvolvimento social, econômico e moral.
c) transcendência: o fascismo como transcendente a conflitos, a diferenças de classe, às ideologias e aos antagonismos.
d) expurgos: necessidade de eliminar os adversários, expurgando a nação da presença dos inimigos.
e) paramilitarismo: organizações militares para a defesa da ordem, surgidas de forma espontânea, de baixo para cima, e perpetradas de violência e discricionariedade arbitrária.
Em geral, as crises que possibilitaram o avanço dos fascismos europeus foram: econômica, militar, política e ideológica. Porém, cada fascismo de determinado país destacava uma ou duas dessas crises como as mais fundamentais e que justificavam o autoritarismo fascista.
Já no segundo capítulo, Mann considera que no entreguerras do século XX surgiram vários Estados-nação orgânicos com a promessa de findar as crises nacionais. Devido à crise econômica, os fascistas diziam que poderiam trazer ordem e a defesa da propriedade privada. Devido à crise militar, os fascistas diziam que poderiam recuperar a honra das nações perdedoras da I GM através da força paramilitar. Devido à crise política, os fascistas prometiam mais ordem e segurança. Devido à crise ideológica, os fascistas prometiam uma ideologia total e orgânica para consolidação do nacionalismo.
No capítulo três, o autor trata do fascismo italiano. O primeiro fascismo foi o italiano que surgiu após a I GM. A palavra fascista indicava um feixe de varas para se referir a um grupo político pequeno e coeso. Suas características foram: estatismo, poder de cima para baixo, apoio das elites, violência, ênfase na prática, apoio amplo de jovens e homens, sinergia entre partidos e entidades paramilitares. Não tinha o elemento racista do Nazismo.
Nos capítulos quatro e cinco, Mann trata do Nazismo. As causas, em geral, que ensejaram esse fascismo foram: alta inflação, depressão, reparações pesadas da I GM. As peculiaridades distintivas desse fascismo foram: ódio aos judeus (que só foi ficando claro ao longo dos anos), autoritarismo racista, anti-pluralismo, personalismo carismático do líder, nacionalismo apaixonado, apoio de membros de todas as classes (com destaque para as mulheres que votaram majoritariamente no partido nazista enquanto havia eleições), sociedade civil forte e malévola, mensagem clara, coerente e salvacionista, ajuda das elites após 1932. Destaca-se que com o projeto econômico autoritário-nacionalista-keynesianista de Hitler, a Alemanha começou a se recuperar, o que contribuiu ainda mais para a difusão da retórica fascista.
Já no sexto capítulo, o autor trata do autoritarismo e nazismo na Áustria. Haviam dois grupos: austro-fascistas (austríacos autoritários) e os nazistas austríacos (austríacos simpatizantes de Hitler). O primeiro foi suprimido pelo segundo. Mann destaca que o fascismo austríaco era radical e generalizado por toda a sociedade, com um forte traço antissemita.
No sétimo capítulo, o autor trata do autoritarismo húngaro. Derrotada na I GM, a Hungria deixou sua tolerância aos judeus e partiu para um ódio sistemático a eles. Características: nacionalismo orgânico, antissemitismo, corporativismo estatal, populismo, não paramilitarismo, amplo apoio dos jovens militares e da massa proletária.
No caso da Romênia, capítulo oito, o autor lembra que esse país fora um grande vencedor da I GM, mas que também tinha a cultura antissemita mais forte na Europa. Características: antissemitismo doméstico, nacionalismo proletário, adoção do fascismo como uma doutrina moderna e do futuro.
O último caso trazido pelo autor é o do autoritarismo espanhol. Nesse capítulo, Mann demonstra que não houve um fascismo espanhol, mas sim um autoritarismo por meio do poder personalista, corporativista e semi-reacionário do ditador Franco.
Na conclusão, Mann considera que os fascismos foram possíveis por conta que os antigos regimes europeus estavam debilitados após a I GM e os parlamentos fragilizados e não consolidados institucionalmente (os partidos não conseguiam chegar a pontos em comum para fazer frente ao fascismo). O fascismo foi, então, a soma de reacionarismo, paramilitarismo, nacionalismo e salvacionismo das crises elevado a mais alta potência política. Apesar dessa ameaça ter sido contida após a II GM, é sempre bom estar alerta.
A obra tem dez capítulos, sendo os dois primeiros uma análise sociológica dos movimentos fascistas, e o último, uma revisão dos principais pontos que configuraram os fascismos históricos europeus. Do capítulo três ao nove, o autor analisa os fascismos da Itália, Alemanha, Áustria, Hungria, Romênia e Espanha.
Primeiramente, Mann considera que os fascismos precisam ser levados a sério. Não se pode tratá-los por meio de rótulos desqualificadores que impedem a investigação séria. Há muitas definições de fascismo, até porque o movimento não era coeso. O autor conceitua o fascismo como “a tentativa de construção de um Estado-nação transcendente e expurgado por meio do paramilitarismo” p. 26. Cinco são os termos-chave que caracterizam o fascismo:
a) nacionalismo: defesa de uma nação orgânica e coesa, não plural.
b) estatismo: defesa de um Estado corporativo autoritário que pode resolver crises e gerar desenvolvimento social, econômico e moral.
c) transcendência: o fascismo como transcendente a conflitos, a diferenças de classe, às ideologias e aos antagonismos.
d) expurgos: necessidade de eliminar os adversários, expurgando a nação da presença dos inimigos.
e) paramilitarismo: organizações militares para a defesa da ordem, surgidas de forma espontânea, de baixo para cima, e perpetradas de violência e discricionariedade arbitrária.
Em geral, as crises que possibilitaram o avanço dos fascismos europeus foram: econômica, militar, política e ideológica. Porém, cada fascismo de determinado país destacava uma ou duas dessas crises como as mais fundamentais e que justificavam o autoritarismo fascista.
Já no segundo capítulo, Mann considera que no entreguerras do século XX surgiram vários Estados-nação orgânicos com a promessa de findar as crises nacionais. Devido à crise econômica, os fascistas diziam que poderiam trazer ordem e a defesa da propriedade privada. Devido à crise militar, os fascistas diziam que poderiam recuperar a honra das nações perdedoras da I GM através da força paramilitar. Devido à crise política, os fascistas prometiam mais ordem e segurança. Devido à crise ideológica, os fascistas prometiam uma ideologia total e orgânica para consolidação do nacionalismo.
No capítulo três, o autor trata do fascismo italiano. O primeiro fascismo foi o italiano que surgiu após a I GM. A palavra fascista indicava um feixe de varas para se referir a um grupo político pequeno e coeso. Suas características foram: estatismo, poder de cima para baixo, apoio das elites, violência, ênfase na prática, apoio amplo de jovens e homens, sinergia entre partidos e entidades paramilitares. Não tinha o elemento racista do Nazismo.
Nos capítulos quatro e cinco, Mann trata do Nazismo. As causas, em geral, que ensejaram esse fascismo foram: alta inflação, depressão, reparações pesadas da I GM. As peculiaridades distintivas desse fascismo foram: ódio aos judeus (que só foi ficando claro ao longo dos anos), autoritarismo racista, anti-pluralismo, personalismo carismático do líder, nacionalismo apaixonado, apoio de membros de todas as classes (com destaque para as mulheres que votaram majoritariamente no partido nazista enquanto havia eleições), sociedade civil forte e malévola, mensagem clara, coerente e salvacionista, ajuda das elites após 1932. Destaca-se que com o projeto econômico autoritário-nacionalista-keynesianista de Hitler, a Alemanha começou a se recuperar, o que contribuiu ainda mais para a difusão da retórica fascista.
Já no sexto capítulo, o autor trata do autoritarismo e nazismo na Áustria. Haviam dois grupos: austro-fascistas (austríacos autoritários) e os nazistas austríacos (austríacos simpatizantes de Hitler). O primeiro foi suprimido pelo segundo. Mann destaca que o fascismo austríaco era radical e generalizado por toda a sociedade, com um forte traço antissemita.
No sétimo capítulo, o autor trata do autoritarismo húngaro. Derrotada na I GM, a Hungria deixou sua tolerância aos judeus e partiu para um ódio sistemático a eles. Características: nacionalismo orgânico, antissemitismo, corporativismo estatal, populismo, não paramilitarismo, amplo apoio dos jovens militares e da massa proletária.
No caso da Romênia, capítulo oito, o autor lembra que esse país fora um grande vencedor da I GM, mas que também tinha a cultura antissemita mais forte na Europa. Características: antissemitismo doméstico, nacionalismo proletário, adoção do fascismo como uma doutrina moderna e do futuro.
O último caso trazido pelo autor é o do autoritarismo espanhol. Nesse capítulo, Mann demonstra que não houve um fascismo espanhol, mas sim um autoritarismo por meio do poder personalista, corporativista e semi-reacionário do ditador Franco.
Na conclusão, Mann considera que os fascismos foram possíveis por conta que os antigos regimes europeus estavam debilitados após a I GM e os parlamentos fragilizados e não consolidados institucionalmente (os partidos não conseguiam chegar a pontos em comum para fazer frente ao fascismo). O fascismo foi, então, a soma de reacionarismo, paramilitarismo, nacionalismo e salvacionismo das crises elevado a mais alta potência política. Apesar dessa ameaça ter sido contida após a II GM, é sempre bom estar alerta.
May 28, 2022
A Point Of Return:
A
A Point Of Return:
I have a PHD in the Rijk in Europe, America, Japan! I have an associate degree in black music. My belief that Rijk was administrative, then become a, gas, bio terrorist gas station is from an academic point of view. The library at Ijmuiden was my resource to write this PHD/ Appraisal essay/s. The Point Of Return is the name of my book! It an angle is that we can come back from WWII and that one cannot destroy the whole or most of the world because: What were the German people doing when Mr. Hitler was using bio chemicals on European Jews? After interviewing the Top Gestapo men and women and children in the Netherlands through Optical illusion, it is a technology that is still used about the Rijk who went after people like me who are the world.
Why blame Hitler and Himmler? "When the masses are stupid"?: Capitalism and the free market? Warsaw, Sorbonne, U.S.S.R, Osaka, Hiroshima, Egypt, Somalia, Srebrenica, Albania etc. were places that were the Rijk's administrative infiltrations.
They made two music video so far of this theme/topic to say I inspired them, my essays, words, and visual presentation: Maluma, Medelline, and God Control: ( Singer: Madonna): I do not agree with how they see Mata Hari, the Dutch Spy, and how the see Malcolm X, the Minister. These are leaks which they got criminally because Madonna is 65 years old and thinks that people thinks she is old.
The countdown has been done and Europe is on time. Africa is not on time, it was Europe that Kurt Cobain was talking about. The Bundesnachrichtendienst in Germany feels they control the world and that it is small and that I magnify it.
I cleared Hitler, Himmler and all Gestapos of the holocaust crimes, war crimes. The deception in the mainstream media about Germany during the second world is being talked about every day in my inner circle. Nietzsche, Sartre, Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant etc. What is also talked about/Of the Spanish crusaders and how they were treated badly.
I got an automated offer from Goodreads letting know that I can be an Author here on Goodreads!.
A
A Point Of Return:
I have a PHD in the Rijk in Europe, America, Japan! I have an associate degree in black music. My belief that Rijk was administrative, then become a, gas, bio terrorist gas station is from an academic point of view. The library at Ijmuiden was my resource to write this PHD/ Appraisal essay/s. The Point Of Return is the name of my book! It an angle is that we can come back from WWII and that one cannot destroy the whole or most of the world because: What were the German people doing when Mr. Hitler was using bio chemicals on European Jews? After interviewing the Top Gestapo men and women and children in the Netherlands through Optical illusion, it is a technology that is still used about the Rijk who went after people like me who are the world.
Why blame Hitler and Himmler? "When the masses are stupid"?: Capitalism and the free market? Warsaw, Sorbonne, U.S.S.R, Osaka, Hiroshima, Egypt, Somalia, Srebrenica, Albania etc. were places that were the Rijk's administrative infiltrations.
They made two music video so far of this theme/topic to say I inspired them, my essays, words, and visual presentation: Maluma, Medelline, and God Control: ( Singer: Madonna): I do not agree with how they see Mata Hari, the Dutch Spy, and how the see Malcolm X, the Minister. These are leaks which they got criminally because Madonna is 65 years old and thinks that people thinks she is old.
The countdown has been done and Europe is on time. Africa is not on time, it was Europe that Kurt Cobain was talking about. The Bundesnachrichtendienst in Germany feels they control the world and that it is small and that I magnify it.
I cleared Hitler, Himmler and all Gestapos of the holocaust crimes, war crimes. The deception in the mainstream media about Germany during the second world is being talked about every day in my inner circle. Nietzsche, Sartre, Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant etc. What is also talked about/Of the Spanish crusaders and how they were treated badly.
I got an automated offer from Goodreads letting know that I can be an Author here on Goodreads!.
September 13, 2022
It took me four months to read this book. It is an incredibly in-depth social analysis of the rise of fascism in Europe. And when I say "in-depth", I'm talking about pages of seemingly irrelevant data that pieces together the ideology of fascism, the who, what, when, where, and why. The information, although fascinating, was extremely difficult for me to process at times, because it is so incredibly researched. This is definitely an academic text from which others can build a foundation for their own research on. That being said, I do not recommend this to the average person looking to broaden their understanding on the topic, as the writing style and choice of terminology can be challenging. The author states at the beginning that this book is strictly about how fascists were able to come into power, and his next book would be about what they did with that power. He then goes on to state on almost every single page of this 400pg book that "more will be explained in my forthcoming book". It was annoying, to say the least. All in all, I feel there are probably better books out there on fascism, at least that are more accessible to a wider audience, written in terms easier for people to understand. In the United States today there is plenty of political discourse on fascism, yet most have no idea what they are talking about. Things I have learned about fascism and have related to present U.S.A: Fascism was able to rise into a movement because people did not take it seriously in the beginning, and that people can be influenced towards authoritarianism and Fascism when they feel threatened by modernity (change). Sounds about right.
September 15, 2021
I read this book to write a book review for a paper on Fascism at the University of Melbourne. It was an absolute slog (Michael does not prioritise narrative nor clarity) but I appreciated the insights it gave me. In particular, it provided an interesting framework of understanding how liberal democracies can become authoritarian. If intractable conflicts can't be institutionalised into liberal democracies, a dual state can be formed which bleeds into semi-authoritarianism.
I'll refer to my book review to remember the rest of my thoughts.
I'll refer to my book review to remember the rest of my thoughts.
April 10, 2022
Didn’t change any of my structuralist views
February 23, 2017
While Mann's sober sociology has its attractions, one tires of being directed to another book for anything like a comprehensive account of the fascist phenomenon. The title of this book, in other words, is quite apt. You will learn much about fascists, but only a little about fascism. Certainly a useful corrective to histories of ideas indifferent to the empirical thing.
June 6, 2015
An important and useful work synthesizing decades worth of scholarship about fascism in Europe. Mann comes to some original and surprising conclusions challenging a number of previous theories of fascist political development. The book's strengths include the exceptionally well-documented analysis of the class basis of multiple European fascist parties; the discussion of religion's relationship to fascist ideology and voting patterns; the analysis of youth movements, age-cohorts and paramilitary participation; and the overview of large geographic patterns for the growth of fascist parties. This work is also valuable because of the inclusion of Austrian, Romanian and Hungarian fascisms and comparison of these with the more frequently discussed Italian, German and Spanish movements and regimes.
September 29, 2008
Mann, a sociologist, attempts to devise a framework to explain the rise of fascism post WW1. He's got some interesting stats, but trying to define fascism with a one-size-fits-all rubric is a bit of a stretch.
Plus, according to Mann, everything that's not in this book is in his "forthcoming book." Can you cite a book that hasn't been written yet? And sociologists are far too hung up on theory.
Plus, according to Mann, everything that's not in this book is in his "forthcoming book." Can you cite a book that hasn't been written yet? And sociologists are far too hung up on theory.
September 8, 2011
on the one hand, kickass dismantling of many sociological theories about the origins of fascism, and full of crazy facts like...most nazis and their supporters were protestant, but almost all of those responsible for genocide came from catholic backgrounds.... on the other hand, WHERE ARE WOMEN IN FASCIST MOVEMENTS, because the answer is definitely not "in this book." very stat-heavy, which is fine since it's sociology, but i would have preferred more narrative.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews