Suchergebnisse

In 2000, far right parties were confined to the margins of the European political landscape. In a few years, they have gained ground in most national parliaments. Their progress, alongside the victories of Erdoğan in Turkey, Modi in India, Duterte in the Philippines, Trump in the United States or Bolsonaro in Brazil, has led to the identity radicalisation of part of the traditional right-wing. Do we support a 'fascisation' of political life and fear a 'return to fascism'? Far from being confined to specialists alone, these issues have involved many writers, artists, politicians (and even Pope Francis) and have also revived extensive historical debates: is fascism a specific historical phenomenon or a concept that goes beyond the geographical and temporal context that led to it? What is the role of analogy and anachronism in historical analysis? Fourteen historians and politicians agreed to express their views on the subject. In the first days of the health crisis, we wondered whether our file might appear to be displaced or even obsolete. This does not seem to be the case. All over the world, right-wing parties have sought to benefit from the health emergency. They offered conspiracy readings, called for the closure of borders and investigated an indictment against lockdown measures. It was in this context that we discovered the work of Sosthen Hennekam, who wanted to illustrate this issue, on the architectures of Milan, the place of birth of fascism and one of the cities most affected by the Covid pandemic. ; International audience ; In 2000, far right parties were confined to the margins of the European political landscape. In a few years, they have gained ground in most national parliaments. Their progress, alongside the victories of Erdoğan in Turkey, Modi in India, Duterte in the Philippines, Trump in the United States or Bolsonaro in Brazil, has led to the identity radicalisation of part of the traditional right-wing. Do we support a 'fascisation' of political life and fear a 'return to fascism'? Far from ...

International audience ; En 2000, les partis d'extrême droite étaient cantonnés aux marges du paysage politique européen. En quelques années, ils ont gagné du terrain dans la plupart des parlements nationaux. Leur avancée, parallèle aux victoires d'Erdoğan en Turquie, de Modi en Inde, de Duterte aux Philippines, de Trump aux États-Unis ou de Bolsonaro au Brésil, a provoqué une radicalisation identitaire d'une partie de la droite traditionnelle.Assistons-nous à une « fascisation » de la vie politique ? Faut-il craindre un « retour du fascisme » ? Loin de rester cantonnées aux seuls spécialistes, ces questions ont mobilisé de nombreux écrivains, artistes, politiciens (et jusqu'au pape François).Elles ont ravivé aussi des débats historiographiques d'envergure : le fascisme est-il un phénomène historique spécifique ou une notion qui dépasse le cadre géographique et temporel qui l'a engendré ? Quel est le rôle de l'analogie et de l'anachronisme dans l'analyse historique ? Quatorze historiens et politistes ont accepté de s'exprimer sur le sujet.Dans les premiers jours de la crise sanitaire, nous nous sommes demandées si notre dossier risquait d'apparaître déplacé, voire obsolète. Tel ne semble pas être le cas. Dans le monde entier, les partis d'extrême droite ont cherché à tirer profit de l'urgence sanitaire. Ils ont proposé des lectures complotistes, sollicité la fermeture des frontières et instruit un réquisitoire contre les mesures de confinement.C'est dans cette conjoncture que nous avons découvert le travail de Sosthen Hennekam, qui a bien voulu illustrer ce numéro, sur les architectures de Milan, le lieu de naissance du fascisme et l'une des villes le plus touchées par la pandémie du Covid.

Fascism was once a momentous and imperative subject of study, but as the memory of atrocity faded there has been a lessening of stakes and a forgetting of its previous import. The election of Donald J. Trump, along with the Brexit referendum, growing support for economic nationalism, and a global rise of authoritarian populists, has revitalized the "fascism question," both by scholars and the general public. The reemergence (and electoral successes) of far-right ideological partisans threatens the neoliberal consensus, challenging received wisdom within political science. The dominant approach within international political economy failed to predict escalating political opposition to global capitalism. A prescient exception is the heterodox scholar William Robinson, who had warned his readers of emergent 21st century fascism. This essay is inspired by Robinson's theories but challenges some of his precepts and conclusions. The study of fascism is intertwined with studies of capitalism, financial crisis, inter-imperialist rivalry, democracy, and history; however, politics is never reducible to the structural settings in which it occurs. There are insoluble contradictions between historic fascism and its present-day recurrence. 21st century fascism is haunted by an overladen history and overdetermined by the present conjuncture. A renewed study of fascism ought to focus criticism upon the hypocrisy of liberal politics. The struggle against fascism is also a struggle against liberalism, global capitalism, and American empire.

The resurgence of the political right and the continued importance of the military establishment in the policy-making process confront popular democrats with great challenges in the present conjuncture. For progressive militants and activists, these challenges translate into definite political tasks. In the political sphere, the mechanisms for mass politicization and popular empowerment must be strengthened.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

The M. H. Ross Papers contain information pertaining to labor, politics, social issues of the twentieth century, coal mining and its resulting lifestyle, as well as photographs and audio materials. The collection is made up of five different accessions; L2001-05, which is contained in boxes one through 104, L2002-09 in boxes 106 through 120, L2006-16 in boxes 105 and 120, L2001-01 in boxes 120-121, and L2012-20 in boxes 122-125. The campaign materials consist of items from the 1940 and 1948 political campaigns in which Ross participated. These items include campaign cards, posters, speech transcripts, news clippings, rally materials, letters to voters, and fliers. Organizing and arbitration materials covers labor organizing events from "Operation Dixie" in Georgia, the furniture workers in North Carolina, and the Mine-Mill workers in the Western United States. Organizing materials include fliers, correspondence, news articles, radio transcripts, and some related photos. Arbitration files consist of agreements, decisions, and agreement booklets. The social and political research files cover a wide time period (1930's to the late 1970's/early 1980's). The topics include mainly the Ku Klux Klan, racism, Communism, Red Scare, red baiting, United States history, and literature. These files consist mostly of news and journal articles. Ross interacted with coal miners while doing work for the United Mine Workers Association (UMWA) and while working at the Fairmont Clinic in West Virginia. Included in these related files are books, news articles, journals, UMWA reports, and coal miner oral histories conducted by Ross. Tying in to all of the activities Ross participated in during his life were his research and manuscript files. He wrote numerous newspaper and journal articles on history and labor. Later, as he worked for the UMWA and at the Fairmont Clinic, he wrote more in-depth articles about coal miners, their lifestyle, and medical problems they faced (while the Southern Labor Archives has many of Ross's coal mining and lifestyle articles, it does not have any of his medical articles). Along with these articles are the research files Ross collected to write them, which consist of notes, books, and newspaper and journal articles. In additional to his professional career, Ross was adamant about documenting his and his wife's family history in the oral history format. Of particular interest are the recordings of his interviews with his wife's family - they were workers, musicians, and singers of labor and folk songs. Finally, in this collection are a number of photographs and slides, which include images of organizing, coal mining (from the late 19th through 20th centuries), and Appalachia. Of note is a small photo album from the 1930s which contains images from the Summer School for Workers, and more labor organizing. A few audio items are available as well, such as Ross political speeches and an oral history in which Ross was interviewed by his daughter, Jane Ross Davis in 1986. All photographic and audio-visual materials are at the end of their respective series. ; Myron Howard "Mike" Ross was born November 9, 1919 in New York City. He dropped out of school when he was seventeen and moved to Texas, where he worked on a farm. From 1936 until 1939, Ross worked in a bakery in North Carolina. In the summer of 1938, he attended the Southern School for Workers in Asheville, North Carolina. During the fall of 1938, Ross would attend the first Southern Conference on Human Welfare in Birmingham, Alabama. He would attend this conference again in 1940 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. From 1939 to 1940, Ross worked for the United Mine Workers Non-Partisan League in North Carolina, working under John L. Lewis. He was hired as a union organizer by the United Mine Workers of America, and sent to Saltville, Virginia and Rockwood, Tennessee. In 1940, Ross ran for a seat on city council on the People's Platform in Charlotte, North Carolina. During this time, he also married Anne "Buddie" West of Kennesaw, Georgia. From 1941 until 1945, Ross served as an infantryman for the United States Army. He sustained injuries near the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944. From 1945 until 1949, Ross worked for the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, then part of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), as a union organizer. He was sent to Macon, Georgia, Savannah, Georgia and to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where he worked with the United Furniture Workers Union. He began handling arbitration for the unions. In 1948, Ross ran for United States Congress on the Progressive Party ticket in North Carolina. He also served as the secretary for the North Carolina Progressive Party. Ross attended the University of North Carolina law school from 1949 to 1952. He graduated with honors but was denied the bar on the grounds of "character." From 1952 until 1955, he worked for the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers as a union organizer, first in New Mexico (potash mines) and then in Arizona (copper mines). From 1955 to 1957, Ross attended the Columbia University School of Public Health. He worked for the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund from 1957 to 1958, where he represented the union in expenditure of health care for mining workers. By 1958, Ross began plans for what would become the Fairmont Clinic, a prepaid group practice in Fairmont, West Virginia, which had the mission of providing high quality medical care for miners and their families. From 1958 until 1978, Ross served as administrator of the Fairmont Clinic. As a result of this work, Ross began researching coal mining, especially coal mining lifestyle, heritage and history of coal mining and disasters. He would interview over one hundred miners (coal miners). Eventually, Ross began writing a manuscript about the history of coal mining. Working for the Rural Practice Program of the University of North Carolina from 1980 until 1987, Ross taught in the medical school. M. H. Ross died on January 31, 1987 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. ; Digitization of the M. H. Ross Papers was funded by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

Originally published on "The View from Left Field." The growth of global far right political movements poses a threat to humanity. To defeat these movements, we need to understand their origins and their relationship to capitalist structures of power. Should political leaders like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro be labeled "far right" or "fascist?" In this post, I will defend the use of "neo-fascist" to define both Trump and Bolsonaro, as well as movements closely linked to them, such as the Brexit movement in Britain.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Fascism has always challenged, transcended, and redefined bounded entities. Its histories were also forged in and through permanent movement—geographic and ideological alike. Mobility—a fascinating kaleidoscope of complex flows, diffusion, translation, and reflexive adaptations—remains a supremely promising framework for the study of fascism, fitting its conceptual syncretism and protean nature. If we accept that interwar fascism was a phenomenon with international reach driven, then our models of interpretations must accommodate these local interpretations and adaptations as integral parts of the history of fascism. In this essay, I focus on the concept of 'para-fascism' that Griffin provocatively coined in an attempt to re-establish a conceptual dialogue between fascism and its supposed conceptual peripheries. With 'para-fascism', Griffin did more than any other scholar of fascism to bring into the fold of comparative fascism studies a range of radical movements and especially authoritarian regimes in the 1920s/1930s that were heavily influenced by the emerging political paradigm of 'fascism' but lacked a clear revolutionary orientation. I argue that these not-quite-fascists did arguably more to facilitate the appeal and political diffusion of 'fascism' as the supposedly pure regime examples of Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany.

This bold collection of essays demonstrates the necessity of understanding fascism in cultural terms rather than only or even primarily in terms of political structures and events. Contributors from history, literature, film, art history, and anthropology describe a culture of fascism in Japan in the decades preceding the end of the Asia-Pacific War. In so doing, they challenge past scholarship, which has generally rejected descriptions of pre-1945 Japan as fascist. The contributors explain how a fascist ideology was diffused throughout Japanese culture via literature, popular culture, film, design, and everyday discourse. Alan Tansman's introduction places the essays in historical context and situates them in relation to previous scholarly inquiries into the existence of fascism in Japan. Several contributors examine how fascism was understood in the 1930s by, for example, influential theorists, an antifascist literary group, and leading intellectuals responding to capitalist modernization. Others explore the idea that fascism's solution to alienation and exploitation lay in efforts to beautify work, the workplace, and everyday life. Still others analyze the realization of and limits to fascist aesthetics in film, memorial design, architecture, animal imagery, a military museum, and a national exposition. Contributors also assess both manifestations of and resistance to fascist ideology in the work of renowned authors including the Nobel-prize-winning novelist and short-story writer Kawabata Yasunari and the mystery writers Edogawa Ranpo and Hamao Shirō. In the work of these final two, the tropes of sexual perversity and paranoia open a new perspective on fascist culture. This volume makes Japanese fascism available as a critical point of comparison for scholars of fascism worldwide. The concluding essay models such work by comparing Spanish and Japanese fascisms. Contributors. Noriko Aso, Michael Baskett, Kim Brandt, Nina Cornyetz, Kevin M. Doak, James Dorsey, Aaron Gerow, Harry Harootunian, Marilyn Ivy, Angus Lockyer, Jim Reichert, Jonathan Reynolds, Ellen Schattschneider, Aaron Skabelund, Akiko Takenaka, Alan Tansman, Richard Torrance, Keith Vincent, Alejandro Yarza

This bold collection of essays demonstrates the necessity of understanding fascism in cultural terms rather than only or even primarily in terms of political structures and events. Contributors from history, literature, film, art history, and anthropology describe a culture of fascism in Japan in the decades preceding the end of the Asia-Pacific War. In so doing, they challenge past scholarship, which has generally rejected descriptions of pre-1945 Japan as fascist. The contributors explain how a fascist ideology was diffused throughout Japanese culture via literature, popular culture, film, design, and everyday discourse. Alan Tansman's introduction places the essays in historical context and situates them in relation to previous scholarly inquiries into the existence of fascism in Japan. Several contributors examine how fascism was understood in the 1930s by, for example, influential theorists, an antifascist literary group, and leading intellectuals responding to capitalist modernization. Others explore the idea that fascism's solution to alienation and exploitation lay in efforts to beautify work, the workplace, and everyday life. Still others analyze the realization of and limits to fascist aesthetics in film, memorial design, architecture, animal imagery, a military museum, and a national exposition. Contributors also assess both manifestations of and resistance to fascist ideology in the work of renowned authors including the Nobel-prize-winning novelist and short-story writer Kawabata Yasunari and the mystery writers Edogawa Ranpo and Hamao Shirō. In the work of these final two, the tropes of sexual perversity and paranoia open a new perspective on fascist culture. This volume makes Japanese fascism available as a critical point of comparison for scholars of fascism worldwide. The concluding essay models such work by comparing Spanish and Japanese fascisms. Contributors. Noriko Aso, Michael Baskett, Kim Brandt, Nina Cornyetz, Kevin M. Doak, James Dorsey, Aaron Gerow, Harry Harootunian, Marilyn Ivy, Angus Lockyer, Jim Reichert, Jonathan Reynolds, Ellen Schattschneider, Aaron Skabelund, Akiko Takenaka, Alan Tansman, Richard Torrance, Keith Vincent, Alejandro Yarza

As a historical term, fascism is essentially related to the period of the interwar period, when it was used by the Italian regime and a wide range of smaller movements in other countries. But as a political concept, it has a much broader and longer history, which continues until today. How does the history of fascism relate to fascism as a generic policy concept? In this interview, British historian Roger Griffin, the best specialist in comparative studies on fascism, answers this and other related questions. He developed his views on the history and doctrine of fascism, referred to the emergence and development of this movement between the two wars and explained why it had flourished in some countries, while it remained marginal in others. Based on its own definition of fascism (an ideology centred on the myth of national renaissance), Griffin describes the link between the history of the phenomenon and the political concept, before, at the end of the interview, commenting on the use of the term 'fascism' in the current political context and explaining how fascism can be distinguished from other right-wing ideologies. ; International audience ; As a historical term, fascism is essentially related to the period of the interwar period, when it was used by the Italian regime and a wide range of smaller movements in other countries. But as a political concept, it has a much broader and longer history, which continues until today. How does the history of fascism relate to fascism as a generic policy concept? In this interview, British historian Roger Griffin, the best specialist in comparative studies on fascism, answers this and other related questions. He developed his views on the history and doctrine of fascism, referred to the emergence and development of this movement between the two wars and explained why it had flourished in some countries, while it remained marginal in others. Based on its own definition of fascism (an ideology centred on the myth of national renaissance), Griffin describes the link between ...

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Within the political science community, scholars typically draw a sharp distinction between the "radical right" and "fascism." This chapter challenges such a distinction, and encourages scholars to reprise fascism's relationship to the radical right. It suggests that(neo)fascism's past offers the best route to understanding the present-day radical right. Such a historical interpretation seeks to enhance our understanding of the central importance of the neo-fascist European New Right as the "missing link" between fascism and contemporary radical right-wing populism. Moreover, much of the scholarly literature theorizing the radical right also fails to take into account activist cultures and shared domains. Rather than breaking the historical link between the radical right and fascism, this chapter calls on those studying this field to reinstate this important link, thereby acknowledging the continuing presence of fascism in today's radical right.

In his late lectures, Foucault developed the ancient Greek concept of parrhesia, a courage to speak the truth in the face of danger. While not entirely uncritical of the notion, Foucault seemed to find something of an ideal in the political and aesthetic ideal of franc-parler, of speaking freely and courageously. Simultaneously, the post-1968 political valorized the ideal of parrhesia, or "speaking truth to power": parrhesia seemed inherently progressive, the sole preserve of the left. But a cursory inspection of the annals of Nazism and fascism shows that these movements also aligned themselves with parrhesiastical modes of expression. The fragmented, disparate strands of today's neo-fascist revival, too, are closely imbricated with the notion of speaking valiantly in the face of supposed orthodoxies: in many ways, the preeminent parrhesiasts today are found on the neo-fascist side. This points to an essential weakness in the concept of parrhesia, particularly in terms of its value and valence as a strategy for the political left. Perhaps it matters less how we speak—being caught up in language games—than what policies and programs we enact. Žižek's plea for a renewed dogmatic orthodoxy and Chesterton's criticism of heresy offer ways out of the parrhesiastical trap. ; publishedVersion