100 years ago Mussolini’s fascists - the movement that first defined the political brand - staged their much ballyhooed “March on Rome” and completed a tumultuous four-year journey that brought Mussolini to power, first as Prime Minister and then, from 1925, as Il Duce - the authoritarian leader of a one-party state. Often treated as the diminutive little brother of Nazism, Mussolini’s fascism was, in fact, the archetype of a new style of authoritarianism. It was a new, modern form of power and as such it also initiated a new and disturbing cooperation between power and expert knowledge. We tend to think of the interwar period as the incubator of the New Deal and the “postwar welfare state”, which brought to power new kinds of expertise, above all Keynesian economics. But, as Clara Mattei of the New School shows us in a
Some quibbles. USSR was not allied with Nazi Germany. They had a Non-Aggressions pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop), in which they agreed to not attack each other. It was not a pact of Friendship. An alliance is called by its name, look at the 2001 treaty between Russia and China: "The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (FCT)". Compare that with "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
So Mr. Tooze, curb your partisanship, it was not an alliance, it was a a means for Germany to stall for time and remove potential threats: i.e. an attack on Poland with Russia helping Poland would have ended the war sooner. Same as Ukraine signing the Minsk I and II agreements, stalling for time, as former president Piotr Poroshenko admitted in his interview to DW some months ago.
As for Keynes, he was part of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), having failed to strike gold in his stock gambling, and become a rentier, and be an owner. So of course his sensibilities were directed to his sub-class and was intrinsically willing to support the ownership elites. Who nowadays what the rest of us to own nothing and be happy. What does Mr. Tooze wants?
Franco was not a fascist? That is probably news to millions of Spaniards whose ancestors or family members died fighting the regime, or being persecuted by it. Hitler and Mussolini certainly saw Franco as one of their own, although Spanish version had some peculiarities, most notably heavy clerical / catholic church influence element. The fact that his regime was white-washed after WW2 as it was badly needed in the cold war, just like today various jihadists in Syria are white-washed as "freedom fighters" or neo-Nazis in Ukraine as "defenders of democracy" does not change anything on the nature of the beast.
Modern historians largely disdain generalizations about historical events, and they have a point - look closely at any situation and you'll find unique aspects. But there are certainly lessons that can be drawn. One is that authoritarian movements gain strength in hard times, giving voice to people's sense of grievance and despair. We are certainly seeing that today. And as the climate crisis brings on more droughts, famines, pandemics and mass migrations, we will see even more of it.
'The bloody work of breaking the...left' is the salient point and origin story of all fascisms.
The situation is not so different today, given the refusal of the Chinese to 'democratise liberally' we are again in competition with an alternative economic model of distribution- which could at any time, xenofobic tendencies permitting, appear as a proof of concept to those in need of alternative personal futures.
I think that maybe the success of TINA has obscured and overlaid the persistant class struggle. Just because people have been atomised by their individual struggles in the face of a totalising media sphere which suffocates (actively as was the case with Corbyn Labour, red tide in Latin America;passively through lack of mediatic attention- all the time) the shoots and buds of class awareness.
Remember the Indignados movement- which needed the lucidity of a great survivor and understander of the 20th century history,Stephane Hessel, to give the crisis-hit youth a blessing and a unifying argument. Indignez Vous, indeed.
The heirs of fascism, not post-fascists but adopters of what they called 'the third way' are absolutely an alarming sign, more especially in Spain where the wounds are still raw and the phraseology and demeanour, harking back more than dog-whistling, of a party like Vox show just how much of a fractal this 21st Century political development is. Like the censor said of pornography, tthe Spanish 'know it when they see it' though definitions may escape many.
The dispute is the same as it was, and has the same-enthusiastic or reluctantly justifying- supporters as before.
Privilege is not apt to let go, so democracy must be managed-and if it can't be managed, it must be limited, or eliminated until the 're-educated' voters can be trusted again.
Just because the 'long fascisms' of the 20th century were welcome as Cold War allies, didn't mean they weren't fascism.
I am not so sure it is fair to say that class struggle is that far behind in the past. In the US, both democrats and republicans have their version of class struggle.
For democrats it is led by Sanders and is a very classic pro-labor / working class argument. If unions / labor held more power in modern economy, that might well be the dominant branch.
For republicans it is led by Trump and is fairly blatant in its appeal to the working class (nativism and all). Moderate republicans are not as successful as moderate democrats in co-opting this (tough to be pro business and pro-union at the same time), and Trump was very successful in co-opting the other traditional republican arguments (social conservativism). Which I think is why democrats succeeded in overcoming Sanders and republicans did not succeed in overcoming Trump.
As for Europe, I am not as familiar but it does seem that the UK (Brexit), France (yellow jackets) and Germany (Eastern states) are all living through their own class struggles even today. It’s just that today class struggle is couched by proponents of class struggle in terms of globalism, but the characters are the same. Anti globalists claim to represent the workers in struggle against the global / liberal elites (bourgeoise of old).
Which incidentally is why someone like Biden is such a threat to this movement. He has very obviously co-opted some of the key arguments made by anti globalists and implemented them as his policies. In that way is he letting off steam while avoiding class struggle terms. Sadly, we are closer to that struggle now than basically ever before in US history.
She takes swipes at all the usual suspects - the Chicago boys in Chile in the 1970s or Berkeley economists in Suharto’s India, or Western economists in Russia in the 1990s.
Indonesia, mate. I know they sound similar but they are pretty different... :-)
Very intrigued by where Tooze's head was going here where the syntax seems to break down: "In the classic domains of economic policy, the absence of class conflict and the dampness of wage-price spirals ought to free technocratic policy-making. If it does not, if policy-choices remain locked in a discourse of TINA. If we see no alternative to aggressive inflation-fighting that is a matter of hidebound thinking and narrow vested interests rather than a real structural dilemma." Then... Hope of GND strangled by rate hikes, debt overhangs not inflated away, EM default wave à la 1980s... perhaps leading to emergence of more radical ecosocialist regimes in the South? Or more neofascisms...
"A hundred years on from 1922, the problems of that era are not our problems. We do not live in an age of intense and politicized class-struggle, in the aftermath of a total war, or under the shadow of an ascendant Anglo-American hegemony." - Really? May be just change 'class' to 'elite', 'aftermath' to 'prelude' and 'ascendant' to 'descendant'!
Mussolini never marched on Rome. He held back while his "Blackshirts" marched in his stead. When Mussolini's men made their demands on the Prime Minister, declined! However, the King capitulated and overrode the P.M.
Had the takeover failed, Mussolini planned in advance to flee the country!
Great post, longtime fan of Chartbook and Ones and Tooze here! One note - believe you meant Suharto's Indonesia (not India) when discussing the dubious interventionism of liberal economists.
Excellent and fascinating. Not to mention highly quotable Tooze lines throughout—"the only true fascist is a dead fascist buried amidst the ruins of their regime." What a punch!
One may note at this point that both de’ Stefani and Einaudi carried out ‘neo-liberal’ or. ‘austerian’ stabilisation policies, after WWI and WWII, respectively. However, this equally disproves any fundamental connection between free-market adjustment policies and the fascist regime: the post-WWII monetary stabilisation was pursued by Einaudi in the restored regime of parliamentary democracy.
Actually, one could further note that the definitive repudiation of parliamentary democracy and its transformation into one-party dictatorship by Mussolini coincided with a progressive movement in the economic sphere away from a free-market economy and towards protectionism and state interventionism. The perceived excessive sympathies for economic liberalism costed de Stefani his post as finance minister in 1925. As to Einaudi, the systematic destruction of freedoms, civil, power would political and economic wrought by unrestricted state power under fascism made him converge toward the belief that national sovereignty should be constrained by supranational rules and institutions for freedoms to be preserved. This belief lies at the core of the what
historian of ideas Quinn Slobodan has called the ‘globalist’ project. Einaudi participated in the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Sociery (1947), which is often regarded as the seminal event of the neo-liberal or globalist project. The European Union is typically considered as the most advanced realisation of the ‘regulatory (super)state envisioned by the globalists. This brings us to the debate on the relevance, if any, of the experience of historic fascism for the trajectory of post-fascist movements in power. The most revolutionary demand of the programme of Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) is the principle that domestic Italian law should take precedence over EU law. If implemented, this principle would negate the essence of the EU, as unique form of supranational, as opposed to international, governance. While Meloni has significantly moderated her anti-EU rhetoric since approaching and reaching power, her declarations as prime minister have confirmed an
attitude of hostility toward foreign (‘predatory’) investment as well as a tendency to brand as ‘anti-Italian’ her political opponents. Economic statism and nationalism tout court are the most obvious potential commonalities between historic fascism and contemporary post-fascism. I find striking that the learned debate on the lessons of the events of one century ago for today’s situation should ignore the point.
One of the better pieces written by Mr. Tooze.
Some quibbles. USSR was not allied with Nazi Germany. They had a Non-Aggressions pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop), in which they agreed to not attack each other. It was not a pact of Friendship. An alliance is called by its name, look at the 2001 treaty between Russia and China: "The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (FCT)". Compare that with "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
So Mr. Tooze, curb your partisanship, it was not an alliance, it was a a means for Germany to stall for time and remove potential threats: i.e. an attack on Poland with Russia helping Poland would have ended the war sooner. Same as Ukraine signing the Minsk I and II agreements, stalling for time, as former president Piotr Poroshenko admitted in his interview to DW some months ago.
As for Keynes, he was part of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), having failed to strike gold in his stock gambling, and become a rentier, and be an owner. So of course his sensibilities were directed to his sub-class and was intrinsically willing to support the ownership elites. Who nowadays what the rest of us to own nothing and be happy. What does Mr. Tooze wants?
Franco was not a fascist? That is probably news to millions of Spaniards whose ancestors or family members died fighting the regime, or being persecuted by it. Hitler and Mussolini certainly saw Franco as one of their own, although Spanish version had some peculiarities, most notably heavy clerical / catholic church influence element. The fact that his regime was white-washed after WW2 as it was badly needed in the cold war, just like today various jihadists in Syria are white-washed as "freedom fighters" or neo-Nazis in Ukraine as "defenders of democracy" does not change anything on the nature of the beast.
Modern historians largely disdain generalizations about historical events, and they have a point - look closely at any situation and you'll find unique aspects. But there are certainly lessons that can be drawn. One is that authoritarian movements gain strength in hard times, giving voice to people's sense of grievance and despair. We are certainly seeing that today. And as the climate crisis brings on more droughts, famines, pandemics and mass migrations, we will see even more of it.
'The bloody work of breaking the...left' is the salient point and origin story of all fascisms.
The situation is not so different today, given the refusal of the Chinese to 'democratise liberally' we are again in competition with an alternative economic model of distribution- which could at any time, xenofobic tendencies permitting, appear as a proof of concept to those in need of alternative personal futures.
I think that maybe the success of TINA has obscured and overlaid the persistant class struggle. Just because people have been atomised by their individual struggles in the face of a totalising media sphere which suffocates (actively as was the case with Corbyn Labour, red tide in Latin America;passively through lack of mediatic attention- all the time) the shoots and buds of class awareness.
Remember the Indignados movement- which needed the lucidity of a great survivor and understander of the 20th century history,Stephane Hessel, to give the crisis-hit youth a blessing and a unifying argument. Indignez Vous, indeed.
The heirs of fascism, not post-fascists but adopters of what they called 'the third way' are absolutely an alarming sign, more especially in Spain where the wounds are still raw and the phraseology and demeanour, harking back more than dog-whistling, of a party like Vox show just how much of a fractal this 21st Century political development is. Like the censor said of pornography, tthe Spanish 'know it when they see it' though definitions may escape many.
The dispute is the same as it was, and has the same-enthusiastic or reluctantly justifying- supporters as before.
Privilege is not apt to let go, so democracy must be managed-and if it can't be managed, it must be limited, or eliminated until the 're-educated' voters can be trusted again.
Just because the 'long fascisms' of the 20th century were welcome as Cold War allies, didn't mean they weren't fascism.
'The bloody work of breaking the... left'
This is a good description of what happened in Italian fascism. In most other contexts, 'fascism' is just used pejoratively.
George Orwell wrote in the 1940s:“The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’.”
A very thought provoking and interesting article.
I am not so sure it is fair to say that class struggle is that far behind in the past. In the US, both democrats and republicans have their version of class struggle.
For democrats it is led by Sanders and is a very classic pro-labor / working class argument. If unions / labor held more power in modern economy, that might well be the dominant branch.
For republicans it is led by Trump and is fairly blatant in its appeal to the working class (nativism and all). Moderate republicans are not as successful as moderate democrats in co-opting this (tough to be pro business and pro-union at the same time), and Trump was very successful in co-opting the other traditional republican arguments (social conservativism). Which I think is why democrats succeeded in overcoming Sanders and republicans did not succeed in overcoming Trump.
As for Europe, I am not as familiar but it does seem that the UK (Brexit), France (yellow jackets) and Germany (Eastern states) are all living through their own class struggles even today. It’s just that today class struggle is couched by proponents of class struggle in terms of globalism, but the characters are the same. Anti globalists claim to represent the workers in struggle against the global / liberal elites (bourgeoise of old).
Which incidentally is why someone like Biden is such a threat to this movement. He has very obviously co-opted some of the key arguments made by anti globalists and implemented them as his policies. In that way is he letting off steam while avoiding class struggle terms. Sadly, we are closer to that struggle now than basically ever before in US history.
She takes swipes at all the usual suspects - the Chicago boys in Chile in the 1970s or Berkeley economists in Suharto’s India, or Western economists in Russia in the 1990s.
Indonesia, mate. I know they sound similar but they are pretty different... :-)
Another illuminating deep dive, from which I emerge more knowledgeable at the end than I was at the beginning. Thank you!
Very intrigued by where Tooze's head was going here where the syntax seems to break down: "In the classic domains of economic policy, the absence of class conflict and the dampness of wage-price spirals ought to free technocratic policy-making. If it does not, if policy-choices remain locked in a discourse of TINA. If we see no alternative to aggressive inflation-fighting that is a matter of hidebound thinking and narrow vested interests rather than a real structural dilemma." Then... Hope of GND strangled by rate hikes, debt overhangs not inflated away, EM default wave à la 1980s... perhaps leading to emergence of more radical ecosocialist regimes in the South? Or more neofascisms...
"A hundred years on from 1922, the problems of that era are not our problems. We do not live in an age of intense and politicized class-struggle, in the aftermath of a total war, or under the shadow of an ascendant Anglo-American hegemony." - Really? May be just change 'class' to 'elite', 'aftermath' to 'prelude' and 'ascendant' to 'descendant'!
Mussolini never marched on Rome. He held back while his "Blackshirts" marched in his stead. When Mussolini's men made their demands on the Prime Minister, declined! However, the King capitulated and overrode the P.M.
Had the takeover failed, Mussolini planned in advance to flee the country!
Looks good.
Suharto was in Indonesia
Great post, longtime fan of Chartbook and Ones and Tooze here! One note - believe you meant Suharto's Indonesia (not India) when discussing the dubious interventionism of liberal economists.
Excellent and fascinating. Not to mention highly quotable Tooze lines throughout—"the only true fascist is a dead fascist buried amidst the ruins of their regime." What a punch!
One may note at this point that both de’ Stefani and Einaudi carried out ‘neo-liberal’ or. ‘austerian’ stabilisation policies, after WWI and WWII, respectively. However, this equally disproves any fundamental connection between free-market adjustment policies and the fascist regime: the post-WWII monetary stabilisation was pursued by Einaudi in the restored regime of parliamentary democracy.
Actually, one could further note that the definitive repudiation of parliamentary democracy and its transformation into one-party dictatorship by Mussolini coincided with a progressive movement in the economic sphere away from a free-market economy and towards protectionism and state interventionism. The perceived excessive sympathies for economic liberalism costed de Stefani his post as finance minister in 1925. As to Einaudi, the systematic destruction of freedoms, civil, power would political and economic wrought by unrestricted state power under fascism made him converge toward the belief that national sovereignty should be constrained by supranational rules and institutions for freedoms to be preserved. This belief lies at the core of the what
historian of ideas Quinn Slobodan has called the ‘globalist’ project. Einaudi participated in the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Sociery (1947), which is often regarded as the seminal event of the neo-liberal or globalist project. The European Union is typically considered as the most advanced realisation of the ‘regulatory (super)state envisioned by the globalists. This brings us to the debate on the relevance, if any, of the experience of historic fascism for the trajectory of post-fascist movements in power. The most revolutionary demand of the programme of Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) is the principle that domestic Italian law should take precedence over EU law. If implemented, this principle would negate the essence of the EU, as unique form of supranational, as opposed to international, governance. While Meloni has significantly moderated her anti-EU rhetoric since approaching and reaching power, her declarations as prime minister have confirmed an
attitude of hostility toward foreign (‘predatory’) investment as well as a tendency to brand as ‘anti-Italian’ her political opponents. Economic statism and nationalism tout court are the most obvious potential commonalities between historic fascism and contemporary post-fascism. I find striking that the learned debate on the lessons of the events of one century ago for today’s situation should ignore the point.