Football in no-man's land?

Author Query Form

Journal Title : European Journal of Political Theory (EPT)

Article Number : 448882

Dear Author/Editor,

Greetings, and thank you for publishing with SAGE. Your article has been copyedited and typeset, and we have a few queries for you. Please address these queries when you return your proof corrections. Thank you for your time and effort.

Please ensure that you have obtained and enclosed all necessary permissions for the reproduction of artistic works, (e.g. illustrations, photographs, charts, maps, other visual material, etc.) not owned by yourself, and ensure that the Contribution contains no unlawful statements and does not infringe any rights of others, and agree to indemnify the Publisher, SAGE Publications Ltd, against any claims in respect of the above warranties and that you agree that the Conditions of Publication form part of the Publishing Agreement.

Any colour figures have been incorporated for the on-line version only. Colour printing in the journal must be arranged with the Production Editor, please refer to the figure colour policy outlined in the email.

Please assist us by clarifying the following queries:

1. Please check and confirm the super title.

Footballinno-man’s-land? Theprospectsforafruitful ‘inter-camp’dialoguewithin fasciststudies

RogerGriffin OxfordBrookesUniversity

EuropeanJournalofPoliticalTheory 11(4)1–13

! TheAuthor(s)2012 Reprintsandpermissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:10.1177/1474885112448882 ept.sagepub.com

AsModrisEksteinsremindsusin TheRitesofSpring, 1 asthefirstChristmasof whatwasstillofficiallyashortwarapproached,afestivemoodgrippedthesoldiers entrenchedbothsidesofno-man’s-landatsomepointsalongtheWesternfront,to apointwhereseasonalgreetingswereexchangedandsomeindividualswereable walkacrosstotaketokensofgoodwilltotheircounterpartsbeyondthewire.On ChristmasDayitselftherewereseveraljointburialsofthedead,occasionalincidentsofjointcarol-singing,andmostfamously,ofimprovisedfootballmatches betweenFrench,BritishandGermantroops.Itisnotrecordedwhowon.Inmy chapter‘ExplodingtheContinuumofHistory’thatsparkedthedebatecontained inthepagesofthisspecialissueof EJPT,IassertedthatbothMarxistandnonMarxisthistorians‘remainlargelyoblivioustothepotentialcontributionwhich explanatorystrategiesemployedbeyondtheideologicalno-man’slandbetween themcouldmaketoamorecompleteunderstandingoffascism’.2 Nowthat sevenacademicshaverisentotheoccasionandproducedaraftofconsidered responsestomycallfor entente frombothsidesofthebarbedwire,itfallstome heretoassesswhethertheiressayssuggestthatanythingmorepermanentcouldbe achievedinthewayofreconciliationandfruitfulcollaborationthanatemporary Christmastruce.

ReadingDavidRoberts’s EJPT articlemakesmeratherpainfullyawarethat whenIwrotetheinitialessayIhadindeednotdonemyhomeworksufficiently thoroughlyonGramsci,BenjaminorLaclau,oronMarxistfasciststudiesasa whole.AsaresultIhaveclearlybeenpoorlyinformed(orratherIhaveinformed myselfpoorly)onkeyareasofMarxianscholarship,andthefinerpointsoftheir arguments,andthusfeltlicensedtostretchorbutchertheirconceptsofrevolution andfascism,nottomentionclassicalMarxismandBolshevismintheirentirety,to fittheProcrusteanbedofmytheoryoffascismanditspurportedrootsinthe

Correspondingauthor: RogerGriffin,DepartmentofHistory,PhilosophyandReligion,OxfordBrookesUniversity,TongeBuilding, GipsyLane,OxfordOX30BP. Email:rdgriffin@brookes.ac.uk

modernistrevolutionagainstanomie.Thispreventedmefromreconnoitringmore promisingsitesalongthegorgestillseparatingleftistsand‘liberal’fasciststudies forpotentialbridgebuilding,evenifonlyoftheIndianJonesvariety.Indeed, Roberts’sclosescholarlyreadingofmytextresultsinaseriesofcourteousbut radicalcriticismswhichcumulativelyconstitutesuchaneffectivedemolitionjob thatlittleofmyoriginalessayisleftintactasacogentthesis.Icould,ofcourse, returntothefraylikethemutilateddefenderofthebridgein MontyPythonandthe HolyGrail who,nowreducedtoalimblesstorso,callsoutafterhisattackerswho havesweptpasthim:‘comebackhereandI’llbiteyourlegsoff’.However,Iprefer torespondinthespiritofcollegialityinwhichRobertshasconceivedhiscritique (insuchmarkedcontrasttosomeothereminentcolleagueswhosufferfools–or thisfool–lessgladly).SoIwillrecklesslyflingdowntheswordandtaketoheart severalpointsthatstandoutfromthemeticulouslyscholarlytexthehaswritten.

First,itunderscoresthereassuringfactthatthereare‘mainstream’scholars concernedwithfascism,totalitarianism,revolutionandmodernitywho,likeme, regretthemutualignoranceandsuspicionthathavegrownupbetweenMarxist andnon-Marxistwaysofapproachingsuchtopics,whorecognizethepotentialof eachother’straditionstoenrichscholarlyunderstandingofthesecrucialaspectsof modernhistoryandwhoareopentomoredirectengagementbetweenthem. Second,Roberts’scritiqueconfirmsmyoriginalhunch,namelythatthefourthinkersIchosetouseasalensthroughwhichtoexaminefascismthroughfresh (though‘borrowed’)Marxistspectaclesreallydoopenup,inwaysIcouldnot fullygraspatthetime,excitingnewvistasofunderstandingwithrespecttoboth FascismandNazism,andbyextensiontootherfascisms.Doubtless,alternative originalMarxistminds(e.g.Lukacs,Poulantzas)mighthavehadsimilarlyradical implicationsfornon-MarxistfasciststudiesinthehandsofanexpertlikeRoberts. Butintheiruniquewaysitseemsthataslongastheyarereadinaheuristicspirit basedongenuinescholarlyengagementcarriedoutingoodfaith,theyallcallupon non-Marxisthistorianstoreassesstheuniqueconstellationsofcrisisfactorsand potentialagentsoftransformationthroughultranationalistmovementsthat emergedinanumberofcountriesintheinter-warperiod,andthathelpeddeterminethenatureandultimatefateoffascismineachcase.

Thislineofargumentimplies(asIhadoriginallyhopedhoweveringenuously) thataprocessofhealthy‘revision’informedbysophisticatedMarxistperspectives isindeedcalledfor.Carriedoutinacollaboratively‘ecumenical’spirit,itcould integrateanappropriatelynon-reductiveversionof‘classanalysis’intothemainstreamstudyoffascism,resultinginamoresustainedandnuancedconsideration ofthe‘materialconditions’ofitsincubation,inparticulartheprevailingstateof financecapitalism’sdevelopment,theeconomicsituationofthe‘masses’,the strengthorweaknessoforganizedlabour,andthestate’sresponsetoitineach uniquecase.Roberts’sarticle,particularlywhenreadinconjunctionwithhisrecent reconsiderationofGramsci’sinterpretationoffascism,3 alsomakesitcleartome thatMarxistinterpretationsoffascismattheirmostsophisticatedcouldmake moreincisiveandlessflabbythewayhistoriansanalysetherelationshipofeach fascismtoexistingpoliticalelites,tothe(mythic)pastandthefuture,torevolution

andreaction,tothetranscendenceordestructionofcontemporarylaissez-faire financecapitalism,toliberalmodernityandtotheBolshevikalternative.The factthatRobertswrotehisrejoinderatall,andthushelpedlaythebasisforthis specialissueof EJPT,isinitselfamplevindicationofmyoriginalimpulseto ‘explodethecontinuum’ofconventionalfasciststudiesbybreakingdowntheartificialbarrierssegregatingthemfromtheparalleluniverseofMarxiststudies,no matterhowspeculativeandone-sidedmyinitialarticlewas.

DaniloBreschi’sarticle,writtenfromanon-Marxistbutdecidedlyleftist perspective,isvaluableforthisdebateifonlybecauseitputsempiricalfleshon theabstractionswhichsooftenhavebeenthescourgeofbothschoolsoffascist studies.Hehighlightsthekeyroleplayedbythefederalist,Mazzinian Risorgimentoprogramme(‘myth’)inlegitimizingMussolini’svariantoffascism, whichmakesitsimultaneouslyanon-revolutionarycontinuationof‘capitalist’ ItalyasMarxistsarepredisposedtoseeit,andaradicalrupturewith CavourianliberalismwhichcontaineditsownelementofGaribaldian‘national socialism’initsinception,whichthusimpartsitwitharevolutionary e´lan in GiolittianItaly.Itwasthisambiguitythatmadesomeparliamentaryliberals preparedtoenlistearlyFascismasanallyintheirstruggletowardoffthethreats ofsocialismandcommunisminthechaoticaftermathoftheFirstWorldWar, eventhoughanti-liberalelementswithinthebourgeoisie,themonarchyandthe churchcouldalsoseeFascismasaforcetodobusinesswith.ItalianFascism emergesasaprofoundlyambivalent,compromisedforcefromthestartwhich wantedtohaveitsrevolutionarycakewhileeatingitsreactionaryone.Oneofits JanusfaceslookedbacktotheRisorgimentoandtocontinuitywithrulingelites, thechurchandtheRomanlegacy,andisvirulentlyanti-socialist,whiletheother lookstoapost-liberalfutureinwhichthewholeethosofbourgeoiscapitalist modernitywouldbetranscendedinanewItalyandaneweconomicsystem wouldemergewhichwouldtametheworkingclassmovementaswellasharnessingcapitalismfirmlytothetranscendentinterestsofthestateasrevealedtothe Duce.ThisambivalencemeansthatFascismgeneratedempiricalrealitieswhich providegristtothemillsofbothMarxistsintentonstressingFascism’sreactionary,counter-revolutionary,capitalistnatureandthose(includingmyselfand Roberts)whoseetherevolutionary,andinmyterms‘palingenetic’,thrustof Fascismasprimaryfromtheoutset.Hencetheregimeinheritedfromtheearly movementafutural,futuristicdimensionwhichbecameapermanentcomponent ofFascism,nomatterhowcompromisedandadulterateditwasforpragmatic reasonsbyitsinherentreactionaryand‘bourgeois’elementandthesignificant roleretainedwithinitby‘theoldliberalrulingclass’.

ItisparticularlyusefulinthisrespectthatBreschistressesthat‘revolutiondoes notnecessarilyandexclusivelydenotetheradicaltransformationoftheeconomic frameworkandunderpinningsofasociety’.Thisinsightallowshimtorecognize thataregimewhichreplaced‘theinstitutionsoftheparliamentarysystem’with‘the one-partystructure’andintroducedamodern,collectivist(totalitarian)typeof welfarestatewasrevolutionarybothconstitutionallyandsocially.ButwhatInaturallyfindmostreassuringascorroborationofmyownapproachistheadded

weightBreschigivestoRoberts’spenetratingdeploymentofLaclau’sanalysisof theMazzinianlegacysubsumedbyFascism.Hehighlightstheimportanceofthe directlinkofFascism’sMazzinianismwiththephilosophyofGiovanniGentile’s neo-Hegeliantheoryofthestateandof‘actualism’whichheseesashavingaffinities withcertainschoolsofMarxism.Theimportanceofthispassageistwofold.It highlightsthefailureofmostMarxiststotakeseriouslyandengagewithindividual fascistthinkerswhosetheoriesrefutesimplisticequationsoffascismwithreaction, therebyreducingitsideologytoanapologiaforcapitalisthegemony.Thisisan untenableposition,unlessreactioniscrudelyreducedto‘anti-socialism’,andall fascistthoughtandritualaredismissedasthemystificationofpowerandthe ‘aestheticization’ofviolence.

ItalsoleadsBreschitoremindthereaderthatGiovanniGentile’selaborate(but genuinelyphilosophical)vindicationofFascismwasonlyoneofawiderangeof diverserationalesprovidedforitbyitsenthusiastsatthetime,theoutstanding commondenominatorbetweenwhichisthattheyallinuniquewayscelebratea ‘psychologicalandpre-political’fusionof‘thoughtandaction’inapalingenetic mythof‘communityregeneration’.Breschiproposesinhisconclusionthatasa basisforfuturecollaborativestudiesFascismmightbeseenasanoriginalfusion (orhybrid)ofagovernmentalliberalismthathadbecomestatistandnationalist witharepublicanismthathadbecomepopulistandrevolutionary.Itisan approachthatpartiallyjustifiesbothMarxistandnon-Marxistinterpretationsof Mussolini’sregime(whichincreasinglysheditstieswithliberalcapitalismasthe 1930sprogressed),andcouldindeedserveasavaluablestartingpointforrenewed dialoguebetweentheiradvocates.WhatisabundantlyclearfromBreschi’sessayis thatFascismistoodynamicandheterogeneoustofitanyabstractmodelordefinitionoffascism,rightorleft,butthattherearegroundsforreopeninginvestigationsintoFascism’snaturebypoolinginsightsfrombothsidesofthetrenches.Itis anargumentthatfrommypointofviewisveryencouraging.

TurningtoRichardSaage’sessay,whichincontrasttoBreschi’sislargelyconcernedwiththeThirdReich,isanaltogethermoresoberingexperience.Itsimmediatemeritisthatitoffersreadersanadmirablysuccinctsummaryoftheareaof consensusbetweenmyselfandRobertconcerningtherevolutionarynatureofgenericfascismanditspursuitofanalternativemodernity,aswellasacleararticulationofaparticularinterpretationoffascismthatradicallycallsintoquestionkey premisesofthisconsensus.Thisarguesthatitwasnotrevolutionary,notjustwhen judgedbyMarxistcriteriaalone,butmoregenerallywhenmeasuredbytheyardstickofthemajorrevolutionsofthemodernera.Byfocusingontheissueof fascism’ssuccessorfailuretoachieveautonomyfromreactionaryconservative forcesinbothItalyandGermany,Saageidentifiesanimportantbenchmarkfor evaluatingtherevolutionarycredentialsofaputativeformoffascism,andfinds thatinbothGermanyandItalyitsignificantlyfailstomeetit.Theythusemergeas apseudo-revolutionoracounter-revolution,butnotarevolution.Inwhichcase thereisnoneedforMarxiststoeventrytotakeonboardthepossibilitythatthey haveunderestimatedtherevolutionarypotentialoffascism.Thereisnocaseto answer.

Saageacceptstheargumentthatfascisminbothcasesmighthaveaspiredto achieveautonomyfromtheoldpoliticalorder,butneithersucceeded,leading Fascismtoremainboggeddownincompromisewiththeoldorder,andNazism ultimatelytoembarkonanorgyofdestructionduetoitsinabilityto‘giveitself positiveandconstructivegoals’.Bythesametoken,Fascism’smodernizationof Italywaslargelyaprocessofabackwardcountry‘catchingup’withitscontemporaries,whileNazism,thoughitinheritedahighlyadvancedindustrialnation, failedtoestablishitselfastheprotagonistoftheradicaltechnologicalrevolutionit aspiredtodeliver.Thiswasbecausethedysfunctionalbureaucracyofthestate systemitcreatedimpededratherthanpromotedtheemergenceofaturbo-powered capitalismandsciencetocarryitout.Inanycaseitswareconomy’srelianceon slaveandconcentrationcamplabourisinconsistentwithagenuinelymodern technologicalrevolution.ThusNazismwasanewcounter-revolutioninwhicha totalitariansystemusedindustrialsocietytodestroythe‘ideaof1789’.

Thisargumentcutsthegroundfromunder‘our’feetbyradicallycallinginto questionthepremisethatfascismcanberegardedasrevolutionaryandpursuingan alternativemodernity.SaagegoesontostressthatinanycaseonlyBonapartist approachestofascism,withtheiremphasisontherelativeautonomyof Bonapartismfromthebourgeoispowerbasesitservesapproximatetotheview offascismastranscendingcapitalism,andeventhenonlyinthemostlimitedsense, whiletheSoviet‘agenttheory’remainsintransigentlyresolutelyopposedevento thisconcessionoffascism’snon-capitalist,non-reactionarynature.However,just whenallseemedlost,anolivebranchofpotentialreconciliation,oratleastthe basisforfruitfulnegotiation,isofferedwhenSaageoutoftheblueintroducesthe anomalouscaseofGyorgyLukacs,whothoughclosetotheagenttheory,conceded thatfascism‘developedintoasemi-autonomouspolitico-economicentity’andat leastpartially‘transcendedtherestrictiveconditionsofitssocietyoforigin’(i.e. bourgeoiscapitalistsociety).Saage’ssuggestionisthatfruitfuldebatebetween Marxistsandnon-Marxistsmighteventuallyemergeontheissuewhethertherelativepoliticalandeconomicautonomygainedbyfascismfrom‘liberal’capitalism anddemocracywasnotalsoaccompaniedbyadegreeofcorresponding ideological autonomyaswell.

Thislineofreasoningwouldcertainlybeconsistentwiththestressinclassical Marxismonthewaychangesinideologicalsuperstructurefollowfromtransformationsofthematerial‘base’.Atthispointtheintriguingprospectopensupthat evenhard-lineMarxistsofapost-Trotskyorpost-Dimitrovdispositionmightone daybepreparedthroughanelaborationofLukacs’sargumentstorecognizethat thehallmarkofthisideologicalreflectionoffascism’semergenceasasemi-autonomousentitywasitsvisionofanultranationalistrebirthastheNewConsensus claims,whilefortheirpartNewConsensushistorianswouldconcedethatfascism neverstruggledentirelyfreefromcapitalist(andinthecaseofItalyevenfeudal) society,nomatterhowresolutelyandbloodilyittried,andcouldnevercompletely concealitsoriginsinprefascistbourgeoisultranationalism.

IamgratefultoSaageforidentifyinginLukacsathinkerwhoseideashave sufficientresonanceinMarxistcirclesforsomesortofdialoguetobeopened.

However,themainvalueofhisarticleformyownunderstandingoffascismisthat itslucidityinidentifyingthekeypointsofdifferentthatseparateushasallowedme toseepreciselywhere‘theshoeispinching(myfoot)’,asaGermansayinggoes. Ibelievethattheutopiathatfascistspursuedwasfarmoreradicalinbothregimes, andthattheytookfarmoreradicalstepstoachieveitinbothcountriesthanhe implies,andthaneventhemostLukacsianMarxistswillprobablyeveraccept. UndertheFascistsanelaborateprogrammeofsociallyengineeringwasundertaken tomass-produce(intypicallymodern,Tayloristfashion)anewtypeofItalian: healthy,patriotic,courageous,industrious,selflesslydedicatedtoservice,selfless intheeffortand‘sacrifice’fortheNewItaly,anddistinctly unbourgeois.Certainly theanthropologicalprojectof uomofascista wasdoomed,theCorporatisteconomy failedandtheradicalfutural‘movement’within fascism neverbrokefreefromthe reactionaryelementswithinthePartyorfromitsevenmoreconservativeallies. But,apartfromthefactnomodernrevolutionhassucceededinrealizingitsutopia, thereisabundantevidencethathard-coreFascistswerecommitteduntilthebitter endtocreatingaThirdWaybetweenliberalismandcommunismwhichwould allowcontemporaryhumanitytosolvethecrisisofcivilization.Inshort,Itake thepalingeneticmythofFascismmoreseriouslythanSaageandseeithavinga moreradicaldegreeofgenuinerevolutionarychargeanddrivetoabsorbthebourgeoisieratherthanbeabsorbedbythemthancanbeaccommodatedinthe Bonapartisttheoryoffascism.IagreewithSaage,however,thatitwouldbein thatareaof‘problematic’thatafruitfulhistoricaldebatecouldtakeplace.

InthecaseofNazismIwouldarguethathard-coreNazistookseriouslythetask ofrealizinganebulousvisionofafutureneworderinarebornGermanyprotected byavastimperialhinterlandpurgedofcommunism,Jews,liberalism,humanism andinternationalfinancecapitalism,apost-democraticandpost-Christian Germanyrepletewithnewinstitutions,buildings,art,culturecoordinatedwith racistprinciples,andpopulatedbyanewtypeofmentallyandphysically‘healthy’ GermaninanAryanizedEurope.IfthisisnotarevolutionaryprojectIdonot knowwhatis,andmillionsoflivesandpreciousmilitaryresourceswereexpended inpursuingit.Fromthisperspective,theregime’s‘nihilistic’genocidalpoliticswere theinitialpurgingphaseinavastexperimentalactof‘creativedestruction’.Noris thispurespeculationorabstracttheorizing.Itisclearfromthedetailedempirical workonHitler’scareer,4 theNazieconomy,5 Naziarchitecture,6 Naziracialpolitics,7 indeedwhereveryoulook,thattheregime’s‘essence’wasfarfrombeingjust acounter-revolutionarywarofdestructionagainstthehumanisticprinciplesof 1789(includingtheirBolshevikpermutation),Judaism(identifiedwithfinancecapitalismanddecadence)andactuallyexistingmodernity.Itsmostradicalactivists aspiredtomorethanconstructingapremodernsocietywithmoderntrappings(a positionwhichseemstooweasmuchtoHenryTurnerandErnstNolteasto Marxisttheorizing).Itwasabidtogobacktoastagebeforethebeginningof moderndecadence,before1789,withthehistoricalimaginationinordertobuilda newtypeofmodernity,alogicthatisfamiliartoanystudentofPicasso,Nietzsche, Heideggerorsuchartisticandsocialmovementsasprimitivism,expressionism, theosophy,orthe‘Lebensreformbewegung’(LifeReform).Thus,andthiswhat

IwouldlikeMarxiststo‘takeonboard’withoutabandoningcrucialelementsof theirowntraditionofscholarship,themanifestationsofafuturalradicalismof Nazismwerenomere‘clothes’asSaagecontends,anymorethanitsrevolutionwas merepropaganda,asErnstBlochargued:‘Themostterriblewhiteterroragainst peopleandsocialismtheworldhaseverseentakesonasocialistdisguise.Tothis enditspropagandamustdeveloparevolutionaryfac¸adewithtrappingsoftheParis Commune.’8

ThevisionsofNazieugenicists,technocratsandfellowtravellerssuchasErnst JungerandGottfriedBenn,andcertainlyoftheleadershipitself,9 pointtosomethingfarmoreradical,aschemethatwasneverrealizedandwasinessenceunrealizable.Nevertheless,followingthislogicNazismistobeseenasanabortive revolutiontocreateanalternativemodernitybasedonmythicpremodern,predecadentfoundationsandsomethingfarmoreambitiousandcreativethanacounterrevolution.The‘waronmodernity’remindsme(touseaNazi-stylebiological metaphor)ofcuttingoffagangrenouslimbbygoingrightbacktothehealthy livingfleshsothatanewtypeofmodernitycouldbegraftedon.TheNazimotorwayswerenomore‘propagandistic’thanthecultofaviation.10 Indeed,Ihavegone sofarastomaintainthattheFascistandNaziregimesaspiredtobe modernist states,anargumentwhichiscertainlyindigestibletomostontheleft.11

IfBreschi’spositiongrudginglyofferspartialcorroborationoftheNew ConsensusandSaagebelatedlyoffersastidingsofcomfortandjoytheprospect ofapost-Lukacsianacknowledgmentoffascism’srelativeideologicalautonomy fromcapitalism,Pellicani’sessayhastheeffectofashotof grappa inthewintry cold.Itprovidesapositivelyexhilaratingendorsementofoneofthecornerstonesof myoriginalessay:theessentiallyanti-bourgeoisandanti-capitalistanimusoffascismingeneralandNazisminparticular.InthisveinhearguesthatbothFascism andNazismattemptedinverydifferentwaystocreateaThirdWaybetweencommunismandliberalism,anotherindicationoftheimportanceofseeingcapitalism andfascismas‘twoantitheticalcategories’ratherthanincahoots.However,there isstillamajorobstacletoconsensusbetweenus,whichishisassumptionthat modernityistobeequatedwiththeprinciplesof1789,withrationality,withthe universalityofhumanrights,withtheemancipationofthestatefromreligionto becomethechampionofliberty.Pellicanimaintainsthatmodernsocietyis,by definitionan‘opensociety’,whereasfascismproduced‘closedsocietiesgearedto war’,anapproachwithhasanelementofoverlapwithRichardSaage’s.Inour differentwaysbothRobertsandIbegtodiffer,orratherwe insist ondiffering.For usliberaldemocracyisonlyonepaththatcanbetakenbymodernizationand, moreimportantly,formillionsinEuropeanizedcountriesafter1918,itwasapath that,farfromdeliveringprogress,hadbecomeacul-de-sac.FascisminGermany andItalycreatedpermutationsofthemodernstatetoresolvethecrisisofmodernityresultingfromthecollapseofliberalismandtheriseofBolshevism,aswould allfascistmovementshavedonehadtheybeenabletoseizepower.

Whatismore,fromtheperspectiveofthemostsignificantsociologistsofmodernity,weareinthebestofcompanytoarguethisway.Weber,Durkheim, Tonnies,Giddens,BaumanarejustafewofthepioneeringstudentsofWestern

modernitywhoseeitascapableofadmitting alternativemodernities.TheWeberian conceptof‘charisma’,forexample,isanexplicitrecognitionthatthemoderncrisis oflegitimacycausedbythebreakdownoftraditioncannotnecessarilybesolved rationallyandGiddensforabriefmomentbecameTonyBlair’spoliticalguruas theprophetoftheThirdWay.Modernity,asaforceofrationalization,disenchantmentand‘disembedding’thusadmitsanumberofcompetingprojectsforamodern stateandamodernworldwhichwouldsolvenotjusttheproblemofintegratingthe massesintothestate,butaddressdirectlytheproblemsofbelonging,identity, anomieandpurposewhichliberalismhadfailedtoresolve,orevenexacerbated. Inthissenseallthemanyutopianmovements(anarchism,revolutionarysyndicalism)andtotalitarianandauthoritarianregimesspawnedbymodernsocietycanbe seenasattemptstosolveorsuppresstheproblemsofmodernity,andareantitraditional,modernattemptstodosonomatterhowmuchtheyinvoke(imagined) traditionsand(mythsof)thepast.Forreadersofanypoliticalpersuasionwho wanttopursuethislineofthoughtfurtherIrecommendPeterOsborne’s The PoliticsofTime,withitssophisticatedinterpretationofthewayundermodernity rivaltemporalitiescontendwitheachotherforpoliticalandculturalhegemony. Withonlyqualifiedsupportfromnon-Marxistsforaprocessofreconciliation,it wouldbesurprisingtosenseagreatwaveofenthusiasmfor de´tente fromMarxists ‘proper’.ButwhileRenton,WoodleyandYannielliallrejectmyoverturestotear downthebarbedwire,theyatleastarewillingtoleapoveritlongenoughtokicka ballaroundonthisdifficultterrain.Renton’schiefmeritforthedebateasIseeitis thatheaddressesunflinchinglytheissueofrevolutionandreactionthatdividesus. Indoingsohedrawsattentiontothesloppyscholarshipthatledme,inmyeagerness(desperation?)tofindalliesonthe‘otherside’,topresumptuouslyreadintothe greatWalterBenjamin’sconceptof‘explodingthecontinuumofhistory’aconceptionoftemporalrupturethathecouldorevenshouldhaveappliedtoNazism usinghisownidiosyncraticconceptofrevolution ifonlyhehadhadeyestosee. RentonmaintainsthatitisKautsky’sgradualistanddeterministsocialdemocratic conceptofprogress,notcapitalistmodernityandallitspoisonedfruits,that Benjaminisattackinginhis Theses asabelieverinrevolutionaryMarxism.He proceedstouseKautsky,notMarx,toilluminateareformistMarxisttheoryofa progresswhichcanbereversednotby‘replacingindustryinfavourofpasture’,but by‘purgingtheelementsofsocialdemocracy(thevote,thewelfarestate)from contemporarycapitalism’.Judgedbysuchrestrictivecriteriafascismisundeniably areactionaryratherthanaprogressiveforce,andthereverseofagenuinelyrevolutionaryone,sinceitdispenseswithvotingasthemechanismofadecadentsystem ofgovernmentandproposesawelfarestatebasedonethnocentricnationalor rationalratherthanhumanisticcriteria.

Second,Rentonrejectsmyclaimthatthereisananalogybetweenthefascist evocationofamythicizedpasttoinspireanewfutureandtheessentiallydescriptivefunctionof‘primitivecommunism’withintheMarxistschemeofthedevelopmentofthehumancontrolovernature.Insteadheinsiststhat,incompletecontrast toMarxism,fascismnotonlycultivatespastimagestoinspirerebirth(palingenesis) like‘almosteverytradition’,butit‘staredlovinglyonimagesofsubordination, 8

sufferinganddeath’thatsetitapartfromotherideologiesofchangeandunderline itsregressivenature.Consistentwiththis,hestressesthatforBenjamintheprotractedcatastropheofprogressthatispilingupwreckagebeforetheeyesofthe AngelofHistoryistheresultofthedestructivepowerofcapitalismwhichwas reachingitsapogeewhenhewaswriting,anditwasonly‘therevolutionaryclasses’ (i.e.theleft),fromwhichfascistswereexcluded‘bydefinition’,thatwereina positiontoexplodethecontinuumofahistory,onethat included fascismasthe continuationofcapitalism,tobringabout‘humanliberation’.Inhisconclusion Rentonexplicitlyconfinestheterm‘revolution’tomomentsofhistoricalchange which‘provide both greaterfairness and theactualityofparticipation’.Onlysuch momentsdeservetobecalled‘revolutionary’.

Renton’spositionisexemplaryinitslucidityandinitsowntermsunassailable. WhatithighlightsistheinsurmountableissueseparatingtraditionalMarxistfrom non-Marxiststudiesoffascism:theaxiomaticequationof‘revolution’withthe advanceofequality,democracy,humanwelfareandhumanliberationaccording toasetofhighlyvalue-ladencriteriaaboutwhatconstitutes‘progressiveness’. Thesecriteria,Iwouldargue,comprehensivelyprecludetheBolshevikand Maoistrevolutionsinpractice(whichthusbecomereactionaryaswell),andonly applytoalimitedextentto‘liberal’revolutions,asthevictimsoftheTerrorin1794 andofthecounter-Communerepressionof1871wouldtestify.Renton’sMarxian visionofrevolutionandtheprogressivenessunderpinningitisthusmoreutopian nowthanitwasevenwhenthe CommunistManifesto wasfirstpublished.Sucha semanticstraitjacketexcludesapriorithepossibilitythatundermodernitypolitical movementscanpursueradicalstructuralchangeinsocietybasedoncompetingsets ofvalues,arivalconceptofprogress,analternativevisionofmodernity.Bydismissingthefascistvisionoftheidealsocietyasa‘dystopia’,Rentonshowshimself incapableofacknowledgingthatthehorrorsofNazismwereproductofthepursuit byitsmostfanaticalbelieversofaracistandimperialist utopia.Iconsidersuchan elementaryconfusionafailureofthe methodological empathyessentialtounderstandinghistorywhichsurelybecomesunintelligibleifonedoesnottaketheactors’ ownvisionoftheirgoalsintoaccountasprimarycausalfactors.12

Presumably,asananti-StalinistMarxist,RentonwouldconcedethatthehorrorsoftheGulagsandtheUkrainianfamineweretheproductof(aperversion of)theMarxist-Leninistutopia,nota deliberate dystopianandhencesadisticnihilistic-sociopathicattempttodestroythefruitsofdemocratichumanprogress andsystematicallyinflictmasssufferinganddeathincynicallyplannedhecatombsofreactionaryviolenceagainstfairness,participationandhumanity itself.WhycannotbothStalinismandHitlerismbothbeseenasfailedrevolutions againsttheliberalsystem,bothpursuingdifferentvisionsofutopiawithcatastrophicoutcomesofsimilarmagnitude,evenifmotivatedbyconflictingvisions oftheidealfuture,andevenifStalinismultimatelyoriginatedinanundeniably more‘humane’teleologicalviewofhistory?Bothtotalitarianismscanbeutterly condemnedbyhumanisticorsocialistcriteriawithoutdenyingtheirrevolutionary intent inthemindsoftheirprotagonistsandexecutioners,northeirexplosive, thoughhorrific,impactonthecontinuumofhistory.Inshort,Istillfindit

tragicallyironicthatBenjamin,avictimofNazismwhohadsuchapowerful senseoftheroleofmythintherevolutionarymoment,operatedsucharestrictive ideaofrevolutionandprogressthathecouldnotacknowledgethatbythe1930s Stalin’sregimewaspilingupwreckageandhurlingbacktheAngelofHistory evenmoredisastrouslythansocialdemocracyorliberalcapitalismatthetime. Thiswouldhavehelpedhimseethatthecontemporaryfascismthatwasdestroyinghislifewasnosimplecontinuationofcapitalismandexemplifiedtheevocationofthepasttoexplodethecontinuumofhistoryfarmorepowerfullythan communism.Indeed,forhisfollowers,Hitlerembodiedtheintrusionof ‘Messianictime’intoempty,homogeneoustime.

FromhisownangleWoodleysupportsRenton’suncompromisingrepulsionof myattempttopressgangBenjaminintoprovidingasympatheticMarxistreadingof fascism’s‘palingenetic’conceptofrevolution,andisnolessdamningofmy attemptstosubpoenaGramsciasanunwillingwitnessforthedefenceofmy thesiswhenIcitehisanalysisofFascismasa‘passiverevolution’.Thepremise behindthishighlyarticulatebidtorescuethesetwogiantsofMarxianpolitical thoughtfromthefateofbecomingunwittingfellowtravellersofmynon-Marxist accountoftheattemptedfascistrevolutionisareassuringlyfamiliarMarxistdefinitionofrevolutionas‘theoverthrowofasystemofpoliticalorganization,leading toatransformationinthesocialrelationsofproduction’.Bythisisobviously meanttheabolitionofprivateproperty,capitalismandbourgeoisrule,andthe transferofhegemonytotheproletariatoritsappointedrepresentatives.In Gramscianterms,then,anyattempttoreadfascism’sattemptedculturalrebellion asrevolutionaryisrevisionist(andpossiblybyimplicationthesortofcovertvindicationoffascismtobeexpectedfrom‘bourgeoisintellectuals’),eventhoughfora fascistculturalrevolutionatransformationoftheprevailing Weltanschauung isthe preconditionforallotherstructuralchange(anextremevariantoftheGramscian principleofideologicalhegemony).

WoodleyclaimsthatBenjamin’spassageonexplodingthehistoricalcontinuum inhis ThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory isnotarecognitionoftheimportanceof amythicizedimageofthepastflashingupinamomentofdangertoinspirerevolutionarychange evenwithintheradicalleft.Insteaditistobeseeninthecontextof Benjamin’scondemnationoftheaestheticizationofpoliticsandthemythicization ofviolenceasfundamentallyreactionarylegitimationsofanauthoritarianpolitical force,onewhichsuppressesallemancipatory(andhence‘progressive’)movements. WoodleygoesontoreaffirmtheclassicMarxistpositionwhichrecognizesonlyone authenticrevolutionarymomentinmodernhistory,namelythe(Marxist)revolutioninsocial praxis whichisthefruitofthedialecticofmodernitywithreason. Whatdisturbsmeevenmorethanthesheerintransigenceofthisrefutationofmy argumentisWoodley’shonestbutdogmaticrefusaltoacceptmyinvitationto engagewith‘awkward’historicalfacts,orthinkatleast heuristically outsidethe Marxistbox.(Indeed,thefixationwith praxis seemsinsomeMarxisthandsto becomeasignifier,notofaconcernwiththepracticalimplementationoftheory, but,perverselyenough,therefusaltolookattheactual practice ofaregimeof eitherrightorleftthroughthesmokescreenofapreconceivedideology.Thevery

useofthetermthuscomesparadoxicallytosignalthedivorceofanengagement withhistoricalrealityfromutopianismandaprioriarguments.)

Thereisnotahintofrecognitioninhisrepudiationofmyargumentthatfascism,asPellicaniarguessopersuasivelyand empirically inhisessay,harboureda profoundanimus against thebourgeoisethosandthecapitalistmodeofproduction,orthatthisledtothesustained praxis inFascistItalyofexperimentingseriouslywithCorporatismasa‘ThirdWay’variantofeconomics,andinNazi Germanyofoperatinganeconomythatbytheendofthewarpresentedanunprecedentedblendofstateplanningandprivateenterprise,andoffree,directedand slavelabour,havingwithinadecadealmostentirelydestroyedtheinstitutionsand roleofinternationalfinancecapitalandlaissez-faire,market-drivencapitalismin thenewReich.Thusfascism,whenlookedat historically andnotsimplythrough Marxistabstractions,certainlyaspiredtobringabouta‘transformationinthe socialrelationsofproduction’,justnottheegalitarianoneproposedby Marxists.Again,itmustbestressedthattheegalitariantransformationinthe socialrelationsofproductionhasneverbeenimplementedinMarxist praxis NeithertheSovietorChineseMaoisteconomy,noranyotherrevolutionarysocialisteconomy,succeededindeliveringthisutopia,andtheSovietregimeresorted insteadtomassmurderandinternmentforthesakeofapurportedrevolution whichcanhardlybeconsidered‘progressive’.Thisleadsmetoaskwhichparadigm ofrevolutionisWoodleyinvoking,otherthanan ahistoricalonederivedfromthe hegemonyinhispoliticalthoughtandhistoricalreconstructionsofautopianideal of praxis grotesquelytravestiedinallMarxistpracticeandfarmoredestructive thanthedomesticsocioeconomicrealitycreatedbyItalianFascism.

Asfortheaestheticizationofpolitics,whatelseweretheStalinandMaoand KimIl-sungleadercults,withalltheirritualistictrappingstoconcealtotalitarianismofthemostheinous,reactionarykind?GramsciandBenjamincouldnotknow ofthetruthofthecrimesagainsthumanityunleashedbytheRussianRevolution, butpostwarMarxistshavenosuchexcuseformaintainingastateof‘denial’.YetI seenoacknowledgementbyWoodleythatbrutalpowerwassystematicallyaestheticizedundertheSovietregime,noranyhintofconcessionthatBolshevismwasnot arevolutionatall.Indeed,intermsof praxis therehasbeennorevolutionsincethe AmericanandFrenchRevolutionsaccordingtohiscriteria(andeventheircredentialsasemancipatory,progressiveeventsareproblematic).Asforthenotionthat Benjamindidnotacknowledgethepowerofmythicimagesofthepasttoprovide theaffectivefuelfor socialist projectstoexplodethepresentandhurlhistoryon anothertrajectorythroughtheinfiltrationof‘Messianictime’into‘homogeneous time’,thenwehaveclearlynotgotthesameeditionofthe Theses beforeus.When theParisrevolutionariesof1830(whoweresurely‘emancipators’andprogressives’)shotatclockstosymbolicallystophomogeneoustime,itmakesnosense rationally,butitmakeseminentsense mythically.Themythic,mass-mobilizing aspectofMarxisminkeyhistoricalmomentscanbeacknowledgedwithoutendorsingSorel’spalingenetictheoryofsocialchange.

However,themostfundamentalobstaclebetweenmeandbothRentonand Woodleyisstilltheunquestionedassumptionthatmodernitycanonlyadmitone

genuinerevolutionbentoninstallinganalternativemodernity,ananti-capitalist, socioeconomic,Marxistone,whichcondemnsallothertemporalprojects(even utopiansocialistandanarchistones)tobereactionaryor,atmost,andsomewhat grudgingly,‘counter-revolutionary’.Facedwithtwotanksladenwithpreconceived assumptionsaboutrevolution,modernityandfascismheadingslowlytowardsme togunmedownwithvintageMarxistammunition,Iamtemptedtoheadforcover, curledupinfoetalpositioninthenearestbomb-crater.ItiswhenYanniellitakes upthepenthatIcanemergefrommyrefuge,wavingahandkerchiefnotofsurrenderbutreconciliation.Havingconcededthatsomekeypointsinthearguments putforwardbymyselfandRobertsmaycontainagermoftruth,hestipulatesthe stickingpointinnegotiations,namely‘thestructuringroleofclassinhistorical development’.Atthispointhisanalysistakesasurprising,andsurprisinglypromising,turnbydrawingattentiontothecontinuedusewithinSovietthoughtof ‘revolution’,alongsideanarrowMarxistconcept,asagenerictermtoreferto ‘profoundqualitativechange’inpracticallyanysphereoflife.Providingprecisely thesortofcreativeMarxistresponseIhopedforwhenIthrewdownthegauntlet (orfiredoffmyfirstshotsfrombehindtheparapet),Yannielliproceedstoargue thatwhenhistorianslikeI,Roberts,orPincuswriteaboutrivalrevolutions,conflictingtotalitarianismsorcompeting‘statemodernizationprogrammes’,these subsume adimensionforclassconflictwhich‘we’blithelyignoreor,asinthecaseof Pincus,explicitlymarginalizefromthehistoricalprocess.

TheextendedpassageonthestudyofAmericanslaverywhichfollowsdraws onYannielli’sownspecialism,andcouldappearalongdetourfromthethemeof thisspecialissue.Yetitsurelyshouldinsteadbereadasanilluminatingcase studyintheway‘qualitativechanges’inthesociopoliticalorderinevitablyhavea classdimension.Thustheassumptionsaboutnaturalhumaninequalitythat shapedandlegitimizedslaveryin19th-centuryAmericacanbeclearlyrecognized byMarxists,butwithmoredifficultybyliberalsorsocialists,asintegraltoanera whichtreatedentirecategoriesofhumanbeings,whetheronsocial,class,economic,ethnic,genetic,ideologicalgrounds,oronthebasisofamythic‘normalcy’,asintrinsically less equal,and less humanthantheperceived‘elite’or ‘normal’typeofhumanbeing,whetherWhiteAmerican,Italian,Aryan,notdisabled,male,non-Christianorwhatevercriterionforthe‘fullyhuman’is applied.Itagainstsuchabackgroundthattheelectiveaffinitiesthatwere sensedbyUSwhitesupremacistswithNazism,theinstantrecognitionbyinterwarBlackactivistsofthesiblingrelationshipbetweenimperialism,whiteracism andfascism,andtheanalogieswhichYanniellidrawsbetweenfascismand‘liberal’imperialism,becomeportalstoanewdialogueonfascism.Theinsistenceby ananti-racistactivistfromMartiniquethattheculminationofcapitalismisHitler isstillprovocative,andIbelievewrong-headed.Nevertheless,Yanniellimakesan excellentcaseforassertingthatnon-Marxisthistorianswhoarenotpreparedto talkofclassshouldremainsilentaboutfascism.Whilewewaitforanewphase ofdiscussionsbetweenMarxistsandnon-Marxistsaboutfascismtobestimulated bythisspecialissueof EJPT,perhapsalooseassociationofno-man-landerscan beformedonfascismthemodeloftheIsraeli-PalestinianWest-EasternDivan

orchestrainmusicasautopiangesturetowardsamoreenduringpeace settlement.

Notes

1.ModrisEksteins(2000) TheRitesofSpring,p.113.NewYork:MarinerBooks.

2.RogerGriffin(2008)‘ExplodingtheContinuumofHistory:ANon-Marxist’sMarxist InterpretationofFascism’sRevolutionaryDynamics’,in AFascistCentury:Essaysby RogerGriffin, p.52.London:Palgrave.

3.DavidRoberts(2011)‘ReconsideringGramsci’sInterpretationofFascism’, Journalof ModernItalianStudies 16(2):239–55.

4.IanKershaw(2001) Hitler,vol.1, 1889–1936: Hubris;vol.2, 1936–1945: Nemesis. London:PenguinPress.

5.AdamTooze(2006) TheWagesofDestruction.London:Penguin/AllenLane.

6.EricMichaud(2004) TheCultofArtinNaziGermany.Stanford,CA:Stanford UniversityPress.

7.MichaelBurleighandWolfgangWippermann(1991) TheRacialState:Germany1933–1945.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

8.ErnstBloch(1991)‘InventoryofaRevolutionaryFac¸ade’,in TheHeritageofourTime, p.64.Cambridge:Polity.

9.SeeFrank-LotharKroll(1999) UtopiealsIdeologie:Geschichtsdenkenundpolitisches HandelnimDrittenReich. Paderborn:FerdinandSchoningh.

10.FerdinandEsposito(2011) MythischeModerne:Aviatik,FaschismusunddieSehnsucht nachOrdnunginDeutschlandundItalien.Munich:OldenbourgVerlag.

11.RogerGriffin(2006) ModernismandFascism:TheSenseofaBeginningunderMussolini andHitler. London:Palgrave.

12.OnthispointseetheIntroductiontoGeorgeMosse(1999) TheFascistRevolution: TowardaGeneralTheoryofFascism.NewYork:HowardFertig.