In his Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980), Stanley G. Payne argues in his conclusion for the need to get away from the habit of calling all authoritarian regimes fascist.
In surveying contemporary regimes, he could point to only two that fit his definition, Libya and Israel.
...I have been personally acquainted with a few European fascists who admire Israel as the perfect "representative fascist" state, with relative internal democracy but external integral nationalism and exclusivism. Israel is indeed in some respects a product of central-European integral nationalism, is ethnocentric, ultranationalist, militarist, and expansive, seeking Lebensraum and operating on the basis of a Herrenvolk and Untermenschen theory of sorts for the Holy Land. It is also a genuine functioning democracy, at least for its Jewish population, and functions as a Rechtsstaat, with constitutional scrupulosity, in its dealings with Muslims. No fascism there.
A much better case might be made for the Libyan dictatorship of Muammar el Qaddafi. Though riding a wave of oil, Qaddafi is a fanatical Muslim antimaterialist who is trying to establish a quasi-revolutionary system of state semicollectivism, a sort of national socialism. His interest in violence, militarism, and international expansion is obvious. Moreover, Qaddafi has written a book (the Green Book, translated into various languages) to spread his gospel of the Führerprinzip—the bonds between the leader and a united people of all classes, creating a "true democracy" on organic principles, which sounds for all the world like Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. And yet Qaddafi, in his system of state-controlled popular assemblies and syndicates, seems more likely to reproduce a radical, expansionist kind of "bureaucratic authoritarianism" (the phrase refers to Latin America) than a mass-mobilizing, revolutionary, single-party fascism. At any rate, he comes nearer the style and typology than anyone since Peron.
1 comment
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 3.8 ms ] threadIn surveying contemporary regimes, he could point to only two that fit his definition, Libya and Israel.
...I have been personally acquainted with a few European fascists who admire Israel as the perfect "representative fascist" state, with relative internal democracy but external integral nationalism and exclusivism. Israel is indeed in some respects a product of central-European integral nationalism, is ethnocentric, ultranationalist, militarist, and expansive, seeking Lebensraum and operating on the basis of a Herrenvolk and Untermenschen theory of sorts for the Holy Land. It is also a genuine functioning democracy, at least for its Jewish population, and functions as a Rechtsstaat, with constitutional scrupulosity, in its dealings with Muslims. No fascism there.
A much better case might be made for the Libyan dictatorship of Muammar el Qaddafi. Though riding a wave of oil, Qaddafi is a fanatical Muslim antimaterialist who is trying to establish a quasi-revolutionary system of state semicollectivism, a sort of national socialism. His interest in violence, militarism, and international expansion is obvious. Moreover, Qaddafi has written a book (the Green Book, translated into various languages) to spread his gospel of the Führerprinzip—the bonds between the leader and a united people of all classes, creating a "true democracy" on organic principles, which sounds for all the world like Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. And yet Qaddafi, in his system of state-controlled popular assemblies and syndicates, seems more likely to reproduce a radical, expansionist kind of "bureaucratic authoritarianism" (the phrase refers to Latin America) than a mass-mobilizing, revolutionary, single-party fascism. At any rate, he comes nearer the style and typology than anyone since Peron.