By Michael Mann - Fascists: 1st (first) Edition Paperback – July 1, 2005

If asked to define Fascism, I could say "It is a vague epithet used by people who have no bloody clue what they are talking about, and who could not give a coherent definition of it if they tried." And this would cover nearly all uses of the term in the mainstream media and the internet.But there are people who care about defining their terms. If you are one of them, Michael Mann will give you a definition of fascism that is among the best. Not definitive, because there is no definitive definition, but thoughtfully derived and well-supported.Mann defines fascism as "the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism." And he is nice enough to give you the definition on page 13, though you have to read the entire book to understand how it was derived. This definition will be clearer if I explain the terms.Transcendence: Belief that the state can transcend social conflict and blend all social classes into a harmonious whole. Belief in the power of political ideology to transcend human nature and produce a better world. Cleansing (ethnic): Favoring one or more ethnic or racial groups over others, either by granting special privileges or imposing disabilities; deportation of ethnic minorities, or worse. Cleansing (political): Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles. Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything. Nationalism: Belief in the inherent unity of a population with distinct linguistic, physical, or cultural characteristics and its identification with a nation-state. Belief that the nation possesses special attributes that make it superior to other nations in some or all ways. Paramilitarism: "Grass roots", populist squadrism aimed at coercing opponents and obtaining popular approbation by acting as a supplementary police force.An interesting debate could be had over whether Republicans or Democrats have more fascist attributes. Given the Democrats' love of affirmative action (which amounts to shutting out qualified Jews, Asians, and Whites from universities in the same way that fascists limited Jewish admissions to universities to make room for "disadvantaged" non-Jews), their support for repressive "speech codes" on university campuses, their firm belief in statism, and their naive belief that human behavior can be changed to create a "new man", it could be argued that the Democrats are more like fascists than the Republicans. The Republicans have it over the Democrats on nationalism, of course. Neither has an edge in paramilitarism -- the few right-wing "militia" groups that exist make no attempt to influence elections or intimidate rivals. Development of this comparison is left to the reader as an exercise.Reading Mann's book -- especially if you have read other books on this subject or have a good grounding in 20th century European history -- will make it clear how these fascist attributes all tie together into one nasty whole. Mann's scholarship overall is very good, though his conclusions have been criticized in part by some (e.g. R.J.B. Bosworth and Robert Paxton, who are both worth reading). Notably, however, Mann (unlike Bosworth and Paxton, who are both historians) includes some simple statistical analysis to disprove widely-held notions about Fascist demographics. I think he does this fairly convincingly. I would have used a multivariate model myself, but if Mann had done so he would have lost most of the book's audience immediately; he has however reviewed such studies and obviously understands quantitative methods. Perhaps the use of even simple quantitative methods is what irks historians Bosworth and Paxton. But in my opinion, history needs a lot more of this, not less.After reviewing the rise of Fascism in Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Spain, with references to authoritarian regimes elsewhere (e.g. Portugal and Greece) Mann winds up by saying that "Fascism was a product of a sudden, half-baked attempt at liberalization amid social crisis." It occurred in countries in the south and east of Europe that had conservative and strong but decaying executive branches and relatively weak (and new) parliamentary branches. They were "dual states" without the firmly established democratic traditions that existed in the north and west. Fascists could work with the conservative executive branch to seize power under such conditions. But sometimes the conservatives just seized power and shut the Fascists out (as occurred in Romania and Hungary until late in the war).Some of Mann's final conclusions are dubious. He denies that "Islamic Fascism" is fascism because it is religiously and not politically based. But he has just concluded a discussion of the Romanian "Legion of the Archangel Michael," a fascist organization with, as the name suggests, essential religious characteristics. And a few pages earlier he has talked of Franco's self-described "Crusade" against the Spanish Republican priest-killers. To compound the oddness, he also says that "Islamic Fascism" is not fascism because it is not "nationalist", apparently forgetting that many Muslim nations are arbitrary creations in which nationalism would make no sense anyway (as we are seeing in Iraq) and that the only meaningful solidarity is religious.Mann concludes by saying that "fascist-leaning movements are most likely to occur in the south of the world" if "capitalist exploitation" of the south (PC for Third World) by the north (PC for First World) and "widening north-south inequality" continue. What cave has he been living in for the last 20 years? Does he read the Economist? Well, since "north-south inequality" is shrinking not widening, and "capitalist exploitation" is bringing joy to the world, I guess all is well.

Significant analysis of the economic, ideological, militaristic and political segments of nations that birthed fascism in eastern and southeastern Europe

Michael Mann's Fascists offers a thorough exploration of Fascism as a movement and ideology with a view to historical, geographical, social, national, and conceptual differences. Readers inside and outside of academies, concerning about Holocaust or other contemporary extremist disruptions in human history, will acquire their own lessons from the book.