You are on page 1of 12

UCLA Center for European and Eurasian Studies UC Los Angeles

Title: The Rise and Fall of Fascism Author: Mann, Michael, UCLA Publication Date: 11-01-2004 Series: Book Reviews Publication Info: Book Reviews, UCLA Center for European and Eurasian Studies, UCLA International Institute, UC Los Angeles Permalink: Keywords: Facism, Europe, Twentieth century Abstract: Fascism was probably the most important political ideology created during the 20th century. In the inter-war period it dominated half of Europe and threatened to overwhelm the other half. It also influenced many countries across the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and South Africa. In Asia, for example, its influence was probably strongest on the Chinese Kuomintang, Japanese militarists and Hindu nationalists. My book Fascists (Cambridge University Press, 2004) is based on research on fascists where they were strongest, in six European countries -- Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain. In the book I ask the question, why did fascism rise to such prominence? And I answer it looking at the men and women who became fascists: who were they, what did they believe in, and how did they act?

eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide.

2 Class theorists elevate economic power relations in their explanations. Japanese militarists and Hindu nationalists. why did fascism rise to such prominence? And I answer it looking at the men and women who became fascists: who were they. emphasizing their nationalist values. Hungary.The Rise and Fall of Fascism Michael Mann. In the book I ask the question. 1 . E-mail: Mann@soc. My approach thus adds more military and political causes of fascism than is conventional – while trying not to neglect the economy and ideology either. Mann 1993). for example. To attain their goals. military and political. what did they believe Fascism was probably the most important political ideology created during the 20th century. and how did they act? There are two main schools of interpretation among scholars as to the rise of fascism. 1 2 Eg Gentile. The debates between them constitute yet another replay of ongoing polemics between idealism and materialism in the social sciences. all social movements wield combinations of control over ultimate meaning systems (ideology). Professor of Sociology. Asia. University of California at Los Angeles. territorial institutions of regulation (political). My book Fascists (Cambridge University Press. Most recently. economic. In the inter-war period it dominated half of Europe and threatened to overwhelm the other half. Both nationalism and class were important in fascism. 2004) is based on research on fascists where they were strongest. control over means of production (economic). Griffin. My general theory is presented in the introductory chapters of the two published volumes of my history of power in society (Mann. nationalist theorists emphasize ideological power. An idealist school has focused on fascists' beliefs and doctrines. control over organized physical violence (military) and control over centralized. But my own approach is broader. Yet all four sources of social power are needed to explain fascism. In Asia. In my work I identify four "sources of social power" in societies -. some of these scholars have termed fascism a form of “political religion”. Fascism also arose as a response to contemporary crises concerning all four sources. Fascism involved them all. It also influenced many countries across the Middle East.1 A more materialist school has focused on fascism’s supposed lower-middle class or middle class (petit bourgeois or bourgeois) base and the supposed way in which fascism was used to save capitalism when it was in difficulties.Austria. Germany. in six European countries -. Italy. Latin America and South Africa. 1986.ucla. Romania and Spain. its influence was probably strongest on the Chinese Kuomintang.

Fascists rejected conservative notions that the existing social order is harmonious. and they rejected socialist notions that harmony could be reached by overthrowing capitalism. were internationalists. They would “knock both their heads together”. The “threat” posed by enemies within and outside to national unity was the source of fascism’s aggression. Fascists tended to attack not capitalism per se but particular kinds of capitalism – finance. Fascist economic programs were consistent with this. Racially-tinged fascism. where these forms of capitalism dominated. (3) Transcendence (imperfect).I define classical inter-war fascism as the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nationstatism through paramilitarism. We have become distressingly familiar again with "ethnic cleansing". Fascists originated from the political right. planning and social welfare would be imposed from above. and they attacked both capital and labour. like Nazism.transcendence imperfect. social and moral development through corporatism and authoritarianism 3. Politically. Yet fascist “radicals” remained The notion that the 20th century saw the rise and fall the state as the bearer of a moral project is the main theme of Perez-Diaz (1993). This nation-statism could “transcend” social conflict. its state must be authoritarian. they rejected liberal and social democratic notions that the conflict of interest-groups is normal to society. capable of achieving economic. and interest groups would be brought into the state in syndicalist or corporatist institutions. In practice. though fascists also forcibly cleansed political enemies like socialists and communists. Though they hoped to subordinate capitalists to their own goals. fascism had a distinctly anti-capitalist and proletarian tone. with a singular. Yet transcendence was never accomplished. but other fascist movements were more pro-capitalist. Ideologically. When fascists seized power. In Romania and Hungary. spanning all the sources of social power. cohesive will expressed by a party elite adhering to the "leadership principle". not class. not conservatives. fascists worshiped state power. Fascists ultimately lacked interest in capitalism and class. (1) Cleansing nationalism. once in power. fascists wanted an “organic” or “integral” nation. Other ethic or racial identities cannot be “un-learned” – only physical removal can eliminate them from the nation. This definition contains four main elements. Since the nation is organic. Nation and state comprised their centre of gravity. foreign or Jewish capitalism. Private interests would be subordinated to national interest. (2) Statism. as authoritarians they believed in managerial powers yet lacked the skills to run industry themselves. 2 3 . they encountered a special problem. fascists leaned toward capitalism and made deals with old regimes. proved even more extreme. So they compromised with capitalists -. This is fascist “totalitarianism”. Fascists could not tolerate diversity. This brought them into conflict with the left more than the right since Marxists. saying this subverted the unity and “purity” of the nation. centre and left. which they saw as "the bearer of a moral project”.

1996).why did only one geographic region go authoritarian. Only when fascists neutralized armies by attracting their soldiers could they seize power. no Holocaust. That simplifies my question into -. with parts of this region later going fascist? The surge in authoritarian rightism occurred mainly in response to economic. Paramilitarism caged fascists rather like an army does soldiers. there would have been no authoritarian surge and fascism would have been a footnote in world history. World War I had been won by democratic Europe and America. and it won the respect of many bystanders. it also coerced their opponents. while socialists had already captured the Russian Empire. came lesser inflation crises. armed and dangerous. for they had their own distinct notion of revolution. Note that almost all the regimes of east. Before the War Europe was slowly moving toward democracy and fascists formed only small cliques of intellectuals. and probably no Second World War either. But all countries suffered economically. Fascist "betrayal" of their values is stressed by class theorists and by others doubting the sincerity or consistency of fascists (eg Paxton. for fascists could impose order and end class conflict through violence. In fact the Great Depression bit deepest in the United States and Britain. dictatorships of the right began to seize power. Their violence would "knock heads together". welling-up spontaneously from below.committed to transcendence. military. My explanation of fascism’s rise across inter-war Europe has two parts. No fascist movement was simply a political party – it was always uniformed. generating enduring conflict between them and “opportunists”. marching. Since governments were now expected to have economic policies to ameliorate hardship. But soon. Why? Let us first look at a map of Europe. 4 (4) Paramilitarism. The rightist authoritarian surge was unexpected. In between. So these crises are extremely important in explaining fascism. central and southern Europe went authoritarian. But many writers on Nazism have noted the way its radicalism was displaced from class to ethnic/ racial enemies. There would have been no Hitler regime. 1994. Paramilitaries were seen as “popular”. The first concerns the forward surge into power of a broader family of authoritarian rightists. focusing on the nation-state. The second was the rise of fascism within that family. the condition of the economy kept delegitimating governments. (1) Economic crisis came at War’s end and then again as the Great Depression struck in 1929. Without the War and the crises it brought. while inter-war economies were never very buoyant. though not in conventional left-right terms. Military power dominated fascist organization. while those of northwestern Europe remained liberal democratic. not on capitalism or classes. This combination made fascists “revolutionary”. Paramilitarism was not strong enough to overcome regular armies. political and ideological crises brought on or intensified by World War I. In Eastern and Central Europe the post-war treaties established supposedly democratizing regimes. They were “revolutionaries of the right”. 3 4 . in the mid 1920s.

religious and political minorities were accused of being linked to foreign Powers. But fascism cannot be explained in a similar way. Even in democracies where Keynes was ignored – as in his homeland. Perhaps capitalists used coups to force labour to bear more of the costs. Their budgets were threatened. foreign. finance and Jewish capital and liberal separatists etc. Authoritarian rightism was not the most rational strategy for increasing capitalist profits. Economic crises weakened all governments of the period. Italy. Military caste autonomy was threatened by demands for civilian control over the military by liberals and the left. and landlords felt that their control over old regime states might not last much longer. They were devising the first stages of social democratic compromise in Scandinavia. They occurred throughout the inter-war period. Leftists were seen as (Russian) “Bolsheviks”. Jews as “Judeo-Bolsheviks”. as stressed by materialist theories. They were devising corporate liberalism in the US of the New Deal. They still controlled many officer corps and ministries of the interior. But we must also consider another aspect of economic power relations – the question of class struggle. but they cannot directly explain fascism. These protected the survival and profitability of capitalism. it is true that some centre-left governments and the Great Depression were squeezing capitalist profits. Germany. Land reform was generally considered desirable across Europe. Nor did rightist coups tend to occur during economic crisis. since it did not rise in just backward countries. Hungary and backward Romania. so why not guarantee their property rights with military coups? Officer corps and churches reasoned similarly. was to preserve capitalism by boosting demand and prosperity among the population as a whole. coups occurred more often in the more backward countries. were all seen as both domestic and 4 . Hungary. but German capitalists might over-react to leftists on the principle “better safe than sorry”.and they stayed liberal democratic. repressed revolutions elsewhere (in Austria. Italy and Spain). while allowing some improvements to labour. But the trouble with this argument is that political elites in the northwest were devising much better strategies of profit-maximization than repression. I will explain this by the fact that the most developed economies (except for Germany) had already generated liberal democracy before World War I. The revolutionary left was defeated everywhere. They (and others) also had geopolitical fears. However. The Bolshevik Revolution had been followed only by failed. Remember that the primary goal of the northwest’s leading economist. Most of the rightist surge occurred after serious revolutionary threat from below had died away. True. Britain – the dispute split the left party and allowed conservatives to continue ruling. Ethnic. Was this a way for the capitalist class to keep its economic power? But there was no general threat to capitalist property relations across Europe after about 1921. So why did some of the capitalist class become so hyper-sensitive to opposition from the left that they reached for the authoritarian gun when neither property nor profits were much threatened? One version of the “security dilemma” stressed by recent political scientists suggests that people may over-react to a threat which is “life-threatening” even if the threat has a low probability of being realized. agrarian landlords were more vulnerable.. Keynes. Indeed. amid good economic times and bad. through Austria.The chance of a Bolshevik Revolution occurring in Germany after 1922 might be low. The countries with the biggest fascist movements were at all levels of economic development – from advanced Germany.

there were demands for the extra territories Italians believed they had been promised on joining the Entente side in 1916. mostly for revisionist purposes. Embittered refugees and nationalists kept agitating and even fighting in Austria. dislocation and a less stable geopolitical environment for all. Fear led rightists into dangerous areas which first threatened their “enemies” and later threatened their own survival. Churches feared liberals and socialists threatening church property and wealth and contesting their control over education. and in conservative Christian churches. Central. Civilization needed rescuing before modernization could proceed further. and secularism as threatening moral absolutes. Their militarism also became more principled. which had gained many territories. (2) Military crisis. Some of them even fought in the disputed territories. Churches also exercised ideological power over the community of the faithful. by state-led economic development. so were more political and military fears. and by the military ideals of order and hierarchy. and this included most of the countries of the northwest. It endured longer where “revisionists” were still challenging the peace treaties. liberalism as corrupt or disorderly. while the enemy became the antithesis of all these values. This could be done by a top-down populist nationalism. So though class struggle was important in the surge of the authoritarian rightist family. But this does not apply to Romania. which contained most of the defeated Powers. security. Order. hierarchy. socialism as chaos. moving them toward fascism. national rather than class interest become the primary slogans. In 1918 military power was not fully demobilized. eastern and southern conservatives saw modernity as desirable but dangerous. they seem more all-enveloping. and these regimes were able to confront all three crises mentioned above with changes of government leaving unchanged their basic liberal constitutions. and this will be an important part of my explanation of the rise of fascism. (3) Ideological crisis. Goals were displaced away from a narrow instrumental rationality calculating about economic interest to a broader “value-rationality” in the sense of Max Weber’s use of the term. They were severe only in one half of Europe. Combined. especially in more rural areas. As threats become more diffuse. Ideology was more a response to than a cause of crisis. Governments weakened by crises – for example. These values began to circulate especially among middle class youth in high schools. marriage and other social practices. by the Great 5 . The war brought defeat and territorial losses for some and demobilization. But military power came to matter in a second way: all the big fascist movements arose out of paramilitaries formed among veterans at the end of World War I. Even in victorious Italy. The northwest of the continent already had liberal regimes well before 1914. But ideologies became seriously destabilizing only where the other crises were severe. The military crisis was more severe in the centre and east of the continent. (4) Political crises offer the best explanation.foreign threats. Neutral countries and combattant countries which had experienced no territorial changes experienced least dislocation. universities and military academies. unworthy of democratic or (in extreme cases) of humane treatment. these fears worsened the overall sense of threat. safety. the sacred rather than the secular. Germany and Hungary. demanding that their “lost territories” be restored.

As in all families. They had the option of mounting military coups and militarized demonstrations and riots. east and south of the continent was only half-way through a process of accelerated democratization begun in 1918. Paramilitaries could finally launch coups -. The first cohort of recruits. But electioneering sat alongside a second form of “popular” struggle. Violence also worked. Fascists did not grow large in the northwest. banning some parties etc. This was deliberately “provocative”. but not specifically fascist ones. they could response to crises with coups or half-coups – declaring martial law. so that fascists could declare their own violence to be “selfdefence”. without whom fascism would never have got off the ground. so they could not use the power of the state to manipulate and fix elections (until after they came to power). Paramilitarism also brought distinctive recruits to the movement. This yielded authoritarian rightist regimes. where they came quickly into power. Apart from Italy. consisted largely of young military veterans transmitting wartime values of comradeship. but using military power as their main means. They were nobody’s dupes. proving they could end social chaos. They believed they had to also undercut democracy with alternative ways of mobilizing the masses.Depression -. where crises were not responded to by dual states and panicking old regimes. I reach the second part of my explanation. whereas the more democratic regimes of northwest Europe did not. Since old regime conservatives usually controlled the executive part of the state. I have emphasized that fascists were distinctive. part authoritarian. since fascist paramilitarism gave them superiority in street warfare. hierarchy and violence into a peacetime 6 . These were the real political crises. Yet some conservatives also began to feel that in the modern world repression was no longer enough. explaining fascists. by volunteer paramilitaries engaged in street-fighting. and they became pioneers in techniques of mobilizing militants and manipulating voters . Neither their organization nor their values allowed them to be simply a vehicle for class interests. They were more “bottom-up” than were other authoritarians. led by an old regime wielding some state repression while sponsoring mass political parties with nationalist and statist ideologies. including its military and police institutions. intended to produce a violent reaction from political enemies. electioneering was important to fascists. They could bring “order” to the streets. fascists were not already in power. it was vital to their success. This region still had dual states which were part parliamentary.Unlike the more conservative authoritarian rightists. Fascists were nurtured among the authoritarian rightists and continued to have close family relations with them. limiting elections. They went authoritarian rightist mainly for reasons of political power. They began to form top-down mass-mobilizing parties.were simply voted out of office. their relationships could involve love or hatred. Yet the centre. Thus the second part of my explanation must account for where and when fascists surged. So one half of the most developed continent of the world saw a conservative political offensive by the propertied classes.provided the army was immobilized by fascist sympathies.Though fascists did not believe in democracy. and another party formed a new government.

The Nazis won the German student elections each year from 1930 onwards – they won most converts among the best educated. The threat may have seemed substantial (though it had already peaked) in Italy. Italian fascism got most bourgeois and petit bourgeois recruits.indeed fascism itself provided their main labour movements. state-owned or state-protected industries. where fascism actually created the most effective trade unions. Fascists were gangs of young men for whom demonstrating. persons of all classes and various sectors. and Churches which saw themselves as “the soul of the nation” or “the morality of the state” – like Romanian Orthodoxy or German Protestantism. composed mainly of ex-soldiers. athletes and working class roughnecks. Its relationship to class was more complex. Fascism was its first great political manifestation. which (more than liberal or social democracy) was its main rival. hierarchical and violent “cages”. state employees (including armed forces). young females from much of the burden of childbirth. persons likely to cry “a plague on both your houses”. Yet patterns of class recruitment varied between countries. liberating young males from family discipline. It is not surprising that nation-statism should appeal most to those with a close structural relationship to the nation or state. Fascism benefitted from more general modern trends. while German recruitment (if we combine the party. Only weakened and factionalized old regimes were undermined by fascist movements. especially the profession of war. willing to give more of their time and energy than were activists in any other political movement. marching and brawling had a machismo attraction. Fascism had other distinctive core constituencies of support as well. fascism attracted those on the margins of such conflict.political movement. Romanian fascism was disproportionately working class. providing an entire social and material life for recruits. Germany had a large but moderate labour movement. but not German Catholicism. “threatened border” regions. These were the persons looking at class conflict from the outside. It resonated especially among embittered refugees. We see once again that class was less central to fascism than nationstatism. Instead. impressed by fascist claims to transcend class conflict. cadets. The threat from each working class movement was not correlated with fascist strength. slightly weaker ones had to borrow much fascist 7 . It did not much appeal to persons from the middle or upper classes who were directly confronted by organized labour. it was more apparent than real in Austria. the SA and the SS) drew equally from all classes. students. the threat was probably greatest in Spain. Romania and Hungary had negligible left movements by the time fascism loomed -. This militancy centred on the ability to cage young single men within comradely. the growth of organized sports. Fascist parties and paramilitaries were almost “total institutions”. These age-cohort effects were part of the growing cult of youth in the 20th century. in smaller or newer industries and the service sector. United old regimes repressed or subordinated them (as in Spain). where there was least fascism. Then the values were transmitted to two further generations of recruits. Fascism’s main strength was probably its attraction to young people. But the popularity of fascism also depended on the political strength and stability of old regime conservatism. Of my countries. and the growth of professions requiring more education. It did not greatly attract the organized working class – except in Romania.

I also stressed the influence and aftermath of World War I. but remained tiny minorities. giving its own distinctively statist and militarist version of “rule by the people”. From the 1970s in Europe. They demand the state be tough on law. some neo-fascists and neo-Nazis did appear but remained insignificant. That was how the fascists achieved electoral success. Fascism occurred only where dual states were ruled by weakening “old regime” executives and vibrant but only half-institutionalized parliaments. Its defeat brought a new world order which seemed to make fascist solutions irrelevant. There fascists did appear. are now a persistent feature of European politics. Fascists thrived on an already existing three-way electoral struggle. 8 5 . the German Republikaner. few disputed borders. the late Pim Fortuyn's anti-immigration List in the Netherlands etc. Parties such as Le Pen’s Front National and the Austrian Freedom Party of Haider5. Fascists could then swallow up part or all of the radical right while the centre was hollowed-out and the left repressed. This is closer to the state-hating Republican right in the United States than stateworshiping fascism. Yet they are full of contradictions. the dominant political ideal of our time. and to a lesser extent Austria) .a term of imprecise abuse hurled at people we do not like. So fascism has recently appeared mainly as the exclamation “fascist!” -. There are many more – the Italian Northern League and the National Alliance. the Norwegian FrP. or are there fascists reviving amongst us? I defined fascism as the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism. and revolution only in Asia. For example. Fascism had brought world war and genocide. the Danish DPP. but want the state off their backs. stable democracy and the institutionalization of class conflict. Much weaker ones enabled fascists to subvert them (as in Italy and Germany. Some are neo-liberal. it contained a serious economic policy. military veterans were forming paramilitaries. pitting the left against a liberal centre and conservatives moving rightward. World War II had opposite effects -. In the West the aftermath generated successful capitalism. I stressed that fascism was a principled ideology offering plausible solutions to serious contemporary crises. for they have reached up to 10-25% of national votes. class conflict was quite strong. Yet fully parliamentary regimes entrenched in the northwest of the continent survived all four crises with their institutions intact. Only a few crackpots and thugs have called themselves fascists or Nazis. Is fascism dead. In Eastern Europe it brought a seemingly stable state socialism. They denounce “the system” and “the establishment” but endorse democracy. and in most of the world it brought decolonization and mild Third World socialism and nationalism. though offering good copy for journalists. who wants business deregulated and the civil service cut by two thirds. when borders remained paramilitaries. We are now in the 21st to survive (as in Hungary and Romania). and the Great Depression followed. Fascism perverted this process. order and morality. “Populist” or “radical populist” parties of the right have recently seemed more threatening. like Haider. the Flemish Volksunie and Vlaams Blok. Fascism resulted because an attempted process of rapid democratization occurred amid profound war-induced crises.

They also endorse neo-liberalism so are not very statist. the leader of the largest Hindu paramilitary. emphasizing hierarchy. Secular movements like “Indian (Congress) Socialism” and “Arab (Ba’athist) Socialism” dominated their countries afterwards. They did attempt an absurdly rapid double transition to capitalism and democracy. as “fascist”. The Hindu Nationalist BJP party came to power in India in the 1980s. and a state enforcing Hindutva. Ex-Soviet Bloc countries might seem more fertile ground. Hindu nationalists emphasized hindu rastra (Hindu nation) and Hindutva (Hinduness). said of Hitler’s “purging” of the Jews “Race pride at its highest has been manifested here . but have no general theory of race or culture.. especially if they join coalition governments. But when these in turn began to decay..6 They seem stuck in electoral cycles. It is tempting to label paramilitaries in the Congo or Sierra Leone. Yet BJP leaders know that winning elections and forming coalition governments with other parties means restraining the militants. Parts of the South of the world are more receptive. losing them votes. But their problems mount with success. discipline. The main party is quite moderate. which they said the state must enforce. paramilitaries emerge. Hitler and Mussolini assisted anti-imperialist rebels in India and the Middle East. and they avoid fascism – which would prevent them from getting into the European Union or NATO. a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”. Since these quasi-fascists backed the losing side in World War II. Many want the state to promote development. European fascism is dead and probably buried. Gowalkar. Muslim and Hindu nationalists of the 1930s adapted fascist organization. and housing “threats”. Fascism comes closest today in religious garb. The single fascist package of statism. the RSS. Militants demand a nation cleansed of Muslims and Christians. and the major system parties then make a come-back 9 6 .They thrive on a single issue: recent immigration into Europe. nationally (as in Austria) or locally (as in Belgium). religious movements revived. some tinged with fascism. for they then receive more critical scrutiny. or the Tamil Tigers. no aggression toward other nations abroad. they declined. but not so the RSS and other paramilitaries. cleansing nationalism and transcendent paramilitarism seems absent. moral decline. Where states weaken and factionalize. But they lack the principled breadth of fascism and have no macro economic programs. which they connect to law and order. and they are not fascist. and which would dry up aid from the EU. Ethno-nationalism directed at internal minorities assisted by a “homeland” state next door. and no paramilitaries. But their regimes deny they are authoritarian. the US and international financial institutions. and Hindu nationalism offers little role “Skinheads” embarrass them. They do best where they can capture broader discontent with the traditional parties. paramilitarism and segregation of male and female activists. unemployment. They say immigrants are incompatible with their own national culture and traditions. Leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who weave statism and populism into a development project are closer to socialism than fascism. is often reinforced by military aggression.

though it would not call itself this. 10 . the rival name-calling reveals mainly that the term “fascism” remains a term of imprecise abuse.for the state in secular matters. Their long-term goal is a single Muslim caliphate. They can certainly prevent fascism reemerging. Fascism was secular in its goals and means. stalled democratization. but Islamism really is a political religion. genuine fascism might arise again.the aftermath of war. Look at Iraq today -. but some of the elements of fascism may well re-appear. The Taliban were ferocious on burqas and videos. Though Hindu nationalism does have fascist tendencies. stalled capitalism. it is very different from classic fascism. Jihadis do seek an authoritarian state which will enforce a utopian Koranic ideal. Since American pressure is increasing and becoming more militaristic. The term “Islamic fascism” is now used by Americans and Israelis denouncing the Islamist jihad launched against them. and they are essentially paramilitary movements. These might be the conditions for generating real fascism. Since socialism seems discredited there. under different names. to be won by naked American militarism is itself fascist. Nor has Islamism had much of a role for the state except to enforce the sharia. health or education. Jihadis are also a response to American imperialism in the Middle East (and earlier of antiSoviet imperialism). They thrive off national liberation movements but denounce nationalism. But by now we should know that varied compromise mixtures of capitalism. Capitalism and war will continue to generate crises. Is this “sacred fascism”? If so. But whether we human beings can learn from our past mistakes is unclear. some Arabs reply that the American vision of a struggle between good and evil. American legitimacy in the region is plummeting. while transitions to democracy remain difficult. but had no policies on the economy. rather than a secular ideology. these seem unlikely to rule India. Nor does Al Qaeda. but this seems an unrealizable dream. a kind of pan-nationalism. This is likely to empower the jihadis and strengthen their pan-nationalist tendencies. I believe that in the 20th century fascism so discredited itself that no major movement will ever again call itself fascist. numerous paramilitaries and foreign occupation. Yet they are muddled on nationalism. offering a sacred. However. socialism and democracy bring the best solutions to these problems. Of course.

11 .