Contributions théoriques de Nicos Poulantzas pour l'analyse de l'extrême droite contemporaine (original) (raw)

Studying Fascism in a Postfascist Age. From New Consensus to New Wave? 1

Fascism, 2012

The article suggests a way of mapping the remit for Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies by considering how far a "new consensus" has formed between specialists working in this area which conceptualizes fascism as a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism that attempts to realize the myth of the regenerated nation. It is a myth which applied in practice creates a totalitarian movement or regime engaged in combating cultural, ethnic and even biological ('dysgenic') decadence and engineering a new sort of 'man' in a alternative sociopolitical and cultural modernity to liberal capitalism. Having surveyed empirical evidence for the spontaneous emergence of a broad, though contested, scholarly convergence around this approach in the historical and social sciences in the last two decades, even beyond Anglophone academia, the article suggests that this development is part of an even wider phenomenon. This is the tendency for scholars to take seriously the utopian ideological and cultural dynamics of political phenomena once generally dismissed as exercises in the monopoly of power, of exercise of violence for its own 'nihilistic' sake rather than as a rebellion against nihilism in the search for a new order. It finishes with a reminder from several experts that fascism is not a static or immutable phenomenon, an insight that demands from scholars a willingness to track the way it adapts to the unfolding conditions of modernity, thereby assuming new guises practically unrecognizable from its inter-war manifestations.

Fascism: Left, Right, or Neither

2020

The article discusses a place that fascism has occupied on the political spectrum. At present, there is no consensus among political scientists and economists on that issue, as it has been extraordinarily politicized and distorted during ideological struggles among various currents of socialism. From the get-go, fascism was depicted by Marxists as belonging to the Right, while Fascists themselves wanted to build a society that transcends the Left-Right paradigm. However, few voices in academia pointed out that practical implementation of the fascists' ideas inherited from the works of revolutionary and national syndicalists exhibited predominantly leftist characteristics. The ambiguity of placing fascism in its proper place on the political spectrum can be confidently resolved by applying three main factors that govern political spectrum polarization: attitude to private property, the scope of individual freedom, and degree of wealth redistribution. The article argues that fascism is a particular current of non-Marxian socialism that utilized collectivization of consciousness and wealth redistribution as the main paths toward socialism rather than outright expropriation of private property on means of production. Simultaneously, it is acknowledged that private property rights were inhibited by the fascist state, even though de jure they were permitted. The fascist ideal of the "alternate way" had a logical inconsistency that produced an unstable equilibrium between labor and capital as between men and the state. The 2 politico-economic structure predictably collapsed to the left in the course of building a new society. Therefore, fascism would be correct to call the Right of the Left.

What difference does gender make? The extreme right in the ABC countries in the era of fascism

America Latina, 1997

Youths bomb synagogues and assault workers in Buenos Aires. A greenshirted audience salutes its leader, a Paulista intellectual, who addresses the rapt crowd in quasi-mystical language. Uniformed men fire on police in an illfated attempt to topple the Chilean government. Violence, imported traits from Europe, ideological devotion, anti-Semitism, and coups: these are common images of the extreme right in Argentina, Brazil, and .Chile in the 1930s and early 1940s. All are identified with men. Until recently, most scholars conflated the men in these images with the entire movements, taking their apparent maleness for granted. Thus they ignored the women who belonged to the extreme right, as well as the constructions of gender-male and female-that permeated it. 1 Adding considerations of gender does not contradict the images, but it completes them. It enables us to paint a fuller picture of extreme right-wing groups, activities, and beliefs. 2 Inserting gender teaches us about aspects of these political organizations that might otherwise remain obscure, particularly when one employs this perspective in a comparative context. In this case, a gender analysis of radical right-wing movements in the Southern Cone in the 1930s and early 1940s reveals their adaptability, extent of popular mobilization, and ideological ambiguity, as well as larger differences among them. These are the themes of this article. The period under study forms part of the era of fascism in Europe and, not coincidentally, these years also witnessed the growth of related groups in Latin America. The subjects of this article-the Chilean Movimiento Nacional Socialista (MNS, or Nacistas), Acc;ao Integralista Brasileira (AIB, or Integralistas), and Argentine Nacionalistas possessed most of the fascist

Class, State and Fascism the Work of Nicos Poulantzas

Political Studies, 1976

THESE three texts' have justifiably aroused great interest in Britain in the last few years. That all three are now translated provides a suitable justification for some assessment of Poulantzas' work. These three texts are amongst the most sophisticated and developed products of the Althusserian revolution in the reading of Marx by which the scientific character of his later writings has been outlined. The influence of Lenin and Gramsci can also be seen in Poulantzas, that of the first being mediated through Althusser, that of the second being more direct. Poulantzas is of course well known in Britain for various papers in New Left Reciew, and in particular for his debate with Ralph Miliband over the nature of the capitalist state and the proper method for its study, although in a recent issue of that journal Poulantzas seems to have changed his position in certain respects. In this review we wish to focus on a broader range of issues than this since it is part of Poulantzas' distinctive contribution to recent Marxist theory that he has tried to treat in a rigorous and scientific manner a wide range of topics that have roots in different Marxist traditions and writings. In Political Power and Social Classes (PPSC) Poulantzas attempts to theorize the nature of the capitalist state and in particular how it is relatively autonomous from the economic structure. (We should say that the verb theorize is frequently used transitively by Poulantzas to mean the construction of an adequate theory of the relations between elements as opposed to the demonstration of empirical connections between them.) The relationship between social classes and this form of state is also explored in PPSC, as well as in Fuscism and Dictatorship (FD) where he develops a complex non-reductionist theory of the development of fascism. In Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (CCC) Poulantzas analyses two aspects of monopoly capitalism: changes in the international division of labour and changes in the class position of the new petty bourgeoisie. Poulantzas would place his texts most firmly within the Marxist problematic of the general theory of modes of production. He takes it that there are two levels or stages of theoretical work. First, we produce the theory of different modes of production; each such mode consists of an articulated combination of economic,

Rethinking the Nature of Fascism. Comparative perspectives

2011

This book revisits the major themes of research into, and interpreta- tion of, the nature of fascism that have been developed since the 1970s. European fascism continues to attract a considerable degree of atten- tion, as the continuous publication on theme testifies. During the past 20 years the comparative study of fascism has concentrated increasingly on its ideological and cultural dimensions, at times becoming ‘ideology- centred’. We may even say that the analysis of so-called ‘generic fascism’ has moved from a ‘sociological’ to a more ‘political’ perspective, giving both ideology and culture much more importance than was previously the case. On the other hand, this area has become more restricted in disciplinary terms, with historians clearly dominating over sociologists and political scientists.

Exploratory Notes On the Origins of New Fascisms

Critical Times, 2020

This essay interrogates whether existent analytical tools remain adequate to identify and assess what is perceived as the revival of fascistic tendencies today, ultimately arguing that they are not. Fascism cannot be expected to assume the same forms it did a century ago. Class structures, resource distribution schemes, communication potentials, and modes of belonging and exclusion have undergone significant changes. To determine which of the traits of the contemporary power paradigm would foreground new fascistic tendencies, this essay first revisits some of the most crucial insights in Hannah Arendt's study of the origins of totalitarianism. Arendt's perspective is highly valuable in moving the discussion of fascism beyond the delineation of specific historical events toward a theory of fascist power. The point is to distill from Arendt's insights into the connections among imperialism, fascism, and totalitarianism a number of techniques of government that would enable us to repeat the gesture today, but this time within the biopolitics-security-neoliberalism nexus. The power paradigm that this essay (re)constructs is meant to contribute to identifying fascistic and totalitarian trends irrespective of ideological and historiographic differences.

‘Fascism… but with an open mind.’Reflections on the Contemporary Far Right in (Western) Europe

Fascism, 2013

The political science community would have us believe that since the 1980s something entirely detached from historical or neo-fascism has emerged in (Western) Europe - a populist radicalization of mainstream concerns - a novel form of ‘radical right-wing populism.’ Yet the concept of ‘radical right-wing populism’ is deeply problematic because it suggests that (Western) Europe’s contemporary far right has become essentially different from forms of right-wing extremism that preceded it, and from forms of right-wing extremism that continue to exist alongside it. Such an approach, as this First Lecture on Fascism argues, fails to appreciate the critical role that neo-fascism has played, and still plays, in adapting Europe’s contemporary far right to the norms and realities of multi-ethnic, liberal-democratic society. Political scientists should fixate less on novelty and the quest for neat typologies, and instead engage far more seriously with (neo) fascism studies.

Fascism as an Ideological Form: A Critical Theory

Critical Sociology , 2022

This paper argues that fascism is an ideological form rather than an ideological system. An ideology form can best be understood as a set of overall characteristics that distinguishes a class of ideologies from other classes of ideologies. This theory enhances our capacity for recognizing, problematizing, and critically analyzing both existing and potential variations of fascism. Fascist movements in different sociohistorical and geopolitical circumstances vary in terms of their belief systems, strategies, and politics, so conventional comparative methods and approaches that deduce their criteria from a particular model have restricted the area of fascism studies. I argue for a trans-spatial and trans-historical concept with flexible theoretical applications. My central claim is that fascism denotes a class of ideologies that have a similar form, just as a concept such as egalitarianism, socialism, sexism, or sectarianism makes sense as a form of ideology rather than a particular ideology or philosophy.