Robert O. Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism: A Historical Examination from 1889 to 1991"

Luke: Shatters the preconception of fascism as an ideology of right or left. Shows how it progresses, it's justifications for existence, how it occurs and what it's ultimate goal is. Somewhat into the book so far, easy to read, decently formatted, and quite gripping. A strong recommend.

United Kingdom on Nov 27, 2021

Alfred: Paxtons Ansatz kann mittlerweile als breit akzeptierter Konsens gelten (soweit das in der politischen Geschichte überhaupt zu sagen ist).
Sein Werk ist Standard aller Studenten in Seminaren zu Faschismus und hat einen recht breiten Fokus ohne sich auf einzelne Aspekte zu fixieren.
Aus diesem Grund fällt es ihm auch schwer eine knappe Definition für Faschismus zu liefern. Dies sollte aber eher positiv gewertet werden, da er im Gegenzug Reduktionen weitgehend vermeidet. Zudem schafft er es sehr gut lesbar selbst für den Laien einen umfassenden Einblick zu verschaffen. Der beste Einstieg für den Studenten der Zeitgeschichte, der sich mit Faschismus im Allgemeinen befassen möchte.

Germany on Nov 29, 2016

Dr Peter A. McCue: Robert Paxton is an emeritus (retired) social sciences professor of Columbia University. He contends that some books on fascism have given disproportionate weight to the words of fascists. His thoughtful, but not always entirely clear, analysis of the subject focuses more closely on the actions of fascists, and also pays close attention to their allies and accomplices. Indeed, he contends that fascism in action looks less like a fixed essence than a network of relationships (p. 207).

Writers and commentators often differ in how they use the words ‘fascist’ and ‘fascism’. For some, any sort of authoritarian, right-wing regime (such as the one headed by the Spanish dictator Franco after his country’s civil war) could be described as ‘fascist’. For others, the term has somewhat different meanings. However, probably all historians, social scientists and informed commentators would agree that the regimes of Mussolini, in Italy, and Hitler, in Germany, could be described as fascist. But words have the meanings we give them, and when we’re referring to abstract concepts rather than physical things, there will always be scope for ambiguity and...

United Kingdom on Sep 02, 2015

Matloub Husayn-Ali-Khan: This book certainly provides a brilliant, scholarly and highly perceptive analysis of fascism. The book clearly mentions the origins of fascism from its nineteenth century roots to the 'real' fascism in Italy and Germany from 1919-45. Generally speaking, most writers define their subject matter at the beginning: Robert O. Paxton leaves this to the end of the book - although he defines the word fascism as being taken from Italian: 'fascio', literally a bundle of sheaf, as I remember from my student days and I also can recall that this was taken from Latin meaning Fasces, an axe encased in a bundle of rods.

More importantly, Paxton's viewpoint differs markedly from many other writers on the subject in that he suggest that fascism should not be studied in isolation from other factors. He stresses that fascism should not be just viewed as a tool of a particular interest group and at the same time this tends to be a popular movement. Paxton concentrates on examining the development of fascism through five stages: "creating fascist movements; taking root; getting power; exercising power and the long-term (radicalisation or entropy)". In a sense, he (Paxton) argues that fascist...

United Kingdom on Jun 24, 2013

J. Gordon: Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism" is, in fact, more than an overview or introduction. It is focused on real Fascism in Italy and Germany from c. 1919-45 (but with adequate consideration of later developments and possible 'Fascisms' elsewhere). It is a scholarly and highly perceptive analysis of Fascism - by far the best that I've encountered so far anywhere. In a word, it is brilliant.

United Kingdom on Jul 15, 2011

William Alexander: As one of the few American scholars of the Vichy regime, it is perhaps fitting that at the end of his career, eminent historian Robert Paxton tackles the political-philosophical question of "what" fascism "is." What he produces is a slim, eminently readable work about fascist movements in Europe and beyond, seeking those tropes and similitudes that herald a fascist movement in action. This builds to a chapter in the work that details what he thinks fascism "is" (even though the word, he freely admits, can be slippery and still hotly contested in academic circles).

Paxton's conclusions are too detailed to present here, but the book is neatly organized around a set of key questions. They are, in brief, how fascist movements create themselves, how they take root, how they acquire some form of "power," how they deploy that power, and what the long term prospects of a fascist regime are (Paxton suggesting that fascism is, fundamentally, a "zero-sum game"). He then devotes a brief chapter to fascist and quasi-fascist movements outside of Europe by way of solid historical comparison, and concludes with his "definition" of what fascism is, ably summed up in other reviews in this...

United States on Oct 10, 2009

Antonio: Fascism is the genus to which Nazism, Falangism, Francisme, the Arrow Cross, the Order of the Archangel Michael, the Ustasha, and possibly also certain strains of militant Islam belong. The book provides a very useful primer to the subject (which, by the way, goes well beyond a standard insult for supposed right wingers). It is, however, addressed to college students and won't be much fun for those with an occasional interest, nor very informative for those who have already read on the subject. But even people familiar with the subject can always use a single refresher source. The bibliographic essay is excellent, and the copious footnotes are very rewarding (who ever knew that Iceland had fascists?). The book is not as fulfilling as Payne's, but it is much shorter and up to date.
Although these things should be obvious to any college-educated person, it is still useful to assert that third world dictatorships (such as Pinochet or Mobutu) are not fascist, that Fascism's symbols must be rooted in a country's culture (so that Swastikas and Roman salutes are quite useless in most countries), that Fascism could achieve power only with the support of existing elites but was not a...

United States on Apr 12, 2004