What do you think?
Rate this book
The Birth of Fascist Ideology
When The Birth of Fascist Ideology was first published in 1989 in France and in 1993 in Italy, it aroused a storm of response, both positive and negative. In Sternhell's view, fascism was much more than an episode in the history of Italy. He argues here that it possessed a coherent ideology with deep roots in European civilization. Long before fascism became a political force, he maintains, it was a major cultural phenomenon.
348 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
20 people are currently reading
989 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 3, 2023
New Review (2023): This is an excellent and sophisticated introduction to what Sternhell believes is the primary fascist doctrine developed by French and then Italian non-conformist revolutionaries just prior and subsequent to the Great War — before the seizure of power in Italy forced a wide-spread accommodation with many of the pre-existing institutions of Italy. This body of thought was no less coherent, he thinks, than Marxism (which had already suffered many alterations and deviations by this time. Thus, the “origins of fascist ideology” of the title.
Fascism was a synthesis between two very strands of 19th cen. European thought. First, the organic, integral nationalism of Maurice Barrès and Enrico Corradini which saw the nation as the primary unit (of which the individual was just a dim expression) that head its roots deep in occult realms of Romantik and the Counter-Enlightenment and which was intensely anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist, and anti-individualist. And, secondly, and an anti-materialist (i.e. Nietschean) and vitalist deviation of non-conformist (anti-Reformist) Marxists connected with the Cercle Proudhon, Georges Sorel, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist, and of which the polemics of the young Mussolini was the final culmination.
A very good book, and largely persuasive — though Sternhell’s strong emphasis on the French origins of this synthesis have proven to be controversial.
First Review (2012): This book is essential reading. Anyone interested in the subject should closely read the long introductory chapter which summarizes Sternhell's view -- among other things, he analyzes Fascism's roots in the anarcho-syndicalist methodology (myth) and aims of Georges Sorel, the movement which animated Mussolini's radical socialism; and the radical, anti-capitalist, developmentalist origins of the movement. Sternhell was sued for libel by certain French reactionaries, and the specifics of the case themselves make interesting reading/googling.
Fascism was a synthesis between two very strands of 19th cen. European thought. First, the organic, integral nationalism of Maurice Barrès and Enrico Corradini which saw the nation as the primary unit (of which the individual was just a dim expression) that head its roots deep in occult realms of Romantik and the Counter-Enlightenment and which was intensely anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist, and anti-individualist. And, secondly, and an anti-materialist (i.e. Nietschean) and vitalist deviation of non-conformist (anti-Reformist) Marxists connected with the Cercle Proudhon, Georges Sorel, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist, and of which the polemics of the young Mussolini was the final culmination.
A very good book, and largely persuasive — though Sternhell’s strong emphasis on the French origins of this synthesis have proven to be controversial.
First Review (2012): This book is essential reading. Anyone interested in the subject should closely read the long introductory chapter which summarizes Sternhell's view -- among other things, he analyzes Fascism's roots in the anarcho-syndicalist methodology (myth) and aims of Georges Sorel, the movement which animated Mussolini's radical socialism; and the radical, anti-capitalist, developmentalist origins of the movement. Sternhell was sued for libel by certain French reactionaries, and the specifics of the case themselves make interesting reading/googling.
August 19, 2022
A compelling explanation of the intellectual origins of Italian Fascism, tracing a line from Georges Sorel to Mussolini.
Sorel, originally a Marxist socialist, began a process of "anti-materialist" revisions of Marxism that eventually abandoned all of the original content, leaving only a belief in the necessity of revolution. These revisions were discussed and implemented by groups of "revolutionary syndicalists", who eventually evolved into "nationalist socialists" and finally "Fascists". It was only with this final turn that they self-consciously broke ranks with the Left and began fighting and exterminating the socialists and labor unions.
Some of the crucial revisions and the reasons/situations which led to them (note that explaining why these revisions occurred is not the same as justifying them):
- The failure of parliamentary socialism -> anti-democratic values must be cultivated, the political party must be abandoned (anti-liberalism, anti-politics)
- Socialist parties are weak because they believe that capitalism will evolve into socialism without the self-conscious action of workers -> science and materialism must be replaced with a belief in the human will (anti-materialism, voluntaristic idealism)
- Strikes require heroic, even violent, action -> violence must be idolized (anti-pacifism)
- Violent action is encouraged by a willingness to sacrifice oneself -> individualistic values must be replaced by a belief in collectivities (the party, the corporation, the nation) in whose service new values must be developed (anti-individualism)
- Social welfare reduces the desire for violent revolt -> social reforms become seen as negative (anti-reformism)
- Reason inhibits bold action -> myth and irrationalism must replace reason (anti-enlightenment/irrationalism)
- Finance capitalism is unproductive and harmful to society -> the distinction between bourgeois and proletariat is replaced by one between producers and parasites (abandonment of the Marxist notions of class)
- Neoclassical economics suggested that a true "free market" would be beneficial to all producers alike -> capitalism and private property must be upheld, the revolution becomes a rebellion against bourgeois values and not against economic exploitation (abandonment of anti-capitalism)
- Recent sociology (Mosca, Pareto) suggested that all societies are run by a class of elites -> a heroic elite must be cultivated (abandonment of anti-elitism)
At this point in their evolution, the "revolutionary syndicalists" in France and Italy have stopped resembling Marxist socialism or anarchism almost entirely. All they have left is a disdain for "bourgeois values" and a belief in a violent revolution led by elite "syndicates" of workers. But, when even the syndicates fail to be interested in revolution, the "revolutionary syndicalists" start looking for other ways to cultivate heroic revolutionary values. They toy around with using nationalism, imperialism, and warfare as ways to develop these virtues.
We can finally see Fascism take its "classical" shape: a cultivation of heroic, violent values, encouraged by fighting for one's Nation, is supposed to lead to a revolution in morality which leaves the productive economic structures intact. Social unrest comes to an end, not when exploitation is ended, but when everyone knows their place within a harmonious society working in the service of the Nation.
Sorel, originally a Marxist socialist, began a process of "anti-materialist" revisions of Marxism that eventually abandoned all of the original content, leaving only a belief in the necessity of revolution. These revisions were discussed and implemented by groups of "revolutionary syndicalists", who eventually evolved into "nationalist socialists" and finally "Fascists". It was only with this final turn that they self-consciously broke ranks with the Left and began fighting and exterminating the socialists and labor unions.
Some of the crucial revisions and the reasons/situations which led to them (note that explaining why these revisions occurred is not the same as justifying them):
- The failure of parliamentary socialism -> anti-democratic values must be cultivated, the political party must be abandoned (anti-liberalism, anti-politics)
- Socialist parties are weak because they believe that capitalism will evolve into socialism without the self-conscious action of workers -> science and materialism must be replaced with a belief in the human will (anti-materialism, voluntaristic idealism)
- Strikes require heroic, even violent, action -> violence must be idolized (anti-pacifism)
- Violent action is encouraged by a willingness to sacrifice oneself -> individualistic values must be replaced by a belief in collectivities (the party, the corporation, the nation) in whose service new values must be developed (anti-individualism)
- Social welfare reduces the desire for violent revolt -> social reforms become seen as negative (anti-reformism)
- Reason inhibits bold action -> myth and irrationalism must replace reason (anti-enlightenment/irrationalism)
- Finance capitalism is unproductive and harmful to society -> the distinction between bourgeois and proletariat is replaced by one between producers and parasites (abandonment of the Marxist notions of class)
- Neoclassical economics suggested that a true "free market" would be beneficial to all producers alike -> capitalism and private property must be upheld, the revolution becomes a rebellion against bourgeois values and not against economic exploitation (abandonment of anti-capitalism)
- Recent sociology (Mosca, Pareto) suggested that all societies are run by a class of elites -> a heroic elite must be cultivated (abandonment of anti-elitism)
At this point in their evolution, the "revolutionary syndicalists" in France and Italy have stopped resembling Marxist socialism or anarchism almost entirely. All they have left is a disdain for "bourgeois values" and a belief in a violent revolution led by elite "syndicates" of workers. But, when even the syndicates fail to be interested in revolution, the "revolutionary syndicalists" start looking for other ways to cultivate heroic revolutionary values. They toy around with using nationalism, imperialism, and warfare as ways to develop these virtues.
We can finally see Fascism take its "classical" shape: a cultivation of heroic, violent values, encouraged by fighting for one's Nation, is supposed to lead to a revolution in morality which leaves the productive economic structures intact. Social unrest comes to an end, not when exploitation is ended, but when everyone knows their place within a harmonious society working in the service of the Nation.
January 27, 2013
Fascism has left an indelible mark on world history, not only as a ideological period carefully quarantined by popular culture, but also as a continuously contentious subject for academics of all disciplines. Even in the otherwise chaotic microcosm of conflicting claims as to fascism's historical composition, it's causes or even it's nature, Sternhell's book has caused a unique commotion, and divided the scholarly landscape between his followers, his "fellow-travellers" and his critics.
The critics range from adepts of the Marxist interpretation of fascism ( who see, as many did at the time, in fascism no more than an obscene peduncle growing out of capitalism but fundamentally relying both practically and theoretically on it) to a variety of views, often economistic or considering fascism as an aborted and incoherent aggregate of contradictory concept, barely held together by an icing of style (over substance). Those take offense with Sternhell path-breaking, and somewhat blasphemous idea, of judging fascism as an actual ideology, without allowing it's historical consequences to overshadow it's innate characteristics.
The "fellow-travellers" have come to be the dominant school, some forty years later, of fascism scholarship. Although they learned from Sternhell the importance of culture in studying the regime's ideology (of which, unlike the critics, they acknowledge the existence) they still take issue with the most provocative positions of the Isreali historian: the most notable of those is probably the fundamental difference between Italian Fascism and German Nazism, which Zeev categorically refuses to regard as part of the same political genus, as do most of those "fellow-travelers". Sternhell's position that the fascism he studies was void of biological racism allowed for an interesting typification, that was to fuel much of the discussions of the relationship between modernism and fascism, but has recently come under increasing discredit ( for exemple here )
As for his followers, a certainly porous category as many seems to overlap with Griffin's consensus, they are sometime called the "cultural" approach - the large number of studies in fascist litterature, architecture or art that arises since Sternhell's publication collectively owes a great deal to his work (as to G.M. Mosse's) , whether they acknowledge it or not.
As to the book itself, it is essentially a tentative interpretation of the origins of fascism, not as a degenerate form of mass culture, but as a self-standing ideology, rooted as much in Marxism as in the new forms of popular nationalism that arouse from WW1.
Sternhell displays a flawless scholarship (as far as I can judge!) in terms of the nationalist movements, from Action Francaise onward, with which the ideology was already before vaguely associated, but it is really in his "marxist route" that the authors innovates: in his eyes the genealogy of fascism can be traced as much, if not mostly, to the shifty and (very) revised marxism of George Sorel, and of his fellow revolutionary syndicalists. His genealogy evidence convincingly what seems like early relationship between (French) radical nationalism and the increasingly unorthodox leftists (in France first, and later in Italy). Many of the most interesting characteristics of fascism are to be found there in embryonic form, from the importance of spectacle to that of the myth, irrationalism, violence, or social concerns.
In conclusion one could say that although Sternhell's typology of fascism has convincingly come to be shown as flawed, and his analysis of fascism as a totally autonomous ideology has been partly discredited, it has also, first of all, opened the way for the study of a fascinating aspect of fascism, namely it's culture. Secondly, it has also paved the way, as they themselves acknowledge it, for the now dominant interpretation of the issue. And last but not least, it provides the reader with many thought-provoking relations and interpretations, prompting her to wonder how much of this ideology, really, was ultimately instrumental, and maybe even more importantly, why is it that it took a Z. Sternhell to engage us in honest study of the subject?
The critics range from adepts of the Marxist interpretation of fascism ( who see, as many did at the time, in fascism no more than an obscene peduncle growing out of capitalism but fundamentally relying both practically and theoretically on it) to a variety of views, often economistic or considering fascism as an aborted and incoherent aggregate of contradictory concept, barely held together by an icing of style (over substance). Those take offense with Sternhell path-breaking, and somewhat blasphemous idea, of judging fascism as an actual ideology, without allowing it's historical consequences to overshadow it's innate characteristics.
The "fellow-travellers" have come to be the dominant school, some forty years later, of fascism scholarship. Although they learned from Sternhell the importance of culture in studying the regime's ideology (of which, unlike the critics, they acknowledge the existence) they still take issue with the most provocative positions of the Isreali historian: the most notable of those is probably the fundamental difference between Italian Fascism and German Nazism, which Zeev categorically refuses to regard as part of the same political genus, as do most of those "fellow-travelers". Sternhell's position that the fascism he studies was void of biological racism allowed for an interesting typification, that was to fuel much of the discussions of the relationship between modernism and fascism, but has recently come under increasing discredit ( for exemple here )
As for his followers, a certainly porous category as many seems to overlap with Griffin's consensus, they are sometime called the "cultural" approach - the large number of studies in fascist litterature, architecture or art that arises since Sternhell's publication collectively owes a great deal to his work (as to G.M. Mosse's) , whether they acknowledge it or not.
As to the book itself, it is essentially a tentative interpretation of the origins of fascism, not as a degenerate form of mass culture, but as a self-standing ideology, rooted as much in Marxism as in the new forms of popular nationalism that arouse from WW1.
Sternhell displays a flawless scholarship (as far as I can judge!) in terms of the nationalist movements, from Action Francaise onward, with which the ideology was already before vaguely associated, but it is really in his "marxist route" that the authors innovates: in his eyes the genealogy of fascism can be traced as much, if not mostly, to the shifty and (very) revised marxism of George Sorel, and of his fellow revolutionary syndicalists. His genealogy evidence convincingly what seems like early relationship between (French) radical nationalism and the increasingly unorthodox leftists (in France first, and later in Italy). Many of the most interesting characteristics of fascism are to be found there in embryonic form, from the importance of spectacle to that of the myth, irrationalism, violence, or social concerns.
In conclusion one could say that although Sternhell's typology of fascism has convincingly come to be shown as flawed, and his analysis of fascism as a totally autonomous ideology has been partly discredited, it has also, first of all, opened the way for the study of a fascinating aspect of fascism, namely it's culture. Secondly, it has also paved the way, as they themselves acknowledge it, for the now dominant interpretation of the issue. And last but not least, it provides the reader with many thought-provoking relations and interpretations, prompting her to wonder how much of this ideology, really, was ultimately instrumental, and maybe even more importantly, why is it that it took a Z. Sternhell to engage us in honest study of the subject?
May 27, 2025
Phenomenal intellectual history of Fascism. Interesting to see how syndicalism, revisions and distortions of Marxism, and of course nationalism helped provide the basis for Fascism. Should be a must read for those interested in the subject as well as a watching of the show Mussolini: Son of the Century.
Want to read
April 18, 2024Рекомендация:
«Мне могут возразить, что среди французских коллаборантов были и видные представители французских левых – или, по крайней мере – бывших левых; самые яркие примеры – Жак Дорио и Марсель Деа. Должно ли это говорить об идейной преемственности между левыми идеями (как минимум, в некотором изводе) и нацизмом/фашизмом? В качестве ответа я сошлюсь на работы Зеева Штернхеля, в частности на его «Рождение фашистской идеологии». Штернхель – историк левых взглядов, изучающий правые и ультраправые движения и ему принадлежит тезис, согласно которому «фашизм – это правая идеология, созданная бывшими левыми». Штернхелю хорошо удаётся показать как и по каким идейным соображениям некоторые крупные левые политики и интеллектуалы – прежде всего во Франции и Италии – в промежутке между двумя мировыми войнами и позже, уже во время Второй мировой – склонялись вправо, радикально вправо. Наличие идейной преемственности здесь не отрицается, иными словами, левые учёные (по крайней мере, их лучшие представители) имеют достаточно научной честности, чтобы признать тот факт, что ультраправые XX века немало переняли и многому научились именно у левых. Умеренно-правым исследователям, желающим «отмазать» фигуры вроде Морраса от каких-либо связей с фашизмом, есть здесь чему поучиться».
«Мне могут возразить, что среди французских коллаборантов были и видные представители французских левых – или, по крайней мере – бывших левых; самые яркие примеры – Жак Дорио и Марсель Деа. Должно ли это говорить об идейной преемственности между левыми идеями (как минимум, в некотором изводе) и нацизмом/фашизмом? В качестве ответа я сошлюсь на работы Зеева Штернхеля, в частности на его «Рождение фашистской идеологии». Штернхель – историк левых взглядов, изучающий правые и ультраправые движения и ему принадлежит тезис, согласно которому «фашизм – это правая идеология, созданная бывшими левыми». Штернхелю хорошо удаётся показать как и по каким идейным соображениям некоторые крупные левые политики и интеллектуалы – прежде всего во Франции и Италии – в промежутке между двумя мировыми войнами и позже, уже во время Второй мировой – склонялись вправо, радикально вправо. Наличие идейной преемственности здесь не отрицается, иными словами, левые учёные (по крайней мере, их лучшие представители) имеют достаточно научной честности, чтобы признать тот факт, что ультраправые XX века немало переняли и многому научились именно у левых. Умеренно-правым исследователям, желающим «отмазать» фигуры вроде Морраса от каких-либо связей с фашизмом, есть здесь чему поучиться».
January 4, 2015
written by an academic for an audience with considerably more of turn-of-the-century political knowledge than myself, i struggled with the references that assumed knowledge of a variety of political figures from that era, particularly at the beginning of the book.
given my limited knowledge base — i knew essentially nothing about the rise of italian fascism — this was a fascinating book describing how fascism was initially born from a series of overlapping ideological trends largely derived from a variety of marxist traditions. the key element in the ideologic stew of fasciscm was the Sorelian rejection of materialism, rationalism and utilitarianism and the replacement with the idea of myth creation as the essential element of political philosophy. throw in a dash of militant rationalism and dissatisfaction with the proletariat's failure to overthrow the bourgeousie and from a non-nationalistic class-based political philosophy arises a militaristic, corporatist dictatorship. fascinating stuff.
given my limited knowledge base — i knew essentially nothing about the rise of italian fascism — this was a fascinating book describing how fascism was initially born from a series of overlapping ideological trends largely derived from a variety of marxist traditions. the key element in the ideologic stew of fasciscm was the Sorelian rejection of materialism, rationalism and utilitarianism and the replacement with the idea of myth creation as the essential element of political philosophy. throw in a dash of militant rationalism and dissatisfaction with the proletariat's failure to overthrow the bourgeousie and from a non-nationalistic class-based political philosophy arises a militaristic, corporatist dictatorship. fascinating stuff.
May 12, 2012
Very dry, and it definitely reads as a translation, but a good overall introduction to the origins of fascism and the connections to other prevalent ideologies throughout Europe at the time.
Read
November 14, 2021"The birth of fascist ideology', as the tittle suggests, is an investigation of the intelectual origins of fascism. Its main theses is that fascism, as ideological framework, had already laid its foundations at the beginning of XX century, mainly developed by exotic radical syndicalists and erratic marxists like the french Georg Sorel. Zeev Sternhell relates the ideological core of fascism to the attempt to denounce the weakness of a degenerated society, plagued by rationalism, universalism, secularism, individualism and materialism - all of this being the heritage of the revolutionary waves that took shape in the XVII and have changed radically the intelectual and political realm since on. To put it another way, fascism was meant to be a rebellion against the enlightenment values of bourgeois society of late XIX.
Because of that, the intelectual forerunners of fascism had 'revolutionary' intentions as they tried to conceive violent means to bring down all those degenerated liberal values that they had denounced. Violence, by the way, according to fascists wasn't only an instrumental strategy to achieve political goals, but fundamentally a 'virtue' that should be glorified and exalted as the centerpiece of a 'heroic' society. Initially, fascists like Sorel did see the 'proletariat' as political subject capable of leading the struggle against the 'moral decadence' of society, but later, as workers were turning themselves into political asset of parties and institutions, thus losing their revolutionary drive, fascists started to become ever more suspicious about how the class struggle could be a proper vehicle to fascism's aims.
With the irruption of WWI and the state showing its capacity to mobilize the popular mass towards the passions of nationalism fascists did perceive the nation-state as a great actor in the shaping of a conscious prone to ''heroic voluntarism' so praised by them. The new society envisioned by fascists must be masculine, nationalistic and driven by the 'spiritual myth' instead of empty rationalistic principles. Therefore, at this stage, fascism had moved from 'class struggle' to the terrain of nationalism to run its ideological agenda.
Aside the ''myth' of violence and heroism, fascists also pretended to claim the ''national community' in contrast to the atomized individuals alienated from their community roots. Oddly, fascists didn't see any problem with market relations founded on the private property and competition, which means that they had conceived a harmonic relation among, nation, community and capitalist economy. That's one of the central assertions of fascism: capitalist order without its disruptive tendencies of atomization and alienation caused by the destructive impact of market relations on traditional commumties .
The book ends with an analysis of Mussolini's intellectual and political trajectory. From socialism to fascism, Mussolini manage to create a strong movement in which the nation had the prevalence. He was able to mobilize the energies of a fractured Italy in the wake of WWI and foresee an imperialistic redemption that should be brought by a modernization process. In the of turmoil of early 1920's, the liberal and conservative elite decided to support the fascists as the latter had proved themselves functional to suppress the communists and maintain the order. The original aspiration of fascism to destroy liberal values ended up historically with the association with the elite that had asserted such values at the end of XIX century.
Because of that, the intelectual forerunners of fascism had 'revolutionary' intentions as they tried to conceive violent means to bring down all those degenerated liberal values that they had denounced. Violence, by the way, according to fascists wasn't only an instrumental strategy to achieve political goals, but fundamentally a 'virtue' that should be glorified and exalted as the centerpiece of a 'heroic' society. Initially, fascists like Sorel did see the 'proletariat' as political subject capable of leading the struggle against the 'moral decadence' of society, but later, as workers were turning themselves into political asset of parties and institutions, thus losing their revolutionary drive, fascists started to become ever more suspicious about how the class struggle could be a proper vehicle to fascism's aims.
With the irruption of WWI and the state showing its capacity to mobilize the popular mass towards the passions of nationalism fascists did perceive the nation-state as a great actor in the shaping of a conscious prone to ''heroic voluntarism' so praised by them. The new society envisioned by fascists must be masculine, nationalistic and driven by the 'spiritual myth' instead of empty rationalistic principles. Therefore, at this stage, fascism had moved from 'class struggle' to the terrain of nationalism to run its ideological agenda.
Aside the ''myth' of violence and heroism, fascists also pretended to claim the ''national community' in contrast to the atomized individuals alienated from their community roots. Oddly, fascists didn't see any problem with market relations founded on the private property and competition, which means that they had conceived a harmonic relation among, nation, community and capitalist economy. That's one of the central assertions of fascism: capitalist order without its disruptive tendencies of atomization and alienation caused by the destructive impact of market relations on traditional commumties .
The book ends with an analysis of Mussolini's intellectual and political trajectory. From socialism to fascism, Mussolini manage to create a strong movement in which the nation had the prevalence. He was able to mobilize the energies of a fractured Italy in the wake of WWI and foresee an imperialistic redemption that should be brought by a modernization process. In the of turmoil of early 1920's, the liberal and conservative elite decided to support the fascists as the latter had proved themselves functional to suppress the communists and maintain the order. The original aspiration of fascism to destroy liberal values ended up historically with the association with the elite that had asserted such values at the end of XIX century.
December 12, 2019
Fue una lectura terrible, a ratos desesperada. Uno a cada momento siente uno que quiere aventar el libro por la ventana. Es posible que esto se deba a que gran parte del libro estudia periodos de tiempo y lugares sobre los cuales no tenía información previa. En caso contrario, el libro no me hubiera dejado tan azorado en algunos momentos, incluso en conflicto conmigo mismo por no poder mantener un ritmo respetable de lectura.
Las partes primera y última del libro fueron para mí las más sencillas, justamente por contar con conocimiento previo de los temas tratados. La parte árida fue la relacionada con el socialismo nacional de los herederos intelectuales de Georg Sorel ya en Francia ya en Italia. Lo bueno que saco de la lectura de este libro fue haber conocido a autores como Labriola o D'Ambris. Pueden ser útiles para conocer el pensamiento político italiano. No sobra agregar que la parte central del texto nos aporta datos sobre la historia italiana previa a la Primera Guerra Mundial, que no serán de menospreciar para el historiador o el mero aficionado a los estudios en tal ramo.
Pensé encontrar en este libro respuestas para entender el fascismo y me quedé con más dudas. La prolijidad de datos abruma, y no se sabe si alabar al autor por haber hecho semejante labor de recopilación, o reprenderlo por su falta de concisión. No obstante, considero que volvería a leer otro libro de este autor; es menester estudiar estos temas sobre la Derecha histórica y sorprende en el mundo hispano la ignorancia al respecto. Por esta labor de investigación, el libro, fuera de su redacción, merece todo mi aprecio.
Las partes primera y última del libro fueron para mí las más sencillas, justamente por contar con conocimiento previo de los temas tratados. La parte árida fue la relacionada con el socialismo nacional de los herederos intelectuales de Georg Sorel ya en Francia ya en Italia. Lo bueno que saco de la lectura de este libro fue haber conocido a autores como Labriola o D'Ambris. Pueden ser útiles para conocer el pensamiento político italiano. No sobra agregar que la parte central del texto nos aporta datos sobre la historia italiana previa a la Primera Guerra Mundial, que no serán de menospreciar para el historiador o el mero aficionado a los estudios en tal ramo.
Pensé encontrar en este libro respuestas para entender el fascismo y me quedé con más dudas. La prolijidad de datos abruma, y no se sabe si alabar al autor por haber hecho semejante labor de recopilación, o reprenderlo por su falta de concisión. No obstante, considero que volvería a leer otro libro de este autor; es menester estudiar estos temas sobre la Derecha histórica y sorprende en el mundo hispano la ignorancia al respecto. Por esta labor de investigación, el libro, fuera de su redacción, merece todo mi aprecio.
December 20, 2024
In many ways, this is an important, insightful work explicating fascist thought -- high-falutin intellectual history. However, Sternhell misses the obvious point that fascism was (is) an ideology of action, less concerned with ponderous intellectuality (how many of them had actually read Sorel, or even Kant?) than it was with extralegal ultraviolence. In other words, 20th-century fascism did indeed constitute an ideology of sorts, but one that was fundamentally negative (ultra-reactionary), rather than programmatic or policy-oriented. Zeev (gesundheit!) also provoked well-justified derision for his hair-splitting insistence that Nazism was not fascism - mainly because, he says, the former was more racist than Italian and French fascisms. Come again?
March 20, 2018
Engrossing intellectual history by Israeli scholar Zeev Sternhell. According to Sternhell, fascism in early 20th century Europe was no historical anomaly; it was a direct response to philosophical, political, and economic currents put into motion during the Enlightenment. My historical understanding of this period is limited, and I don't assume that Sternhell presents the complete picture of the period, but this account of the ideology that leads to totalitarianism deserves careful consideration by concerned global citizens everywhere.
Read
December 8, 2025 Quand l'antirationalisme devient un instrument politique, un moyen de mobilisation des masses et une machine de guerre contre le libéralisme, le marxisme et la démocratie, quand l'antirationalisme est associé à un intense pessimisme culturel, quand il va de pair avec un culte prononcé de la violence et des élites agissantes, alors la pensée fasciste prend fatalement corps.
February 3, 2021
Sternhell examines the stirrings of fascist ideology from the left and uncovers how important ideology was to the movement. He traces various strains of revolutionary theory from their origins in Marxist thought and follows these strains in their journey from socialist theory to fascistic fact.
April 24, 2025
He confirmed me that there used to be a few honest leftists who acknowledge the ideological root kind of lineage connection between Marxism and fascism.
Nowadays, some leftists would even cry when fascism is claimed as “querfront”. They all think it’s merely far-right out of their ignorance.
Nowadays, some leftists would even cry when fascism is claimed as “querfront”. They all think it’s merely far-right out of their ignorance.
September 23, 2025
90’s ahh red fascism theory
October 12, 2025
Bel coronamento della trilogia, descritta benissimo la genealogia ideologica del fascismo. Interessante e legittima la tesi per cui il fascismo è figlio del sindacalismo rivoluzionario, sbagliato affermare che già il sindacalismo rivoluzionario di inizio Novecento abbia una ideologia di tipo fascista. Nelle ultime pagine qualche contraddizione nel momento in cui si cerca di dimostrare che la concezione fascista dell'economia sia una riproposizione del liberismo (forse per dimostrare il legame con il sindacalismo rivoluzionario, effettivamente liberista). Anche la conclusione risente di qualche errore da risolvere avvalendosi degli studi ad esempio di A. James Gregor. Essenziale ma completo il capitolo sul percorso ideologico di Mussolini.
June 3, 2025
brilliant and compelling
December 5, 2010
A good complement to "Neither Left nor Right".
Notes how those who rejected the democratic reformism of mainstream prewar socialism drifted towards Fascism on the one hand (a cultural radicalism which rejected historical materialism and accepted the CMP as a given), or moved towards Bolshevism on the other.
Notes how those who rejected the democratic reformism of mainstream prewar socialism drifted towards Fascism on the one hand (a cultural radicalism which rejected historical materialism and accepted the CMP as a given), or moved towards Bolshevism on the other.
March 21, 2012
Absolutely brilliant! The first real history of the rise of an ideology - Fascism - that marked the first half of the 20th century. Zeev Sternhell masterfully guides the reader from Sorel's revision of Marxism, the fusion with Maurras's Action Française, to Fascism's intellectual maturation in Italy. What he writes won't be accepted by everyone, especially not by the Left.
November 14, 2008
It is enough to simply read the introduction to this book -- about 40-50 pages. It will teach you about the radical origins of Italian fascism. Good stuff.
February 14, 2013
What? Yes, fascism has philosophical origins buster, and don't you forget it!
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews