What do you think?
Rate this book
El fascismo
Este documentado ensayo se propone definir El Fascismo a través del estudio comparado de los diversos movimientos que han esgrimido ese nombre o que lo han recibido de sus adversarios. Stanley G. Payne establece los criterios que diferencian al fascismo tanto de la derecha autoritaria conservadora como de la extrema derecha. Los sistemas de Mussolini y Hitler, los regímenes de Franco y Salazar, la expansión mimética del fascismo en diversas naciones europeas y la difusión de sus rasgos doctrinales en otros lugares del planeta suministran un rico material empírico para la síntesis. En su búsqueda de una tipología del «fascismo genérico», Payne rechaza las explicaciones monocausales, subraya la complejidad de este fenómeno y apunta los rasgos comunes ideológicos, políticos y retóricos de una manifestación peculiarmente europea e históricamente enmarcada en el periodo de entreguerras.
252 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
24 people are currently reading
520 people want to read
About the author
Stanley G. Payne
81 books102 followersStanley G. Payne is a historian of modern Spain and European Fascism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He retired from full time teaching in 2004 and is currently Professor Emeritus at its Department of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
October 16, 2017
Written in 1980, Payne's book on fascism was considered one of the essential texts on the subject for many years. Even three-plus decades on, it is still a worthwhile read, though I found some of its analysis to be suspect.
It's similar to Carsten's the Rise of Fascism in many ways, though Payne does a better job of trying to talk about generic fascism as an ideology, without necessarily linking it to a specific government or movement. As many people have observed, adequately defining fascism is a notoriously difficult job. Often people end up sort of throwing up their hands and suggesting that every incarnation of fascism is different and the ideology is inherently protean. There is some truth to this, but Payne makes a good faith effort to pinpoint some specific traits that he thinks are necessarily present in any fascist ideology.
That effort makes up the first couple of chapters of the book. The rest is mostly dedicated to discussing specific fascist, proto-fascist, or other hard right political movements in various countries around the World War II time frame. All these chapters are pretty short, and we don't really scratch the surface of most of the movements he describes.
Some of the terminology Payne uses seems to muddy the waters--in particular, his use of the term "authoritarian right" to apparently refer to traditional conservative parties struck me as odd (and I am not someone to normally bend over backwards to be fair to right-wing movements). Same with his use of the term "corporate" to refer to unifying or totalizing forces between a fascist movement and other societal institutions. And Payne's refusal to recognize fascism as a ideology of the right hampers his analysis and is the ultimate reason that he never achieves a convincing definition.
I'm just embarking on an effort to do some serious reading about fascism as an ideology, and I think Payne was a pretty good starting place. If you're thinking of doing the same, you may want to check this book out. However, if you're in search of one book about fascism, then you'll probably want to look elsewhere. I'm told Robert O. Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism is now the gold standard, but I haven't read it yet, so can't say with authority.
It's similar to Carsten's the Rise of Fascism in many ways, though Payne does a better job of trying to talk about generic fascism as an ideology, without necessarily linking it to a specific government or movement. As many people have observed, adequately defining fascism is a notoriously difficult job. Often people end up sort of throwing up their hands and suggesting that every incarnation of fascism is different and the ideology is inherently protean. There is some truth to this, but Payne makes a good faith effort to pinpoint some specific traits that he thinks are necessarily present in any fascist ideology.
That effort makes up the first couple of chapters of the book. The rest is mostly dedicated to discussing specific fascist, proto-fascist, or other hard right political movements in various countries around the World War II time frame. All these chapters are pretty short, and we don't really scratch the surface of most of the movements he describes.
Some of the terminology Payne uses seems to muddy the waters--in particular, his use of the term "authoritarian right" to apparently refer to traditional conservative parties struck me as odd (and I am not someone to normally bend over backwards to be fair to right-wing movements). Same with his use of the term "corporate" to refer to unifying or totalizing forces between a fascist movement and other societal institutions. And Payne's refusal to recognize fascism as a ideology of the right hampers his analysis and is the ultimate reason that he never achieves a convincing definition.
I'm just embarking on an effort to do some serious reading about fascism as an ideology, and I think Payne was a pretty good starting place. If you're thinking of doing the same, you may want to check this book out. However, if you're in search of one book about fascism, then you'll probably want to look elsewhere. I'm told Robert O. Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism is now the gold standard, but I haven't read it yet, so can't say with authority.
August 16, 2018
Muy equidistante de prejuicios y emotivismos. A partir de la evidencia histórica, amplia, trata de identificar y hacer reflexionar al lector sobre si existe una categoría ideológica de aquello que se suele llamar fascismo o si no hay tal cosa como una ideología genérica que pueda denominarse con esa etiqueta. Definir el fascismo no es una tarea fácil para el verdadero historiador.
Un intento de taxonomía muy detallado, donde se explican las importantes diferencias (pero también puntos de encuentros, más coyunturales que doctrinales) entre la derecha autoritaria o conservadurismo autoritario, la extrema derecha/derecha radical o tradicionalismo, el corporativismo católico económico y político, y el fascismo / nacionalsindicalismo (donde es plantea la tesis de que posiblemente sea distinto del nacionalsocialismo). También se contrasta el llamado fascismo con conjuntos más amplios a los que pertenecería como el nacionalismo revolucionario y autoritario (el movimiento político más importante surgido en el siglo XX, que durante el siglo XX se ha asociado en gran parte a la izquierda), y las similitudes y diferencias con el comunismo (el leninismo en particular) y las raíces ideológicas marxistas (o post-marxistas) del fascismo / nacionalsindicalismo. También se contrastan las características del fascismo italiano y el nacionalsocialismo alemán con el concepto de totalitarismo, diferenciando los movimientos políticos-ideológicos de los regímenes o gobiernos; el resultado: el régimen de Mussolini no puede ser catalogado ni de fascista ni de totalitario (por raro que suene) puesto que no fue particularmente más autoritario que cualquier dictadura de la época, el régimen de Hitler sería protototalitario y pero con menos poder que el que se le atribuye en el relato vulgar, mientras que sólo la Rusia de Lenin y Stalin habría alcanzado a ser plenamente totalitaria.
Lectura muy recomendable.
Un intento de taxonomía muy detallado, donde se explican las importantes diferencias (pero también puntos de encuentros, más coyunturales que doctrinales) entre la derecha autoritaria o conservadurismo autoritario, la extrema derecha/derecha radical o tradicionalismo, el corporativismo católico económico y político, y el fascismo / nacionalsindicalismo (donde es plantea la tesis de que posiblemente sea distinto del nacionalsocialismo). También se contrasta el llamado fascismo con conjuntos más amplios a los que pertenecería como el nacionalismo revolucionario y autoritario (el movimiento político más importante surgido en el siglo XX, que durante el siglo XX se ha asociado en gran parte a la izquierda), y las similitudes y diferencias con el comunismo (el leninismo en particular) y las raíces ideológicas marxistas (o post-marxistas) del fascismo / nacionalsindicalismo. También se contrastan las características del fascismo italiano y el nacionalsocialismo alemán con el concepto de totalitarismo, diferenciando los movimientos políticos-ideológicos de los regímenes o gobiernos; el resultado: el régimen de Mussolini no puede ser catalogado ni de fascista ni de totalitario (por raro que suene) puesto que no fue particularmente más autoritario que cualquier dictadura de la época, el régimen de Hitler sería protototalitario y pero con menos poder que el que se le atribuye en el relato vulgar, mientras que sólo la Rusia de Lenin y Stalin habría alcanzado a ser plenamente totalitaria.
Lectura muy recomendable.
Want to read
May 10, 2007This is probably one of the coolest books I own; and I've just received it as a gift. Can't find a copy on Amazon or Ebay, so that makes me one lucky boy.
March 26, 2025
pg 212 "fascism will continue to be felt for years to come, not least among some of the most vociferous formal antifascists."
More confused in some ways what Fascism is then before reading this. Although the easiest definition of Fascism is as a Marxist slur, invented by Stalin and used, to the present, to describe any form of government that isn't communist. This really is the simplest and easiest way to understand Fascism and the most solid.
Our propagandized segment of society loves to defend Marxism by saying it has never been tried. In reality though, if any dehumanizing ideology deserves this defense it should be Fascism. Since Fascist Italy was never really able to take full power and implement it's ideas and had to make deals with the right nationalists. Nazi Germany is confusing because both Fascists and Nazi's distanced themselves from each other, Fascism is almost impossible to firmly define, and the Nazi's had more in common with Stalin's Russia then anyone else. So we have yet to actually have a fully Fascist state and since it was mainly a historical phenomena from 1919-1945 we are likely to never have a Fascist state. Yes, that is right, all our modern hysteria about the "ghost of Fascism" being everywhere is entirely pointless... How surprising I know...
My overall impression is Fascism is a very loose set of ideas that brings a flavor to a movement and isn't actually a thing in itself. While Liberalism and various Socialisms are pretty obvious and positive ideologies, Fascism is a negative ideology. It's kind of like ice cream and flavor. Chocolate is not ice cream but it flavors ice cream. So Fascism flavors a movement but does not actually structure the movement with it's ideologies. Part of this seems to be due to the ideas themselves. Liberalism and Communism are both objective and supposed to be universal and globalist. Fascism's hyper nationalism makes it context specific and it's willingness to adapt itself to it's environment gives it a changeableness. It also is intentionally vague which doesn't help and takes pride in not having a firm plan but creating a plan through action.
Another thing that is confusing about all these movements is their words and action's hardly ever align. Part of that is realism in politics and part is propaganda and part is just the idea's contain much that we do not fully understand. For example Communism is supposed to be globalist and yet in practice it is far more nationalistic then Liberalism which was supposed to be more nationalistic.
The best way to understand this I think is James Lindsay's take, even if he has gone off the deep end recently. Fascism is the antithesis to Communism's Thesis in the Hegelian dialectic. While communism had a firm plan and was supposed to result in the withering of the state. Fascism has no plan and results in the deification of the state (something Payne never once mentions).
So what is Fascism? It is anti Liberal, Communist, Conservative. It can be corporatist, syndicalist, or socialist. It is multiclass often pluralistic. It is idealist and is actually modern and opposed to tradition although it doesn't mind making allies there. It's Darwinist and really predicated on the Idealism and eugenics that was so popular in this period making it very hard for it to be relevant today. They were also mystical and aesthetic and used all this to great affect in making rituals. They were mass movements that tried to mobilize society. It was focused on youth against the older generations. Another reason it might be hard to define is it is will based and so intentionally leaves open it's options for freedom of the will for the leader. Emphasis on the masculine principle even more then everyone else during this time.
Even in it's heyday it was not very popular. In Spain it only got 1-2% of the vote. I get the impression Franco was not much of a Fascist and how could he be if his movement didn't sweep him into power?
pg 10 Fascism is not anti modern it is based in many enlightenment ideas. It's just what we think of as modern or prefer.
pg 11 Seeking to transvalue and go beyond himself.
pg 40 Science seemed to indicate liberalism and democracy but by the 20th century social Darwinism had promoted hierarchy, elitism, war and violence.
pg 53 by 1938 most Fascists derided racism.
pg 54 The earliest Fascists rejected imperialism, Darwinism and wanted harmonious relations with others.
pg 83 Only socialism promotes militarism which is why the mixed economy of Italy failed during the war. (He didn't prepare any either).
Fascists and Nazis were the first environmentalists!!!!
pg 96 Only Socialistic countries can be totalitarian but not all socialist counties are totalitarian. pq
97 Hitler's racism was only possible in the 20th century. The Feurprinciple is a Rouseauian idea that only a great leader could free people.
pg 192 Fascism as a communist slur.
pg 193 Mussolini said Fascism is not for export.
More confused in some ways what Fascism is then before reading this. Although the easiest definition of Fascism is as a Marxist slur, invented by Stalin and used, to the present, to describe any form of government that isn't communist. This really is the simplest and easiest way to understand Fascism and the most solid.
Our propagandized segment of society loves to defend Marxism by saying it has never been tried. In reality though, if any dehumanizing ideology deserves this defense it should be Fascism. Since Fascist Italy was never really able to take full power and implement it's ideas and had to make deals with the right nationalists. Nazi Germany is confusing because both Fascists and Nazi's distanced themselves from each other, Fascism is almost impossible to firmly define, and the Nazi's had more in common with Stalin's Russia then anyone else. So we have yet to actually have a fully Fascist state and since it was mainly a historical phenomena from 1919-1945 we are likely to never have a Fascist state. Yes, that is right, all our modern hysteria about the "ghost of Fascism" being everywhere is entirely pointless... How surprising I know...
My overall impression is Fascism is a very loose set of ideas that brings a flavor to a movement and isn't actually a thing in itself. While Liberalism and various Socialisms are pretty obvious and positive ideologies, Fascism is a negative ideology. It's kind of like ice cream and flavor. Chocolate is not ice cream but it flavors ice cream. So Fascism flavors a movement but does not actually structure the movement with it's ideologies. Part of this seems to be due to the ideas themselves. Liberalism and Communism are both objective and supposed to be universal and globalist. Fascism's hyper nationalism makes it context specific and it's willingness to adapt itself to it's environment gives it a changeableness. It also is intentionally vague which doesn't help and takes pride in not having a firm plan but creating a plan through action.
Another thing that is confusing about all these movements is their words and action's hardly ever align. Part of that is realism in politics and part is propaganda and part is just the idea's contain much that we do not fully understand. For example Communism is supposed to be globalist and yet in practice it is far more nationalistic then Liberalism which was supposed to be more nationalistic.
The best way to understand this I think is James Lindsay's take, even if he has gone off the deep end recently. Fascism is the antithesis to Communism's Thesis in the Hegelian dialectic. While communism had a firm plan and was supposed to result in the withering of the state. Fascism has no plan and results in the deification of the state (something Payne never once mentions).
So what is Fascism? It is anti Liberal, Communist, Conservative. It can be corporatist, syndicalist, or socialist. It is multiclass often pluralistic. It is idealist and is actually modern and opposed to tradition although it doesn't mind making allies there. It's Darwinist and really predicated on the Idealism and eugenics that was so popular in this period making it very hard for it to be relevant today. They were also mystical and aesthetic and used all this to great affect in making rituals. They were mass movements that tried to mobilize society. It was focused on youth against the older generations. Another reason it might be hard to define is it is will based and so intentionally leaves open it's options for freedom of the will for the leader. Emphasis on the masculine principle even more then everyone else during this time.
Even in it's heyday it was not very popular. In Spain it only got 1-2% of the vote. I get the impression Franco was not much of a Fascist and how could he be if his movement didn't sweep him into power?
pg 10 Fascism is not anti modern it is based in many enlightenment ideas. It's just what we think of as modern or prefer.
pg 11 Seeking to transvalue and go beyond himself.
pg 40 Science seemed to indicate liberalism and democracy but by the 20th century social Darwinism had promoted hierarchy, elitism, war and violence.
pg 53 by 1938 most Fascists derided racism.
pg 54 The earliest Fascists rejected imperialism, Darwinism and wanted harmonious relations with others.
pg 83 Only socialism promotes militarism which is why the mixed economy of Italy failed during the war. (He didn't prepare any either).
Fascists and Nazis were the first environmentalists!!!!
pg 96 Only Socialistic countries can be totalitarian but not all socialist counties are totalitarian. pq
97 Hitler's racism was only possible in the 20th century. The Feurprinciple is a Rouseauian idea that only a great leader could free people.
pg 192 Fascism as a communist slur.
pg 193 Mussolini said Fascism is not for export.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 1, 2021
El fascismo lo es todo y nada a la vez.
Entraña tantas ambigüedades y contradicciones como movimiento/régimen político que existen por lo menos 12 teorías que han desarrollado varios estudiosos, tratando de explicar qué es el fascismo.
Aquí, el autor Payne hace una especie de síntesis sobre las generalidades del movimiento que dirigió Mussolini, y en qué era diferente de otros regímenes autoritarios de las primeras décadas del siglo XX. Además de que hace énfasis en la dificultad de poder definir el concepto, por lo que considera que las 12 teorías son reduccionistas.
Queda, pues, una lección muy importante sobre a qué alude el fascismo, sobre todo, para evitar banalizar y trivializar el término como sucede hoy en día (el adefesio "facho").
Entraña tantas ambigüedades y contradicciones como movimiento/régimen político que existen por lo menos 12 teorías que han desarrollado varios estudiosos, tratando de explicar qué es el fascismo.
Aquí, el autor Payne hace una especie de síntesis sobre las generalidades del movimiento que dirigió Mussolini, y en qué era diferente de otros regímenes autoritarios de las primeras décadas del siglo XX. Además de que hace énfasis en la dificultad de poder definir el concepto, por lo que considera que las 12 teorías son reduccionistas.
Queda, pues, una lección muy importante sobre a qué alude el fascismo, sobre todo, para evitar banalizar y trivializar el término como sucede hoy en día (el adefesio "facho").
March 17, 2016
Este libro recoge las teorías más importantes sobre el fascismo y las estudia, analizando en gran medida en qué fallan. Desde por qué es incorrecto pensar en una idea global de fascismo, como si todos los regímenes autoritarios fueran iguales, hasta elaborar una teoría individualizada e independiente para cada caso, ya que entre ellos hay una base más o menos común, un “fascismo mínimo”. Payne expone algunas ideas demasiado a la ligera que habría que razonar con más detalle, pero aunque no se esté de acuerdo con todas sus tesis, este libro sí que sirve, al menos, para reconsiderar algunos aspectos del fascismo, para proponer líneas de investigación y teorías que después cada lector tendrá que profundizar con otros libros. La traducción al español es realmente gris y el contenido debería revisarse porque algunas realidades analizadas han quedado obsoletas o superadas. En definitiva, creo que hay que tomarse este libro como un estímulo a reflexionar sobre el fascismo y no quedarse en análisis superficiales.
August 3, 2025
Aporta comparaciones similares entre fascismo y comunismo, denotando ciertos tintes anticomunistas que explican la deriva posterior de Payne.
Posee, pese a ello, aproximaciones interesantes en cuanto a la diferenciación entre las diversas derechas (radicales, conservadoras autoritarias, extremas, fascistas...) que son instructivas en cuanto a la clasificación ideológica del espectro diestro.
Ofrece referencias a estudios y obras sobre datos bastante específicos, lo cual se agradece en caso de querer realizar en el futuro un análisis más pormenorizado.
El estudio de los orígenes históricos en general de los movimientos fascistas y de extrema derecha en España, es bastante bueno. Interesante también el análisis sobre la conceptualización historiográfica del "fascismo japonés" y otros fascismos no europeos.
Posee, pese a ello, aproximaciones interesantes en cuanto a la diferenciación entre las diversas derechas (radicales, conservadoras autoritarias, extremas, fascistas...) que son instructivas en cuanto a la clasificación ideológica del espectro diestro.
Ofrece referencias a estudios y obras sobre datos bastante específicos, lo cual se agradece en caso de querer realizar en el futuro un análisis más pormenorizado.
El estudio de los orígenes históricos en general de los movimientos fascistas y de extrema derecha en España, es bastante bueno. Interesante también el análisis sobre la conceptualización historiográfica del "fascismo japonés" y otros fascismos no europeos.
February 6, 2017
This is a slim and efficient explanation of the difficulties of defining a generic fascism, a brief history of interwar fascist developments with sections on minor movements outside of Italy and Germany, and proposal of the basic commonalities of different fascist movements. There's also fleeting passages about comparisons between fascism, especially national socialism, and state socialism, as well as a tiny bit about the leftist backgrounds of Italian fascism. By intent, it is timid and restrained (except for the very end where Payne suggests the Black Panthers have fascist characteristics without mentioning the US state LOL) and thus won't offer a whole lot to think about after reading.
May 15, 2023
Aunque ofrece algunos puntos interesantes a nivel metodológico respecto al tema del fascismo genérico, es un libro que queda muy anticuado y lleno de vaguedades e imprecisiones, cuando no directamente datos falsos.
Lo peor es el velado anticomunismo de Payne, que aunque en la fecha que escribió el libro todavía no había degenerado en el revisionismo histórico que actualmente propugna, ya daba a entrever algunas pistas.
Lo peor es el velado anticomunismo de Payne, que aunque en la fecha que escribió el libro todavía no había degenerado en el revisionismo histórico que actualmente propugna, ya daba a entrever algunas pistas.
September 25, 2016
"El fascimo" de Payne es un libro muy apreciable, es de esas obras que te lleva a muchas otras. Por eso y porque no renuncia a analizar ningún aspecto de los fascismos europeos del siglo XX (payne niega que los fenómenos de fuera de Europa puedan ser considerados como tales), ya merece la pena.
September 5, 2023
Aunque tiene algún buen punto sobre el fascismo, parece más preocupado por decir lo malos que son los comunistas y lo mal que han analizado todo que por explicar qué es el fascismo.
January 8, 2023
Background:
Author: Stanley G. Payne
Book Title: "Fascism: Comparing and Definition"
Publisher: The University of Wisconsin Press
Published: 1980
Chapter: Nine (9)
Pages: 234
Meaning of Fascism:
The word fascism stems from the Italian word fascio, which means bundle to represent bundles of people. The notion of fascism can be traced to the Ancient Rome era when the fasces was a bundle of wood with an axe head carried by leaders.
Political Spectrum:
The political system is divided into two distinct campaigns—the right side of the political spectrum and the left side—the right side advocates for a free market or liberalism—the left side advocates for social programs. Applying a political system to a precise point of the political spectrum is difficult because political ideologies are broad and could stretch on the political spectrum. Therefore, it creates many political terminologies of ism.
Location of Fascism on the Political Spectrum:
Author Stanley G. Payne mentions in his book that the mean intention of the political actors is to control the national economy. The political actors also provide a space for entrepreneurs to participate in their country's economic growth.
Author Thomas J. Dilorenzo in his book "The Problem with Socialism," asserts that communism is a form of fascism because the means of production are controlled by the state actors and provide a small margin of entrepreneurship.
In conclusion, any form of state with 99% of the national economy is a form of fascism.
Emerging of Fascism:
In 1918, World War I ended (1914 to 1918), and the European countries' institutions crumbled under four years of ruthless wars. There was an urgency to rebuild the countries within the peace framework, as some liberal thinkers established the League of Nations. However, some actors and individuals felt ashamed. They were humiliated for losing the war like Hitler and wanted to regain the glory of Germany by injecting the Social Darwinism theory into their institutions.
The Social Darwin theory developed the notion of "survival of the fittest"—that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better than others due to their genetic composition. Social Darwinism became a capstone to justify eugenics, racism, imperialism and social inequality.
Weakness of Fascism:
Benito Mussolini (July 29, 1883, April 28, 1945) became the head of state of Italy. He implemented the notion of totalitarianism in a positive light for fascism because the state had 99% of the control of the economy.
The characteristics of fascism cultivate an atmosphere of hate among members of the communities because it relies on the following political behaviour:
"A violent, dictatorial agent of bourgeois capitalism.
A twentieth-century form of "Bonapartism"
The expression of a unique radicalism of the middle classes
The consequences of a unique national histories
The product of a cultural or moral breakdown
A unique metapolitical phenomenon
The result of extreme neurotic or pathological psycho-social impulses
The product of the rise of amorphous masses
A typical manifestation of twentieth-century totalitarianism
A revolt against modernization
The consequences of a certain stage of socioeconomic growth or a phase in the development sequence
The denial that such general phenomenon as generic fascism can be defined." Page 178
The fascist system has the absence of an electoral system. In a democratic system, the political system reflects the will and the people's consent. The political parties seek public attention to act in the best interest of their constituencies to garner votes during election time, and one party that receives the most votes from the voters forms a government because it has the consent and the will of the people to legislate laws. However, a fascist system has one visionary leader who believes in what is suitable for everyone and ignores the complexity of social, economic and political issues.
In conclusion, a fascist system is a death trap for a visionary leader who "feels father knows best," like Hitler and Mussolini met their destiny due to their political system.
Spreading Around the Globe:
The author mentions the ideology of fascism does not reside in the European continent. It spread in Latin America and Japan.
Prospect of Fascism:
The prospect of fascism flourishing one more time in western countries is less likely due to the strong presence of liberalism.
Outcome:
As a novice Political Science student striving to learn the ideology of fascism to avoid fascism, I acquired a significant amount of knowledge by reading the book. I recommend it to others to read it to improve themselves and become better people.
Author: Stanley G. Payne
Book Title: "Fascism: Comparing and Definition"
Publisher: The University of Wisconsin Press
Published: 1980
Chapter: Nine (9)
Pages: 234
Meaning of Fascism:
The word fascism stems from the Italian word fascio, which means bundle to represent bundles of people. The notion of fascism can be traced to the Ancient Rome era when the fasces was a bundle of wood with an axe head carried by leaders.
Political Spectrum:
The political system is divided into two distinct campaigns—the right side of the political spectrum and the left side—the right side advocates for a free market or liberalism—the left side advocates for social programs. Applying a political system to a precise point of the political spectrum is difficult because political ideologies are broad and could stretch on the political spectrum. Therefore, it creates many political terminologies of ism.
Location of Fascism on the Political Spectrum:
Author Stanley G. Payne mentions in his book that the mean intention of the political actors is to control the national economy. The political actors also provide a space for entrepreneurs to participate in their country's economic growth.
Author Thomas J. Dilorenzo in his book "The Problem with Socialism," asserts that communism is a form of fascism because the means of production are controlled by the state actors and provide a small margin of entrepreneurship.
In conclusion, any form of state with 99% of the national economy is a form of fascism.
Emerging of Fascism:
In 1918, World War I ended (1914 to 1918), and the European countries' institutions crumbled under four years of ruthless wars. There was an urgency to rebuild the countries within the peace framework, as some liberal thinkers established the League of Nations. However, some actors and individuals felt ashamed. They were humiliated for losing the war like Hitler and wanted to regain the glory of Germany by injecting the Social Darwinism theory into their institutions.
The Social Darwin theory developed the notion of "survival of the fittest"—that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better than others due to their genetic composition. Social Darwinism became a capstone to justify eugenics, racism, imperialism and social inequality.
Weakness of Fascism:
Benito Mussolini (July 29, 1883, April 28, 1945) became the head of state of Italy. He implemented the notion of totalitarianism in a positive light for fascism because the state had 99% of the control of the economy.
The characteristics of fascism cultivate an atmosphere of hate among members of the communities because it relies on the following political behaviour:
"A violent, dictatorial agent of bourgeois capitalism.
A twentieth-century form of "Bonapartism"
The expression of a unique radicalism of the middle classes
The consequences of a unique national histories
The product of a cultural or moral breakdown
A unique metapolitical phenomenon
The result of extreme neurotic or pathological psycho-social impulses
The product of the rise of amorphous masses
A typical manifestation of twentieth-century totalitarianism
A revolt against modernization
The consequences of a certain stage of socioeconomic growth or a phase in the development sequence
The denial that such general phenomenon as generic fascism can be defined." Page 178
The fascist system has the absence of an electoral system. In a democratic system, the political system reflects the will and the people's consent. The political parties seek public attention to act in the best interest of their constituencies to garner votes during election time, and one party that receives the most votes from the voters forms a government because it has the consent and the will of the people to legislate laws. However, a fascist system has one visionary leader who believes in what is suitable for everyone and ignores the complexity of social, economic and political issues.
In conclusion, a fascist system is a death trap for a visionary leader who "feels father knows best," like Hitler and Mussolini met their destiny due to their political system.
Spreading Around the Globe:
The author mentions the ideology of fascism does not reside in the European continent. It spread in Latin America and Japan.
Prospect of Fascism:
The prospect of fascism flourishing one more time in western countries is less likely due to the strong presence of liberalism.
Outcome:
As a novice Political Science student striving to learn the ideology of fascism to avoid fascism, I acquired a significant amount of knowledge by reading the book. I recommend it to others to read it to improve themselves and become better people.
November 13, 2021
There are very few historians that actually try to define fascism and fascist movements, far fewer than there are people willing to throw-around ad hominem attacks against their "others."
Even having read this, it's hard to explain what fascism is, a progressive era movement rooted in industrialized and centralized government. Where the "inefficiencies" of representation are cast aside for an oligarch-driven dictatorial authority. One that promises social reforms, welfare, jobs, and an abundance of goods produced by party members who are seeded management of the government-partnered means of productions on the basis of loyalty.
A populist movement that attacks the capitalist as a hoarder of wealth bringing plight to the country, but one that also decries communism.
A movement that has truly found itself in the trashcan of history, and yet a movement so tied to the vile actions of the Nazis that the term fascist continues to be used as both a straw man to attack and an iron by which to brand.
The author of this book makes no attempt to make his analysis anything but historical, he doesn't hide the contradictory nature of the movement and our inability to define it as such, he simply walks us through the policies, trends and government of a former political ideology.
Understanding of which should encourage cultures and societies to never again put faith in such violent and repressive regimes.
Even having read this, it's hard to explain what fascism is, a progressive era movement rooted in industrialized and centralized government. Where the "inefficiencies" of representation are cast aside for an oligarch-driven dictatorial authority. One that promises social reforms, welfare, jobs, and an abundance of goods produced by party members who are seeded management of the government-partnered means of productions on the basis of loyalty.
A populist movement that attacks the capitalist as a hoarder of wealth bringing plight to the country, but one that also decries communism.
A movement that has truly found itself in the trashcan of history, and yet a movement so tied to the vile actions of the Nazis that the term fascist continues to be used as both a straw man to attack and an iron by which to brand.
The author of this book makes no attempt to make his analysis anything but historical, he doesn't hide the contradictory nature of the movement and our inability to define it as such, he simply walks us through the policies, trends and government of a former political ideology.
Understanding of which should encourage cultures and societies to never again put faith in such violent and repressive regimes.
June 25, 2021
Creo que es un libro indispensable y, aunque puede estar algo desactualizado, debería ser una lectura más extendida hoy en día. Creo que se ha hecho la costumbre, o, más bien, la costumbre continúa vigente, de llamar fascismo a todo lo que se considera de derecha o conservador, cuando realmente NO clasificaría dentro de las definiciones más extendidas del fascismo. Es una costumbre que radica y prolifera en varios países, de nombrar como fascista toda política que vaya en contra de ciertos ideales, cuando existe una grande diferencia entre derecha conservadora, autoritaria y el fascismo; y que si bien las tres pueden ser peligrosas, no son lo mismo.
December 2, 2023
Un intento de ensayo-recopilador de vaguedades históricas que fracasa profundamente en aportar una visión sin contradicciones desde la tercera página: afirmar querer alejarse de aseveraciones moralizantes y sesgos políticos (recordatorio de que Stanley Payne es un orgulloso derechista, sin que eso deba generar mayor problema) para después calificar el comunismo "como el más fascista" (pág.10, Alianza ed.) sin ningún tipo de cita, referencia o soporte.
En las casi trescientas páginas restante solo reincide en el mismo tropo constantemente. Pensé que existiría alguna seriedad, a pesar del autor, en sus datos y observaciones. Me equivoqué profundamente.
En las casi trescientas páginas restante solo reincide en el mismo tropo constantemente. Pensé que existiría alguna seriedad, a pesar del autor, en sus datos y observaciones. Me equivoqué profundamente.
September 15, 2022
Se trata de un ensayo que analiza lo que es el fascismo desde un punto de vista comparativo. Se comparan en profundidad los fascismos italiano y alemán de la primera mitad del siglo XX, pero lo que más me ha interesado han sido los análisis de otros fascismos, como el croata y el húngaro, a la vez que se categorizan fenómenos parecidos en Rumanía o España, casos en los que no se trató de un fascismo como tal. Con todo, me ha parecido un trabajo casi enteramente descriptivo y sin valor teórico, ni tan siquiera explicativo del fenómeno político que da título a la obra.
September 23, 2018
A thorough look at the original inter-war fascisms. Brief (kinda) but dense. Meticulous but not ponderous. Puts paid to a number of Marxist delusions and obfuscations about fascism. Do yourself and the others around you a favor and read something at least as good as this or a number of works by Roger Griffin before you start spouting off at the mouth about what you think fascism is.
May 25, 2019
Hace un análisis, sin ir mucho al detalle, del fascismo, nacionalsocialismo y movimientos de características parecidas. Discrepo en varios hechos que señala y planteamientos, pero creo qe está más o menos bien para entender esta ideología y sus diferencias.
February 21, 2021
Sinceramente, no me ha aportado gran cosa. Es bastante reiterativo en muchas de las ideas de historiadores precedentes. Como monografía para usar en clase, está bien.
April 21, 2024
Després de terminant aquest llibre, recordo per què Payne sembla ser l'historiador nord-americà preferit de la dreta espanyola…
April 25, 2024
Una lectura muy recomendable.
May 25, 2024
I sorta get it now (?)
June 16, 2024
Excellent overview from one of the greatest historians of the XX century.
January 22, 2025
Muy buen trabajo de investigación y síntesis.
Pasa de puntillas por muchos temas importantes, pero es razonablemente ecuánime.
Pasa de puntillas por muchos temas importantes, pero es razonablemente ecuánime.
October 14, 2025
Mejor el de Paxton
January 9, 2024
Stanley Payne sets out to explain what fascism is by reviewing historical evidence and various theories of its origin. Payne is at his best when synthesizing the work of others. When he sets off on his own things get a bit confusing.
He believes the main cultural ingredients of fascism were nationalism, militarism, social Darwinism, neo-idealism, vitalism, and the cult of the hero. These variables congealed into fascist movements in European states made vulnerable by WWI. These states were also early in their transition to liberal democracy and couldn't navigate the geopolitical constraints placed on them in the interwar years.
Problems arise with Payne's attempt to explain fascism's relationship to socialism. He states that fascism had some genuinely socialist economic policies. However, when he describes these policies it doesn't really seem like socialism, but rather a capitalist economy with some degree of state intervention like all capitalist countries. He says, "the German economic system remained a compound of primarily private ownership of property and capital operating under an ever-increasing and rigid structure of state control and regulation" and "private ownership and private profit were upheld...profits, in fact, increased." This isn't socialism and a historian should know this.
He says, "there are too many different kinds and concepts of socialism to characterize fascism as fundamentally antisocialist." In The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton expertly details how fascists found a path to power explicitly because of their anti-socialism--their willingness to use violence against socialists ingratiated them to large landowners and fascists were a key part of right wing electoral majorities that avoided compromise with socialists.
The book is condescending and dismissive when it references Marxist theories of fascism. He doesn't use this tone anywhere else, so it becomes distracting and unprofessional.
Some good passages and useful tables summarizing the work of others, but its confused concept of socialism results in unorthodox even ahistorical conclusions. I would not recommend this book for someone new to the topic.
He believes the main cultural ingredients of fascism were nationalism, militarism, social Darwinism, neo-idealism, vitalism, and the cult of the hero. These variables congealed into fascist movements in European states made vulnerable by WWI. These states were also early in their transition to liberal democracy and couldn't navigate the geopolitical constraints placed on them in the interwar years.
Problems arise with Payne's attempt to explain fascism's relationship to socialism. He states that fascism had some genuinely socialist economic policies. However, when he describes these policies it doesn't really seem like socialism, but rather a capitalist economy with some degree of state intervention like all capitalist countries. He says, "the German economic system remained a compound of primarily private ownership of property and capital operating under an ever-increasing and rigid structure of state control and regulation" and "private ownership and private profit were upheld...profits, in fact, increased." This isn't socialism and a historian should know this.
He says, "there are too many different kinds and concepts of socialism to characterize fascism as fundamentally antisocialist." In The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton expertly details how fascists found a path to power explicitly because of their anti-socialism--their willingness to use violence against socialists ingratiated them to large landowners and fascists were a key part of right wing electoral majorities that avoided compromise with socialists.
The book is condescending and dismissive when it references Marxist theories of fascism. He doesn't use this tone anywhere else, so it becomes distracting and unprofessional.
Some good passages and useful tables summarizing the work of others, but its confused concept of socialism results in unorthodox even ahistorical conclusions. I would not recommend this book for someone new to the topic.
August 31, 2025
El libro El fascismo de Stanley Payne es bastante conocido entre los que estudian historia o política, porque el tipo es un experto en el tema. La verdad es que el libro está muy bien hecho. Se nota que el autor sabe muchísimo, y no se va por las ramas: explica qué es el fascismo, cómo surgió, qué lo caracteriza y cómo se dio en diferentes países, no solo en Alemania o Italia. Es como que te da una visión más amplia de todo el asunto.
Lo bueno es que no te lo vende ni como algo demoníaco al 100% ni como algo justificable. Es muy serio y objetivo. Y también es famoso porque Payne intenta hacer una especie de "definición" del fascismo con una lista de elementos comunes. Eso a algunos les encanta y a otros no tanto, pero al menos te da una base clara.
Ahora, eso sí, el libro es denso. No es algo que leas con una cervecita en la playa. Es académico, serio, con mucho dato histórico, muchos nombres y fechas. Y aunque escribe claro, no es como leer una novela, hay que ponerle cabeza.
Y algo que tal vez se le puede criticar es que no se mete tanto en los temas sociales o culturales, o en cómo afectó a la gente común. Es más sobre partidos, líderes, ideologías, comparaciones entre países europeos... así que si esperabas algo más humano o emocional, no va por ahí.
Lo bueno es que no te lo vende ni como algo demoníaco al 100% ni como algo justificable. Es muy serio y objetivo. Y también es famoso porque Payne intenta hacer una especie de "definición" del fascismo con una lista de elementos comunes. Eso a algunos les encanta y a otros no tanto, pero al menos te da una base clara.
Ahora, eso sí, el libro es denso. No es algo que leas con una cervecita en la playa. Es académico, serio, con mucho dato histórico, muchos nombres y fechas. Y aunque escribe claro, no es como leer una novela, hay que ponerle cabeza.
Y algo que tal vez se le puede criticar es que no se mete tanto en los temas sociales o culturales, o en cómo afectó a la gente común. Es más sobre partidos, líderes, ideologías, comparaciones entre países europeos... así que si esperabas algo más humano o emocional, no va por ahí.
June 3, 2020
Gran análisis sobre el surgimiento de los fascismos, desde sus antecedentes hasta sus consecuencias, sus contradicciones, teorías y demás elementos que lo completan como ideología, comparaciones, distinciones de partidos, elementos, es todo un mundo muy complejo de definir.
Sentía que Payne me estaba dando una clase de Historia mientras lo leía. Aunque es sistemático, la obra es muy densa, sin dejarse nada de lado. No obstante, deja muchas dudas.
Del final, las conclusiones son notorias, en especial el último párrafo respecto a que el fascismo en el futuro iba a "sentirse", y ahora es posible que lo estemos viviendo. No de la misma manera, pero con una reacción similar a la de entonces. Aspectos...
Por último, la ideología del autor está muy marcada en toda su obra: en su poco gusto al comunismo.
Sentía que Payne me estaba dando una clase de Historia mientras lo leía. Aunque es sistemático, la obra es muy densa, sin dejarse nada de lado. No obstante, deja muchas dudas.
Del final, las conclusiones son notorias, en especial el último párrafo respecto a que el fascismo en el futuro iba a "sentirse", y ahora es posible que lo estemos viviendo. No de la misma manera, pero con una reacción similar a la de entonces. Aspectos...
Por último, la ideología del autor está muy marcada en toda su obra: en su poco gusto al comunismo.
September 17, 2013
This was a definitive work on fascism at its most basic. Stanley G. Payne looks at the various parties, models, and regimes that have been tagged "fascist" and tries to arrive at a simple definition.
He correctly points out that fascism was the 20th century's only legitimately new political philosophy; and also shows why the total quantity of actual fascist movements was always relatively small. Most interestingly of all, he tackles the claim that fascism represents the radicalism of the middle class; which, on the surface, seems to be a very interesting claim.
This is well worth the read, if fascism interests you.
He correctly points out that fascism was the 20th century's only legitimately new political philosophy; and also shows why the total quantity of actual fascist movements was always relatively small. Most interestingly of all, he tackles the claim that fascism represents the radicalism of the middle class; which, on the surface, seems to be a very interesting claim.
This is well worth the read, if fascism interests you.
October 15, 2016
This book is essentially a dry, detailed timeline of the developments of the various movements that either became varieties of fascism or were closely related to it. Not an example of "popular history," by any means, but densely packed with information. You may be surprised how complicated European politics were in the decades before WW II, and how easily Left could flip over to Right, liberalism to authoritarianism, internationalism to jingoism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews