What do you think?
Rate this book
Fascism and the Masses: The Revolt Against the Last Humans, 1848-1945
Highlighting the "mass" nature of interwar European fascism has long become commonplace. Throughout the years, numerous critics have construed fascism as a phenomenon of mass society, perhaps the ultimate expression of mass politics. This study deconstructs this long-standing perception. It argues that the entwining of fascism with the masses is a remarkable transubstantiation of a movement which understood and presented itself as a militant rejection of the ideal of mass politics, and indeed of mass society and mass culture more broadly conceived. Thus, rather than "massifying" society, fascism was the culmination of a long effort on the part of the élites and the middle-classes to de-massify it. The perennially menacing mass – seen as plebeian and insubordinate – was to be drilled into submission, replaced by supposedly superior collective entities, such as the nation, the race, or the people. Focusing on Italian fascism and German National Socialism, but consulting fascist movements and individuals elsewhere in interwar Europe, the book incisively shows how fascism is best understood as ferociously resisting what Elias referred to as "the civilizing process" and what Marx termed "the social individual." Fascism, notably, was a revolt against what Nietzsche described as the peaceful, middling and egalitarian "Last Humans."
441 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 17, 2018
4 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
About the author
Ishay Landa
5 books21 followersIshay Landa Ph.D. (2004) in History, Ben-Gurion University, Israel, is Visiting Senior Lecturer in History at the Israeli Open University. His scholarly work as a historian of ideas focuses on reconstructing the intellectual genealogy of fascism and its complex relationship to the intellectual history of the West. He has also published on Nietzscheanism, Marxism, political theory and popular culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 31, 2018
Half a century of... well, "social science" would be the wrong word, but half a century of sophisticated reflection on fascism in the West (whether propounded by the more culturally-inclined segments of Marxism or by simple liberals) averred that the rise of fascism had something to do with the unleashing of the masses in some capacity: in the demise of civil society, in the over-fast entry of unpropertied people into politics, in the ressentiment or herd instinct of crowds.
At the empirical level, these ideas (at least that of civil society decline) have already been dealt a mortal blow by Dilan Riley's "Civic Foundations of Fascism," which finds that densely organized civil societies are the origin of fascist as much as any other movements. But the cultural turn of the 90s, and its manifestation in Ze'ev Sternhell's work among others, means that fascist studies have taken to paying close attention to the thoughts of fascists themselves (a correct move, as long as one remembers that these actors can and will misrepresent themselves.)
Landa continues much of his own previous work - on the reactionary legacy of Nietzsche, and of overlaps between the liberal and fascist intellectual traditions - to show that the fascists themselves largely considered "the mass" in this sense their mortal enemy. Many of the antecedents that liberal public intellectuals drew upon to construct their image of the danger of fascism as mass society - most obviously figures like Le Bon or Gasset - were part of the fascist intellectual roster. Fascists said again and again that they wanted to preserve the autonomy of the individual (elite) personality and his property against the watering-down homogenization of commercial culture and socialist politics, and they meant it. Sternhell ably connects this to questions of the politics of property - which, as a Marxist, he sees as primary - as well as to fascist antisemitism, other racisms, and misogyny. The Jews are the agents of the power of mass culture, woman is symbolically the mass crying out to be dominated, and so on.
The book's major flaw is that Landa is perhaps a little overeager to impose coherence on all strands of fascist thought, or, to put it another way, to let several strands stand in for all of them. It is of course false to say, as was once said, that fascists had no ideas. But they did not come from a unified tradition, but at least three (ex-leftist syndicalism, volkisch racial nationalism, and political Catholicism.) At least the first two were deeply influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, which allows for the outsized role that the syphilitic philosopher plays in this narrative, and of course all three converged on some common features of political rule. But there was significant heterogeny as well, and the old liberal critiques had plenty of material to draw on themselves. Regardless, it was these liberal interpretations that have been otherwise dominant, and challenging them is - given the innacurate way much of the recent nationalist wave has been diagnosed - a timely and important task.
At the empirical level, these ideas (at least that of civil society decline) have already been dealt a mortal blow by Dilan Riley's "Civic Foundations of Fascism," which finds that densely organized civil societies are the origin of fascist as much as any other movements. But the cultural turn of the 90s, and its manifestation in Ze'ev Sternhell's work among others, means that fascist studies have taken to paying close attention to the thoughts of fascists themselves (a correct move, as long as one remembers that these actors can and will misrepresent themselves.)
Landa continues much of his own previous work - on the reactionary legacy of Nietzsche, and of overlaps between the liberal and fascist intellectual traditions - to show that the fascists themselves largely considered "the mass" in this sense their mortal enemy. Many of the antecedents that liberal public intellectuals drew upon to construct their image of the danger of fascism as mass society - most obviously figures like Le Bon or Gasset - were part of the fascist intellectual roster. Fascists said again and again that they wanted to preserve the autonomy of the individual (elite) personality and his property against the watering-down homogenization of commercial culture and socialist politics, and they meant it. Sternhell ably connects this to questions of the politics of property - which, as a Marxist, he sees as primary - as well as to fascist antisemitism, other racisms, and misogyny. The Jews are the agents of the power of mass culture, woman is symbolically the mass crying out to be dominated, and so on.
The book's major flaw is that Landa is perhaps a little overeager to impose coherence on all strands of fascist thought, or, to put it another way, to let several strands stand in for all of them. It is of course false to say, as was once said, that fascists had no ideas. But they did not come from a unified tradition, but at least three (ex-leftist syndicalism, volkisch racial nationalism, and political Catholicism.) At least the first two were deeply influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, which allows for the outsized role that the syphilitic philosopher plays in this narrative, and of course all three converged on some common features of political rule. But there was significant heterogeny as well, and the old liberal critiques had plenty of material to draw on themselves. Regardless, it was these liberal interpretations that have been otherwise dominant, and challenging them is - given the innacurate way much of the recent nationalist wave has been diagnosed - a timely and important task.
January 11, 2019
Timely and provocative. Landa forcefully counters the thesis that fascism is the form par excellence of mass politics. Rather, he contends, elites turn to fascism precisely out of fear of mass politics, which they see arising dangerously on all sides. Offering a wealth of evidence, Landa argues that elites viewed rising standards of living and consumption as a threat and feared that increasingly well-fed, demanding, and powerful workers would embrace mass organizing and overthrow their rule. To forestall this outcome, they turned to an ideology that extolled suffering and misery for the masses and cruelty, capriciousness and lethal prowess for the rulers.
Although he devotes only a small portion of the text to tying his thesis to the issues of the day, Landa clearly intends to discredit the current vogue for referring to fascist, semi-fascist and proto-fascist movements as 'populist'. Indeed, as Landa amply demonstrates, fascism has a great deal more in common with liberal conservativism than it does with 'populism on the left'. While fascist demagogues may have criticized capitalism in their rhetoric, it was not in a populist direction - quite the opposite. Fascists believed that capitalist bosses were not openly tyrannical enough and were allowing the 'last humans' to flourish through their indolence and effeminacy.
The true enemies of fascism, Landa reveals, are indeed Nietzche's last humans. Nearly all important fascist thinkers and ideologues admired Nietzche and their concerns with society mirrored his. In different ways both social democratic politics and american consumer society seemed to them to prefigure a world where
"One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse. "
Against Nietzche and the fascist's concept of the Last Human, Landa juxtaposes Marx's under-recognized idea of the 'social individual'. In the social democratic view, capitalist exploitation requires socialization of labor which unwittingly produces an individual with a greater web of social connections and a greater capacity and demand for material satisfaction. This ultimately leads to the defeat of capitalism by the mass organization of workers who are both willing and able to demand full control of the production process.
The two concepts stand in relation to one another like a parallax. One need but squint at one to see the other. This may seem to pose a riddle, but it actually reveals a fundamental difference in perspective. To an elite inculcated with the view that "the best belong to me and mine; and if it be not given to us than we do take it" any increase in the power, wealth or daring on the part of the masses represents an existential threat. A simultaneous increase in all of these, coupled with the first revolutionary stirrings of a true mass politics was enough to cause them to resort to the most heinous violence the world has ever seen. Marx's dream is Nietzche's nightmare. May it come true swiftly.
Although he devotes only a small portion of the text to tying his thesis to the issues of the day, Landa clearly intends to discredit the current vogue for referring to fascist, semi-fascist and proto-fascist movements as 'populist'. Indeed, as Landa amply demonstrates, fascism has a great deal more in common with liberal conservativism than it does with 'populism on the left'. While fascist demagogues may have criticized capitalism in their rhetoric, it was not in a populist direction - quite the opposite. Fascists believed that capitalist bosses were not openly tyrannical enough and were allowing the 'last humans' to flourish through their indolence and effeminacy.
The true enemies of fascism, Landa reveals, are indeed Nietzche's last humans. Nearly all important fascist thinkers and ideologues admired Nietzche and their concerns with society mirrored his. In different ways both social democratic politics and american consumer society seemed to them to prefigure a world where
"One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse. "
Against Nietzche and the fascist's concept of the Last Human, Landa juxtaposes Marx's under-recognized idea of the 'social individual'. In the social democratic view, capitalist exploitation requires socialization of labor which unwittingly produces an individual with a greater web of social connections and a greater capacity and demand for material satisfaction. This ultimately leads to the defeat of capitalism by the mass organization of workers who are both willing and able to demand full control of the production process.
The two concepts stand in relation to one another like a parallax. One need but squint at one to see the other. This may seem to pose a riddle, but it actually reveals a fundamental difference in perspective. To an elite inculcated with the view that "the best belong to me and mine; and if it be not given to us than we do take it" any increase in the power, wealth or daring on the part of the masses represents an existential threat. A simultaneous increase in all of these, coupled with the first revolutionary stirrings of a true mass politics was enough to cause them to resort to the most heinous violence the world has ever seen. Marx's dream is Nietzche's nightmare. May it come true swiftly.
March 18, 2025
Kitabın temel uyarı fişeğinin politik olarak doğru bir müdahale olduğunu ancak bu müdahaleyi temellendirme biçimiyle epey sıkıntılı tezler içerdiğini düşünüyorum.
Öncelikle yazarın temel politik derdi şu: Günümüzdeki neo faşistler birçok gelişmiş Batı ülkesinde sandıklardan başarıyla çıkarken, bu gelişmeye set çekmek için yapılması gereken şey, kitlelere sırt dönüp bir tür karamsar elitizme saplanmak değil, yüzümüzü kitlelere dönerek eşitlik ve özgürlük mücadelesini onların içerisinden ve onlarla birlikte sürdürmektir. Zaten en genel anlamıyla sol düşünce çerçevesinden konuşuyorsak, insanların kendilerini dönüştürürken dünyayı da dönüştürmesi şiarına katılmamak elde değil. Kitleleri cahil ve tüketim çılgını olarak görüp özcü bir yönelim benimsemek, sol politika açısından olsa olsa intihar olur. Tabii bu fikir aynı zamanda, sıradan insanları "halk" kavramı içerisine tıkıştırıp, tersten özcü bir şekilde onları bütünüyle olumlamamayı da salık verir.
Bence yazarın tezlerindeki sorunlardan ilki ve başlıcası, kitle meselesi üzerinde anlamlı bir kavramsal tartışmaya girişmemesi, bu kavramı kitap boyunca canı istediğince eğip bükmesi ve kitlelere bakarken özcülüğe savrulup, kitleler içerisindeki çeşitli çelişkileri yok saymasıdır. Mesela yazar bir yerde, Alman faşizminin, alt sınıflardan ziyade orta ve üst sınıflarda kendisine destek edinebildiğini savunuyor. Ancak böyle bir tez öne sürüyorsanız, sınıf tartışmasının içerisine dalmak ve bu tezi temellendirmek zorundasınız bence, hele hele orta sınıf gibi çok tartışmalı bir kavram kullanıyorsanız.
İkinci temel sorun, yazarın kapitalizmi bir tür presosyalizm gibi görmesi, kapitalizmin yol açtığı "olumlu "gelişmeleri kitle toplumu için asli görmesi ve yine kapitalist temelli oluşan kitle toplumuna kitap boyunca övgüler düzmesidir. Hatta kitabın bir yerinde yazar öyle bir noktaya varıyor ki, Amerikan Rüyası yazar için gayet de kabul edilebilir bir hal alıyor neredeyse. Liberal Amerikan toplumuyla faşizmin hüküm sürdüğü toplumlar arasında benzerlikler gören Frankfurt Okulu mensuplarını bu anlamda ciddi biçimde eleştiriyor ancak onları eleştirirken yazarın kendisi çok daha sıkıntılı bir yere savruluyor. Zira bence kültür endüstrisi ne Adorno'nun yaptığı gibi tamamen tiksinilmesi gereken ne de Landa'nın yaptığı gibi olumlanması gereken bir şey. Hemen her konuda olduğu gibi, bu alanda da çelişkilere ve özgürleştirici potansiyellerin güçlendirilmesine odaklanmak alınacak en doğru tavır gibi.
Üçüncüsü; faşizmi sola ve işçi sınıfı yükselişine karşı geline bir hareket olarak konumlandırmak doğru ancak onu doğrudan kitle toplumu denilen şeyin karşına koyarsanız, bu sefer de faşizmin toplumun önemli bir kesimini nasıl ikna ettiğini anlayamazsınız. Hele bu toplum içerisinde, 1920'lerin sonunda işsiz kalıp umudu salt bir radikalizmde gören, sonrasında bir şekilde iş edinip pasifize edilen insanlar da varsa. Gramsci hapishane köşelerinde boşuna o kadar ter dökmedi neticede!
Dördüncüsü ve son olarak, kitapta her kötülüğün altından Nietzsche çıkıyor. Öncelikle belirteyim, Nietzsche konusunda zır cahil bir insan sayılırım, dolayısıyla bu kısımda çok net cümleler kuramayacağım ancak bu kadar soyut ve çok yazmış bir filozofun tek yönlü bir okumasının mümkün olmayacağını da tahmin edebiliyorum. Yazar ise tıpkı Marx'a yaptığı gibi Nietzsche'yi de tek taraflı olarak budayıp, onu sadece faşizme yol gösteren pasajlarıyla ve taraflarıyla birlikte ele alıyor. Nihayetinde mesele somut durumun somut tahliliyse, aktif politikanın içerisinde olmayan bir filozofu her taşın altına koymak, bizleri ancak skolastik bir tartışmaya hapsedebilir.
Öncelikle yazarın temel politik derdi şu: Günümüzdeki neo faşistler birçok gelişmiş Batı ülkesinde sandıklardan başarıyla çıkarken, bu gelişmeye set çekmek için yapılması gereken şey, kitlelere sırt dönüp bir tür karamsar elitizme saplanmak değil, yüzümüzü kitlelere dönerek eşitlik ve özgürlük mücadelesini onların içerisinden ve onlarla birlikte sürdürmektir. Zaten en genel anlamıyla sol düşünce çerçevesinden konuşuyorsak, insanların kendilerini dönüştürürken dünyayı da dönüştürmesi şiarına katılmamak elde değil. Kitleleri cahil ve tüketim çılgını olarak görüp özcü bir yönelim benimsemek, sol politika açısından olsa olsa intihar olur. Tabii bu fikir aynı zamanda, sıradan insanları "halk" kavramı içerisine tıkıştırıp, tersten özcü bir şekilde onları bütünüyle olumlamamayı da salık verir.
Bence yazarın tezlerindeki sorunlardan ilki ve başlıcası, kitle meselesi üzerinde anlamlı bir kavramsal tartışmaya girişmemesi, bu kavramı kitap boyunca canı istediğince eğip bükmesi ve kitlelere bakarken özcülüğe savrulup, kitleler içerisindeki çeşitli çelişkileri yok saymasıdır. Mesela yazar bir yerde, Alman faşizminin, alt sınıflardan ziyade orta ve üst sınıflarda kendisine destek edinebildiğini savunuyor. Ancak böyle bir tez öne sürüyorsanız, sınıf tartışmasının içerisine dalmak ve bu tezi temellendirmek zorundasınız bence, hele hele orta sınıf gibi çok tartışmalı bir kavram kullanıyorsanız.
İkinci temel sorun, yazarın kapitalizmi bir tür presosyalizm gibi görmesi, kapitalizmin yol açtığı "olumlu "gelişmeleri kitle toplumu için asli görmesi ve yine kapitalist temelli oluşan kitle toplumuna kitap boyunca övgüler düzmesidir. Hatta kitabın bir yerinde yazar öyle bir noktaya varıyor ki, Amerikan Rüyası yazar için gayet de kabul edilebilir bir hal alıyor neredeyse. Liberal Amerikan toplumuyla faşizmin hüküm sürdüğü toplumlar arasında benzerlikler gören Frankfurt Okulu mensuplarını bu anlamda ciddi biçimde eleştiriyor ancak onları eleştirirken yazarın kendisi çok daha sıkıntılı bir yere savruluyor. Zira bence kültür endüstrisi ne Adorno'nun yaptığı gibi tamamen tiksinilmesi gereken ne de Landa'nın yaptığı gibi olumlanması gereken bir şey. Hemen her konuda olduğu gibi, bu alanda da çelişkilere ve özgürleştirici potansiyellerin güçlendirilmesine odaklanmak alınacak en doğru tavır gibi.
Üçüncüsü; faşizmi sola ve işçi sınıfı yükselişine karşı geline bir hareket olarak konumlandırmak doğru ancak onu doğrudan kitle toplumu denilen şeyin karşına koyarsanız, bu sefer de faşizmin toplumun önemli bir kesimini nasıl ikna ettiğini anlayamazsınız. Hele bu toplum içerisinde, 1920'lerin sonunda işsiz kalıp umudu salt bir radikalizmde gören, sonrasında bir şekilde iş edinip pasifize edilen insanlar da varsa. Gramsci hapishane köşelerinde boşuna o kadar ter dökmedi neticede!
Dördüncüsü ve son olarak, kitapta her kötülüğün altından Nietzsche çıkıyor. Öncelikle belirteyim, Nietzsche konusunda zır cahil bir insan sayılırım, dolayısıyla bu kısımda çok net cümleler kuramayacağım ancak bu kadar soyut ve çok yazmış bir filozofun tek yönlü bir okumasının mümkün olmayacağını da tahmin edebiliyorum. Yazar ise tıpkı Marx'a yaptığı gibi Nietzsche'yi de tek taraflı olarak budayıp, onu sadece faşizme yol gösteren pasajlarıyla ve taraflarıyla birlikte ele alıyor. Nihayetinde mesele somut durumun somut tahliliyse, aktif politikanın içerisinde olmayan bir filozofu her taşın altına koymak, bizleri ancak skolastik bir tartışmaya hapsedebilir.
August 25, 2024
Ishay Landa here follows up on his excellent ‘The Apprentice’s Sorcerer’ with another detailed argument regarding the genesis and nature of fascism.
Here Landa takes to task scholars and commentators who have sought to assert that fascism represents the influence of the mass of ordinary people upon the world of political power, that fascism is not elitist and that Nietzsche is innocent of the charge of being a proto-fascist.
Lands proceeds through close reading of Nietzsche and of fascists to demolish such notions and to show that fascism was deeply indebted to Nietzsche and, in fact, could not have been what it was without Nietzsche.
Rather than fascism representing an intrusion of populism into politics, Landa shows that fascism was well within the Western norms of elitist, aristocratic, conservative and nationalist thought. As he comments upon fascist ideas regarding women: “Such ideas were not invented by the fascists nor did they disappear with them.” The same can be said for the whole of fascist thought
Here Landa takes to task scholars and commentators who have sought to assert that fascism represents the influence of the mass of ordinary people upon the world of political power, that fascism is not elitist and that Nietzsche is innocent of the charge of being a proto-fascist.
Lands proceeds through close reading of Nietzsche and of fascists to demolish such notions and to show that fascism was deeply indebted to Nietzsche and, in fact, could not have been what it was without Nietzsche.
Rather than fascism representing an intrusion of populism into politics, Landa shows that fascism was well within the Western norms of elitist, aristocratic, conservative and nationalist thought. As he comments upon fascist ideas regarding women: “Such ideas were not invented by the fascists nor did they disappear with them.” The same can be said for the whole of fascist thought
January 21, 2023
did not really expect this to be a partial Nietzsche hit piece . I'm not a Nietzsche fan boy but some of these connections she was attempting to draw seemed like a stretch. Although there are a lot of passages and quotes from fascists that are pretty damming. This books is still really good on the history I that is why I picked it up in the first place
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews