The Anatomy of Fascism Paperback – March 8, 2005

This is probably the best book on the history and nature of fascism as a sociopolitical phenomenon in the actual world we live in. It was written in the very early 2000s, long before Donald Trump's arrival on the political scene in America, but it foretells in its analysis many details of Trump's ascension to power via a complacent and anti-left Republican party at a time of discontent with the workings of democratic governments.The book considers fascism in phases and doesn't just dwell on the theoretical underpinnings of the movement or on the biographies of its proponents. It focuses (as it should) on German and Italy in the period between the World Wars, studying how fascism rose to power and how it evolved while maintaining its hold on power.It's not a sit-back, easy read. It's a scholarly effort, but it isn't long, and it is easy to follow and understand. I highly recommend it.

As one of the few American scholars of the Vichy regime, it is perhaps fitting that at the end of his career, eminent historian Robert Paxton tackles the political-philosophical question of "what" fascism "is." What he produces is a slim, eminently readable work about fascist movements in Europe and beyond, seeking those tropes and similitudes that herald a fascist movement in action. This builds to a chapter in the work that details what he thinks fascism "is" (even though the word, he freely admits, can be slippery and still hotly contested in academic circles).Paxton's conclusions are too detailed to present here, but the book is neatly organized around a set of key questions. They are, in brief, how fascist movements create themselves, how they take root, how they acquire some form of "power," how they deploy that power, and what the long term prospects of a fascist regime are (Paxton suggesting that fascism is, fundamentally, a "zero-sum game"). He then devotes a brief chapter to fascist and quasi-fascist movements outside of Europe by way of solid historical comparison, and concludes with his "definition" of what fascism is, ably summed up in other reviews in this thread. At the end is a superior bibliographic essay on the major works concerning fascism and the differences between them. Any college student writing a paper on fascism would do well to pick up the book for the bibliographic essay alone.Paxton eschews theoretical language and uses a writing style that is not "easy" given the weight of the topic, but accessible to academic and non-academic readers. While many have bemoaned what they see as omissions (and rightfully so), I do not see this as a fair criticism given Paxton's obvious desire to reach as broad an audience as possible with his cautionary analysis. He supports his arguments well with the most eminent and credible authorities, and the book's precise endnotes amply reflect the deadly seriousness of the work and his command of the subject.Some have criticized Paxton, I notice, for giving Stalin's Russia the short-shrift, or neglecting other fascist thought systems woven in to certain nations. I think the latter point is a function of editorial choice for the sake of clarity. I suppose my only response to the former point is that the book is "The Anatomy of Fascism," not "The Anatomy of Stalinism." Indeed, on pages 209-211 of his book, Paxton addresses this very point succinctly. Stalin qua Hitler (who are only two players on a much grander stage) is a distinction with a difference, and in rejecting the sometimes too-monolithic word "totalitarianism" as an analytical mode, Paxton is able to stay with his subject without veering off into comparing once-competing "totalitarian" systems, which would only confuse the reader and reduce his central hypotheses to hash. Or, as he puts it, avoiding the default debate of "Which monster was more monstrous?" a fundamentally meaningless question in the context of this book and what it seeks to achieve, namely "fascism parsed to its essence." I also notice that many seem to think that this book is somehow "far left," or something along those lines. For myself, I found it very apolitical, which was not only refreshing but allowed for a crisp clarity in presentation untroubled by a pre-determined set of assumptions.I suppose the most chilling conclusion Paxton reaches is that "fascism" is, at one of its hearts, a "creeping" phenomenon, more organic than, to use one example, "Marxist-mechanical," a movement "from below" in many of its manifestations as opposed to "from above." While a proposition that culturally driven is difficult to prove, I think Paxton makes a compelling case. I do not wish to say more for fear of ruining the book for a prospective reader.A sober, accessible, readable work from a master historian performing at his absolute best. Highly recommend.

An in-depth analysis of the origins and history of fascism. Although the book was written 20 years ago it is eerily relevant to the recent love affair of traditionally democratic countries with autocratic forms of government. Fundamentally, the author argues that it is less what autocrats are saying than what the actions of their governments are that defines them as fascists. This is not a page-turner to be read in one day. I give this book four stars only because it is not targeted at a general audience but it would serve well as the source for a seminar in history or political science.

If you were able to answer that question immediately, off the top of your head, without taking several minutes to think about it, then chances are your answer is wrong, or at least woefully incomplete. Fascism is a far more complex political phenomenon than most people realize, and it is not at all easy to define. Part of the problem is that the word "fascism" has come, in recent decades, to be used as little more than an epithet—a label that people attach to any political viewpoint they vehemently disagree with. Even for those conscientious people who try not to use the word "fascism" quite so loosely, it is easy to conflate fascism with other forms of authoritarianism. But even those scholars who study fascism can't seem to agree about how to define it. Much of the problem is due to the diversity and inconsistency within fascism itself. Italian Fascism under Mussolini was not quite the same thing as German National Socialism under Hitler, and fascist movements in other countries differed in crucial ways from both Italian and German forms of fascism. But even within a single country, a fascist movement would change quite a bit over time. A nascent fascist movement that is trying to attract new followers differs in many ways from an organized fascist party that is trying to gain political power, which differs in many ways from a newly formed fascist government that is trying to consolidate its power, which differs in many ways from an established fascist regime that is trying to govern and carry out its policy agenda. Even fascist leaders and political thinkers couldn't agree on what fascism was all about. It’s no wonder that there is so much misunderstanding and confusion about how fascism ought to be defined.In this excellent book, Robert O. Paxton takes on the vexing question of how to define fascism. But rather than come up with a proposed theoretical definition of fascism at the beginning and then trying to defend it, Paxton starts by examining what fascism looks like in the real world—how fascist movements actually began, how they took root and attracted a mass following, how fascist parties then rose to power and took control of the machinery of government, how they governed, etc.—and only after thoroughly considering all of these things does he finally, in the last few pages of the book, draw conclusions about what fascism really is.I highly recommend that you read the entire book for yourself before considering Paxton's definition of fascism—it's the only real way to do justice to his approach to the subject. But for those of you who don't mind spoilers, here is how Paxton ultimately defines fascism, on the antepenultimate page of his book:"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."That is a long and complex definition, and it will probably make little or no sense to anyone who has not read Paxton's book. But after reading the book, I feel that it is probably the best definition anyone is likely to come up with.