Sharing this for a couple reasons. One is the point the author makes, which Hannah Arendt would have agreed with, as I do, which is that the “ideas behind the politics,” revealing of the “political theory” of whatever political phenomena under discussion, must not be ignored. As some friends of mine suggest I do, ignore them I mean. Like, why should anyone have read Mein Kampf in the 1920’s? Its author wasn’t even in power (yet)! But as a hobby in my dotage, and knowing I can’t do anything to change the “products” of such ideas; Perpetual War, torture, total surveillance, etc., all those things we once accused/condemned our Cold War enemies of, I will continue to look to the “ideas at the origins of fascist political phenomena,” as the foregoing are. And whom they adopt as “models” for their ideologues to point to as examples to follow and whose “ideas" should be imbibed. One thing this review has correct, in my opinion, is the importance of “ideas” in understanding political phenomena, such as represented in a "Leaders,” a Party, or a Movement. I found this article after seeing a much more favorable review of Pilsudski in, wait for it . . . The American Conservative magazine. As my one-time ex-Sandinista, political warfare expert, acquaintance Antonio Ybarra told me long ago; there are certain publications you can look at to see the ideological direction they are pointing their Movement’s followers toward. For what I will generously call the “New Right, as they self-describe these days, that is principally The American Conservative magazine, as “Early Adopters” of National Conservatism/Trumpism/Straussianism/Schmittism, take your pick of ideological descriptors for them. So when TAC has an article about the one-time Polish military dictator, General Pilsudski, known as a “fascist,” it tells me what cultural direction they want their readers to see issues as, in my opinion. This quote is from the article at bottom: "Another disadvantage of Zimmerman’s approach is that the ideas behind the politics are often ignored. We do not learn of Piłsudski’s theory of Prometheism and little of the Intermarium republic he wanted to establish between the Black, Adriatic and Baltic Seas (another idea that has relevance today, with Poland’s current authorities establishing the Three Seas Initiative that draws inspiration from the Intermarium)." This one goes into some details of Pilsudski’s Intermarium, reintroduced recently, which can be assumed a Russian or two has heard of it also, and given the history of the area, may see it as particularly threatening. Of course Trump was for it, as an “Early Adopter.” BLUF: In 2017, when the recently elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, chose to attend a summit of the Three Seas Initiative (TSI) in Warsaw before he had visited western European allies like the UK, France and Germany, a number of commentators took note." But who is Pilsudski, one may ask, and how do I happen to be aware of him? Pilsudski as explained in the attached article, could be considered a “Godfather” of Israeli fascism, as a fascist himself, and less so, but still, Mussolini was. "Mr. Perlmutter's chapters on Betar and Mr. Begin's youth are among the more valuable in the book. Betar was committed to the leadership principle and to military activism. It was intended as the ''disciplined and uniformed'' nucleus of a Jewish Legion. It found inspiration in Marshal Pilsudski, the hero of the war against Russia in 1916, and in his Polish Legions. ''So strong was the Zionists' admiration that when Pilsudski died in 1935, hordes of Betarim showed up in full uniform to honor the old marshal.'' Betar was widely regarded as a fascist organization by liberals and leftists alike." Here is an article with a sound introduction to the subject of fascism. Which might help one see it when it appears today; in the U.S., and in Israel, with the “cross-pollination” of their respective “Conservative Movements.” "No discussion of Betar’s relationship to fascism can dodge the fervent debate among historians of the European Right about what constitutes fascist politics in the first place. Not one of the political beliefs and practices associated with fascism was unique to fascist movements in interwar Europe. Throughout the nineteenth century, left-wing political organizations across the continent organized paramilitary movements. Liberals and conservatives throughout Europe frequently expressed hostility toward socialism. Nearly all European political movements in the interwar period were preoccupied with the sacralization of politics through creating political myths and orches- trating mass spectacles. Despite their preference for preserving the power of traditional elites, authoritarian governments in interwar Poland, Romania, Hungary, and elsewhere in eastern Europe shared many components of Fascist Italy’s ideological repertoire.33 "The sheer diversity of movements that described themselves as fascist between the two world wars makes comparative work all the more challeng- ing. Of the variety of Europeans who described themselves as fascist, Italian and German fascists alone managed to seize the levers of power at a national level. Despite their formal alliance in 1938, Mussolini and Hitler differed in numerous respects in how they exercised power, with Fascist Italy tending toward conservative authoritarian rule, and the Third Reich seeking the total dominance of the Nazi Party.34 Although the remaining fascist groups— wielding little to no state power—conceived of themselves as part of a global network, their attitudes toward modernity, religion, women, and the efficacy of alliances with other groups varied greatly. It is no surprise, then, that histo- rians, political scientists, and sociologists endlessly debate the criteria that a political movement must meet to be considered fascist.35 "As historians such as Robert Paxton have argued, scholars searching for ideological coherence among Europe’s fascists not only risk flattening the internal ambiguities and contradictions of fascist thought and behavior. They also miss a crucial point. As much as fascists across the continent issued bold, brash, and sweeping political declarations, they saw little need to present an ideologically seamless world to their followers and were constantly redefining their aims and practices.36 The very terms “fascism” and “democracy” were in a constant state of flux in the interwar period. Political leaders on the radical right often insisted that their form of rule was more democratic than parliamentary politics because they represented the will of the masses better than any election ever could.37 Betar’s leaders, too, spent much of the interwar period not only debating the value of democracy and fascism, but also questioning the very meanings of these terms and the boundaries separating them. Rather than attempt to create a stable definition of fascism against which I can judge the politics of Betar’s members, I instead explore how and why many of them continually struggled to define the term in order to make it their own. This book provides a case study of an interwar youth movement continually reshaping the meaning of fascism, while simultaneously questioning its efficacy as a worldview and behavioral code." Make it “their own,” they did: https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/38833, Zionist-Revisionism: The Years of Fascism and Terror, and became the natural allies of the American Right, as can be seen with Cheney, and Trump, and the militarist elements of the Democrats.
|
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.jpg){kind=link}
