← New Books Network
New Books Network
Carlos Martins, "Fascism: Beyond Hitler and Mussolini" (Desassossego, 2022)
01:21:30
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:01]
Home Depot Announcer
Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill 4 burner gas grill on special. Buy for only $199 and entertain all season with the Hampton bay West Grove seven piece outdoor dining set for only $499. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot while supplies Last priced invalid May 14 through May 27 US only exclusion supplies. See homedepot.com Pricematch for details.
- [00:32]
Red Bull Promoter
Ready to soundtrack your summer with Red Bull Summer All Day Play? You choose a playlist that fits your summer vibe the best. Are you a festival fanatic, a deep end dj, a road dog, or a trail mixer? Just add a song to your chosen playlist and put your summer on track. Red Bull Summer All Day Play Red Bull gives you wings. Visit red bull.com brightsummer ahead to learn more. See you this summer.
- [00:58]
Carlos Martins
Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:03]
Joe Williams
Hello. Welcome to the New Books Network. I'm your host, Joe Williams and today I'm joined in the studio by Portuguese expert on fascism, Carlos Martins.
- [01:13]
Carlos Martins
Hello Carlos.
- [01:14]
Joe Williams
Thanks for joining us today.
- [01:16]
Carlos Martins
Hello. Hello. Thank you for the invitation. I'm very happy to be here. Thank you very much.
- [01:22]
Joe Williams
Great, thank you. So we're going to be focusing our conversation today on your recent book, Fascism's Beyond Hitler and Mussolini. Before we get into the book itself, could you introduce yourself to us more in more detail please, and explain a bit more about your research interests?
- [01:39]
Carlos Martins
Okay. So my name is Carlos Martinez. I'm from Portugal, from Coimbra, more or less, kind of. And my in the last maybe 15 years I have been studying fascism, and not only fascism, the history of the extreme right and the far right in general, but with a specific interest for fascism, the history of fascism, the ideology of fascism, the characteristics of fascism, the evolution of fascism, Fascism, let's say it. I prefer to see myself honestly as an expert on fascism rather than a historian or a political science, because my research somehow intersects between the two, between political science and historian and history. And so that's it. I come from Coimbra. I have a PhD. I studied on the the PhD was on the institute of the CNC Sociage D', on, in the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon. That's where I did my research. At the moment I'm kind of, let's say, not currently involved in investigation. In academic life I am not, but I intend to go back rather soon and my interest on fascism is quite alive. I am still interested on fascism and all that stuff. Stuff. Actually, my. My first studies, my degree, my first degree was not on fascism, but on literature, languages and literature. So this fascism was kind of a detour from my normal course of studies, but then it became the main interest of my research. I don't know if you know anything else. You can just. Just ask if you want. Well, yeah.
- [03:34]
Joe Williams
I mean, what. First, so what. What kind of informed that decision to shift from languages and to the study of fascism? Was there something that catalyzed that transition?
- [03:44]
Carlos Martins
Well, it was. Let's go back in time. It was maybe 2013, I guess. I was reading a lot. My interests were kind of shifting. I was reading things about political science, politics, history also. That's. I was not only interested in literature, languages anymore. I was also reading about other stuff. And then there was a book which I have it here, even though you can't see it, which is A History of Fascism by Stanley Payne, which is an American historian, is very famous among academics, among historians, and he wrote this book in 1995, which is called A History of Fascism. It's just. Is a rather big book, a rather big book with more than 500 pages. And I read the book. And this one book, well, it was not this one. It was a book that Stanley Pen had previously written, which was much, much smaller, but the idea was the same. Fascism comparison and definition. I read both books by Stanley Paint, and it was this author that made me become interested in the study of fascism. What Stanley Pain did these two books, a smaller one and a bigger one, somehow have somehow awakened my interest for the study of fascism. And it was because of that that I started reading more by Roger Griffin, Philip Morgan, Michael Mann, Robert Paxton, and many, many more. It was Sterling Pain was the main culprit. If I am here today, it's because of Sterling Pain. Blame it on him, not on me. I'm just kidding.
- [05:42]
Joe Williams
Okay, great. Yeah. So you've cited then some very important names then, in the study of fascism. And the one that I'm most familiar then is Roger Griffin. Which would bring me on to my next question then, regarding the book specifically, because your book Fascism opens with quite a detailed discussion of definitions and the approach to defining fascism that you take in the book is an approach which kind of tries to define fascism in reference to the content, to its ideology, which is something that Roger Griffin also did. So let's talk here about definitions then. Why do you think it's important to start with definitions and in a book about fascism?
- [06:25]
Carlos Martins
Well, first of all, let me start by saying that this book, this Portuguese book that I've published is in fact a kind of more simpler. Is a simpler version of my doctoral thesis, which was also published in. In the United Kingdom in English. The name of the thesis, the name of the book I mean is for. From Hitler to Quadrano, the ideology of fascist leaders. From Hitler to Cordrano, Quadrano, the leader of the Romanian fascism. Of Romanian fascism. And in that book, in that, from Mittler to Kudriano, I kind of take a mixed approach in which I start with, let us say, an hypothetical definition, and then after the study, I go back to that hypothetical definition and, and redefine it according to my study, like an hypothesis of a definition of fascism. Then I studied the cases. Then in the conclusion, I changed the first hypothesis that I had in this Portuguese book. It is different. I didn't think it was necessary for several reasons. So in my introduction, I just explained what I mean by fascism, my definition of fascism. This definition of fascism is important because according to. According to what? I think if you want to study a subject, if you want to present to the public a subject, what you know about the subject, you first need to know what do you mean by that? What you are, what are you studying? What are you studying? What's your study about? So you just need to know to. To have at least some kind of definition to help the reader know what you're going to talk about. To the. You have. You need to have some limitation. You have to create some boundaries in order to know what to insert in your study. That's why I think that. And now I'm being purely technical here, I'm just talking about academical questions. But in order to study something from my point of view, you need to know what are you studying, what you are studying, what you are, what is it about? What is it that you're studying? What are the boundaries that separate it from other phenomena that may be similar but are not exactly the same? So I think that is important to start a book by presenting a definition. And that's what I did in this book for fascisms. And I might add that considering that fascism is a very controversial term, a very controversial word when it comes to politics and the political controversies and political battles of today, it becomes almost impossible to understand what someone is talking about and uses the word fascism. And for, and this is another reason which proves that it is important to present, to first present the definition of fascism before we go on studying the cases, let's say, because in this specific topic is even more important than if you Were talking about socialism, liberalism, or any other phenomenon, because this. This topic, this word, the word itself is so controversial that you need to somehow clarify to the reader what you're talking about?
- [10:01]
Joe Williams
Sure, absolutely. I think a lot of us can relate to instances where we feel that the word fascism gets overused and it no longer really seems to mean very much, and in which case the quality of the debate around the topic suffers because there's a lack of clarity in the definition. And it can kind of just be evoked or weaponized to discredit or to demonize somebody who we don't like or something like this. And I think we can probably agree that it has very negative implications for the quality of public debate on the topic. So, yeah, on that topic, do you think the term fascism. You've kind of alluded to some of this in your previous answer, but do you think it's kind of lost some of its kind of analytical precision in the debate over recent years when.
- [10:48]
Carlos Martins
When you talk about them, about research, about technical books and that stuff. I do not think that it has. That this kind of looseness of the meaning of the word has affected the research. Serious research, serious researchers know how to use the word fascism, or at least they try. But when it comes to public debates, yeah, that's kind of true, because the word is thrown around to demonize enemies, but it's mainly from the left, but sometimes also from the right. The right can also. You demonize the left by calling it fascist sometimes. I mean, it's. The word somehow loses its meaning. I'll try to be clear. I think that when it comes to politics and political debates and political controversies, one has the right to use these words more, rather more freely. Okay, so when we're talking about debates in parliament on social network between different people from different parties, whatever, they kind of have the right to use words more freely. I do not intend to forbid them from using the word fascism. I will not appear and say, no, no, no, no, you just you. This is the definition. You can only use the word fascism according to this definition. There's no. The. The. All the rest is forbidden. You're going to jail.
- [12:31]
Joe Williams
If he was the word fascism quite
- [12:33]
Carlos Martins
fascist, actually, Actually, Roger Griffin makes a joke about it. So I understand that people use that word. And both the left, mainly the left, but also the right, when they use the word fascism, they somehow, they kind of have the right to do so, because I cannot. I cannot prevent them from doing it. They have their right to do it. That's politics. And for instance, right Wing, the right many times also demonizes the left by using the word communist or socialist, by using it not very precisely, not very correctly. So that's normal. That's part of politics. And to a certain extent I do believe that we need to tolerate that because that's part of the political debate. We cannot prevent it from happening. But there comes a moment in which this exaggeration somehow crosses some limits and contributes to make the world lose its, its very meaning in the first place. It somehow creates a toxic environment in which we cannot have healthy political debate anymore. I mean, there are some limits that we shouldn't cross when using the word fascist. For instance, I understand why the left uses the word fascist to attack the so called populist radical right. I understand why the left does it, just like I understand why the right uses the word socialism or communism, communism to the new radical left. Or to attack the, for instance the Maduro's regime in Venezuela, which is not communists, rather socialist, whatever. But I understand why they do it. That's politics. But please try not to cross some, some limits. Try to stay within the limits of the. Something reasonable when using the word fascist. I understand why the left uses the word fascist to attack the populist radical rights. But if they are, I think they are incorrect. But I understand why they do it. But when it comes to attack the center right, sometimes even the radical left attack, attacks center left part is by using terms that are similar to that. I mean, it makes no sense. We should at least make some comments to some compromise, some compromise to use the words at least as with some, a minimum level of minimum. What should I say of. There must be some agreement, a minimal agreement on the meaning of the word fascism.
- [15:26]
Joe Williams
So yeah, thanks for the answer. And one topic that came up, there is a distinction between fascist parties and what might be called a new kind of wave of far right populist parties. So again, staying on the subject of definitions, then you seem to see that it's quite, it's reasonably important to distinguish between fascism, authoritarianism, conservatism and populism. Perhaps most relevant to the current debate is perhaps a distinction between fascism and populism. So how would you characterize the distinction then between fascism and populism?
- [16:08]
Carlos Martins
This is such a complex question because populism is a very loose term because fascism, the ideology of fascism does indeed. It can have many times, oftentimes some elements of populism, populist components, elements enter the fascist ideology. Actually, I actually do believe that one of the main tensions, contradictions in fascist Ideology is a contradiction between populism and elitism. Even though if you are, if we have to choose between the two, there's only one question. Fascism is an elitist ideology. The elitism is the one that gains more preeminence. But if we have to, if we have to distinguish between populism and fascism, it's rather difficult because of this. Because. What do you mean by populism? Do you specifically mean the populist radical right? What is the main difference between the populist radical right? And you say that I distinguish between authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism. I don't really distinguish between all these concepts in the book. I don't, I don't write, oh, this is what I mean by conservatism. This is what I mean by fashion. This is, I just define fascism. I do not define, I don't really define the other components, the other words, the other concepts. What I trying to be more, trying to be more clear. I think that the main thing that characterizes fascism, that makes it different from any other far right political movement is its radicalism and its idea of creating a new man and a new elite. The new elite pro, which is driven by vital, by the sense of vitality, of strength, of capacity to create a new type of human being, a new man, a new society. This radicalism, this strength of his new man, this, this cult, like this warlike figure, figure becomes a new man. This is what fascism is all about. This is its polygenetic component, so to say. So fascism is characterized by this. And I can say that this is what distinguishes fascism, this revolutionary aim to create this new man, this new society, these new elites, this cult of warriors and so on. This is what makes fascism different from every other manifestation of far right politics. This, some would say revolutionary aim of creating these new men and new society. And very radical. It's very radical. So I can say this is what distinguishes fascism from the, the other far right phenomena. But I, but this is more complex because I don't really make a, distinguishes between populism as a concept and fascism, because populism, as I said, fascism can have some populist elements too. But if you, but it's not really a populist ideology. Just borrow some things from populism. If you specifically mean the populist radical right of today, what distinguishes it, distinguishes it from fascism is precisely this revolutionary radical idea to create a new society and a new man. The populist radical right doesn't have that goal, doesn't have that aim. Of creating these revolutionary goal. At its core, it's polygenetic. This polygenetic goal. That's it. And conservatism doesn't also have that kind of concept, that kind of goal. So just to simplify my answer, this is. This is what differentiates fascism from other far right phenomena. It is this goal of creating the new man. It is a radical goal, some would say revolutionary, polygenetic and very, very radical. This new society, this new man, this cult of warriors, of new elites. And I'm kind of repeating myself, but it's just to make my point.
- [20:35]
Joe Williams
Sure, absolutely, yeah. And then just to touch back on that word palingenetic, which some listeners may not be familiar with, this, I think was coined, I think, by Roger Griffin, wasn't it, in the Nature of Fascism, 1991?
- [20:50]
Carlos Martins
Well, kind of to English readers in the English academic world. Roger Griffin was the first to use it, but it was already used by Italian historians in Italy.
- [21:04]
Joe Williams
And to clarify the term then, it means Palin, as in the people and genesis, as in birth. And it basically amounts to something like a wholesale societal rebirth, which is the kind of definitive characteristic of a fascist ideology, according to Roger Griffin, this narrative of a kind of wholesale societal regeneration to create, to constitute the new man, establish a new radical kind of social order with this revolutionary, mobilizing, populist sort of ethos. And that's kind of where Griffin comes in, to try and define fascism in terms of its ideology and its narratives and its concepts and so on, as opposed to some of the more sociological attempts to define fascism which you say in the book. None of those are invalid. You're not trying to say you should only define fascism in reference to its ideology, to define the fascism in reference to the composition of its support base, and so on and so on. This is all valid and this is part of the conversation too, just that you're focusing on the ideological aspects of it. Moving on then. So, yeah, coming back then to this kind of, this idea, this conversation about the relationship between fascism and the established order, because fascism does have a kind of anti establishment rhetoric at times. It talks about revolution and kind of being, you know, anti establishment. But as you've talked about, it's also kind of elitist. It's really kind of quite contradictory. This is contradictory tension then between some of its rhetoric and some of its practices, then. So do you see that contradiction within fascism between this kind of, you know, perhaps anti establishment rhetoric and its perhaps elitist practices? Do you see that as one of its defining characteristics?
- [22:58]
Carlos Martins
To a certain extent yes, fascism does indeed uses this rhetoric of revolution and change. And these have, and this has, this has some importance mostly even I need to say that even the Italian variety of fascism, which is sometimes seen as having become too conservative, even in Italian fascism during the regime phase, this radicalism and this revolutionary goal of creating the new Mandalist society, it became relevant in the 30s. So yes, it's not possible to analyze fascism without having in mind these radical and establishment goals and components of fascist discourse. But in the movement phase, that's what we were talking about. This contradiction between these revolutionary and anti systemic components and its alliance with conservative forces is one of the main contradictions of fascism. Because fascism tries to mobilize some of the poorer classes of society, it actually threats to mobilize all the classes of society, opposing against the decadent elites of today's society and so on. Or it's necessary to destroy the corrupt current elites which are destroying the nation. And at the same time, sometimes it makes some agreements with these very same elites that it is supposedly trying to destroy. This happened in Italy. Mussolini, in a way came to power because of this kind of agreements with the so called ruling classes, if you want to call it that, the March on Rome, it was not really a revolution, it was a demonstration which ended up with Mussolini being invited by the King himself to to become Prime Minister. This March on Rome only succeeded because of Mussolini somehow was able to have the sympathy of many elements among the elites, the ruling classes, including in the royal family. And as to Hitler, which was some, he was in a way more radical than Mussolini, even more radical than Mussolini. But even Hitler, he only became Chancellor of Germany because the people, including von Papen, which surrounded President Hindenburg, somehow convinced him to nominate Hitler as Chancellor. If it was not for their, should I say, their decision of giving power to Hitler, Hitler would have never become Chancellor. It was thanks to these agreements with the elites. And this is at the core of fascism. I'm not saying, let us be clear, I'm not saying that fascism only comes to power thanks to these agreements. It is impossible for fascism to come to power if it does not make this kind of agreement. It's false. Because fascism can indeed try to make some terrorist couple. This is theoretically possible, can try to make some kind of revolution. This is possible. But when you look at history, what actually happened in the cases that we know is that Fascism only came to power thanks to these agreements and these mixed tactics of mobilizing the middle classes and the poorer classes, talking about the revolution and at the same time Making some kind of agreement with the elites, with the ruling elites. And this is what gave Fascism the actual power. It is possible that it happens in any other way? Yes, it is possible. Did it happen? Not really. Unless the only two fascist movements who came to power, Italian fascists and German Nazis, came to power this way. If you. Of course, I'm ignoring for now movements like the. In Croatia, the Ustashi and so on, which only came to power thanks to the Nazi. The Nazis invaders. And that doesn't count. That doesn't really count.
- [27:28]
Joe Williams
So. Okay, well, let's move on then to some of the specific case studies in the book and so on, and put some of this into practice and see how this played out in specific moments. So first of all, in the book, it's divided up after the first chapter on definitions into case studies on various historical moments. Italy, Germany, the British Union of Fascists, Portugal, the Falange Espanola, the Spanish Falange, Romania, France and finally Brazil. So what advantages do you think, adopting this comparative approach? What were the advantages of having a comparative approach here? Did you gain any insights that you may not have otherwise gained?
- [28:17]
Carlos Martins
There are many advantages, because my opinion is that in order to really understand fascism, we just really need to add more manifestations of fascism. The more you know, the more you know the about them. The more you know about them, the more you know about fascism. It's like you want to know everything about fascism and all its. Well, in all its manifestations. Manifestations. I know that this is not possible. I cannot make a study of fascism, including Portugal, Lithuania, Finland, all the countries in the world. It cannot be done. It's humanly impossible, at least not with very detailed study. Very detailed studies are possible, but the more the merrier. And I really do believe that this gives us some insights about what fascism is all about. The ideological definitions that were taking place in different manifestations of fascism, the different goals each movement had. What did they have that was different from the main generic fascism, let's say the generic concept. And what did they have that made them unique? What distinguishes, what is what distinguished them, for instance, from Italian Fascism or from Germanazism? And what made them come closer to them? This is very interesting. You kind of study all the possibilities of fascism ideology by studying all these manifestations. Even though I do believe that there are perhaps four or five manifestations of fascism that I would say are the most important ones. We can talk about it later. But to study the others is also important. I believe that even studying party like the National Nationalist Party, which was active in Iceland. Even studying this Icelandic fascism, let's call it that way, is important, Is interesting. Is interesting for the study of fascism. Even if this Icelandic party never gained any real, real popularity, it was just. But still, theoretically, is still important in order for us to know the possible variations and permutations of fascist ideology. And also it gives us insights about the reasons why fascism could also fail. We can study why did fascism fail in this country but. But gained power in this one, in Germany or in Italy, and so on. This is also a very interesting question. What are the reasons that make fascism, that make it possible for fascism to come to power? And in this way, studying lesser known manifestations, varieties of fascism is also interesting. Even small parties like in Ireland, in Iceland, in the Czech Republic, those are interesting too, at least in my opinion. I know that I'm speaking from the point of view of a very expert that is focused on this specific subject. So this is normal to have these kind of detailed interests.
- [31:38]
Joe Williams
Yeah, yeah. I'd like actually to ask you some questions then. So for instance, let's take the Great British Union of Fascists.
- [31:46]
Carlos Martins
The British Union of Fascists.
- [31:48]
Joe Williams
Yeah. Which was not successful. And this isn't a subject I'm particularly knowledgeable about, but I've heard it suggested that one of the reasons a fascist movement, Oswald Mowgli's fascist movement in England never came into power was because of certain kind of structural conditions. A more secure and stable powerful bourgeoisie, a more established order, and so great limited impacts from the kind of economic crisis of the 30s and so on. More stable economy and a more stable political infrastructure and so on and so on. So would you agree with that? Would you say that those countries which were more stable with a stronger, more powerful bourgeoisie were perhaps less susceptible to fascist revolution?
- [32:32]
Carlos Martins
I think that you pretty much summarize the many reasons why fascism failed in Britain. Because there was never any real reason for the middle classes to join the fascist party. And there was never a real reason for the ruling classes, let's call it that way, to recur to. To give power to a fascist party. The party system was stable. It didn't collapse. There was the Conservative Party, then there was this Labor Party, but all was maintained in the. Within the limits of the. A democratic debate. Oh, yes, there were some strikes in the. In the twenties, for instance, which led some people on the right to come closer to fascism to combat the supposed madness of the left in Britain and the strikes during the 20s, but these were kind of exceptions. The party system didn't collapse the economic crisis. It did impact the uk, but not as hardly as, for instance, Germany. It was never that catastrophic in Britain. So the middle classes are never really at the. The necessity to join the fascist party. And perhaps more importantly, the UK was not really on the side of the losers in World War I. I think that sometimes this factor is exaggerated in some of the more traditional history books, but it does matter, because the UK didn't feel the necessity of nationalistic revenge because of being a loser of World War I. It already had its empire. It didn't had the goal of creating a new empire, of extending its empire. Also, all these features somehow contributed for British fascism to fail to not achieve power. And the main variety, the main manifestation of fascism in the uk, According to my opinion, then generally among historians of fascism, this is accepted. The main variety of fascism in UK was the British Union of Fascism, led by Oswald Mosley, this very interesting guy who tried to be the British Mussolini or the English Hitler or something like that.
- [35:06]
Joe Williams
So, yeah, I suppose kind of the overarching theme of it is that the narrative, the situation, the perceived sense of crisis wasn't serious enough, wasn't grave enough to warrant that kind of radical response, that kind of like, you know, it didn't feel like urgently necessary for a new social order to take place. And that's kind of what fascism depends on to a large extent, to legitimize its kind of, you know, violent radical politics is a very grave, serious sense of crisis. And in those countries where the crisis wasn't felt as seriously as that, that narrative didn't resonate quite as much with people, I suppose.
- [35:43]
Carlos Martins
I think that's true because fascism, what makes fascism grow is a sense of crisis, an impending crisis that can destroy the nation. And for this reason, the nation must radically rebirth and gain new characteristics and rise from the ashes. If this sense of an impending crisis is not really spread among the population and the elites and the middle classes, fascism doesn't really have any possibility, is to grow and acquire power. But Mosley himself, as it is noted by many historians and biographers, Mosley himself was very, very worried with this supposed crisis of civilization. This is one of the features that is almost obsessively present in his thoughts during the 30s, this sense of an impending crisis that would destroy the British civilization. Mosley himself was very worried about it. And that was one of the reasons why he adhered to fascism in the first place.
- [36:50]
Joe Williams
Sure, yeah, absolutely. That narrative doesn't kind of ring true with people. If things aren't that bad, you Know when things are very bad in Weimar Germany, when people, you know, can't buy a pint of milk with all the banknotes like this, then the guy, the guy, the guy saying, we need a whole revolution, people are going to listen to him a lot more. And when people are getting by slightly better, where things aren't so bad, you
- [37:13]
Carlos Martins
know, the fact that things are bad in itself is not enough for fascism to grow, but is a, is a necessary precondition. There are countries in which the things are also bad and fascism didn't grow as much as in Germany. There are other important factors, namely the how the traditional right survives. For instance, in Britain, the main conservative party remained as the main right wing party, which did not happen in other countries, for instance, in which the traditional right and the traditional, traditional elites somehow lost their faith on the traditional, the establishment, the right wing establishment and the traditional right wing parties. All this was important for to explain to the rise of fascism and the conquering of power.
- [38:06]
Joe Williams
Sure, absolutely. And I suppose one other element here that we could perhaps mention is of course, you know, we've talked about this a bit already, is that the capitalist class was, you know, an affinity between capitalism and fascism because capitalism was kind of scared of Marxist social revolution and so on, and to a certain extent perhaps saw fascism as a kind of bulwark, as it did as protection against communism.
- [38:31]
Carlos Martins
This is very complex and shouldn't penalize simplistically because some capitalists also were afraid of fascism. That radical component of fascism could also turn against capitalism if it was not contained. It could also turn against capitalism. Some capitalists were also afraid of fascism, but never as afraid of fascism as they were afraid of communism. So they could look at fascism as a necessary evil sometimes rather than real something that they really like to have in power. For instance, when Mussolini came to power after the March on Rome, the, if you want to call it the industrialist class, the bourgeoisie, the owners of companies, of factories, whatever you want to call it, they still prefer a more authoritarian conservative government of which Mussolini could be a part, but not really that Mussolini would be the leader of the government. And in Germany as well, most of the industrial class did not support Hitler until he came to power. Contrary to what is sometimes thought actually Hitler tried to have their support, that's true, but with the exceptions of some individual cases and the exception of the
- [40:05]
Joe Williams
youth,
- [40:07]
Carlos Martins
the sons, it was, let's say the sons of the industrialists are the ones who supported Nazism, because Nazism was very popular among the youth. But the capitalist class somehow only began supporting fascism after they have come to power. When they become a reality, the fascist regime are in power. This is a reality. So we promise to protect you. So the fascists said to capitalists who promise to protect your interests. We are the last bulwark against communism. You can count on us. So capitalists could at that point, after they come to Fiber Receipt, there's no other option. If we let them fall, perhaps the communist revolution will come. Then we will support them. And that pretty much summarizes the relationship between fascism and capitalism. Capitalists do not really like fascism, but they can tolerate it if they fight only against communism. And once they come to power, the capitalists may think well, better them than the communists. We will not let them fall, because if they fall, the communists may be next. That kind of summarizes it because the relationship between fascism and capitalism is complex. Because many fascists like to think of themselves as anti capitalists too. Even though this is very debatable. Because they, they are, they were not anti capitalist in a Marxist sense, that's for sure. And the system that they wanted to create, which varied from manifestation, from variety to variety, but the system that they wanted to create generally would include the respect for private property, which clearly demonstrates that they were not Marxist anti capitalistic in the. In any Marxist sense whatsoever. But they did revel against, sometimes against big business. And again in the case of Nazism, the companies that are supposedly controlled by Jewish against Jewish capital or against capitalism and big business that destroyed the middle class. They rebelled against capitalism from let's say a petty bourgeois point of view, a middle class point of view. That was their anti capitalist version. Their version of anti capitalism was a rather middle class one, a petty bourgeois one. And when they come to power, this closer alliance with capitalist elite somehow make this disappear, this anti capitalism, this petty bourgeois anti capitalism somehow disappears and becomes less important or not important at all, at least during the first phases of the regime. This, this of course is very complex because some factions within fascist movements in were indeed more closer to something that we could call let's call it socialism, like the Strasserism in Nazism and the syndicalist faction of Italian Fascism, even though they did not call themselves socialism. But well, trying to summarize the relationship between fascism and communism and fascism and capitalism does exist. Capitalist classes can act at times support fascism. But this is more complex than it is sometimes thought of. It is not really. They are not, they're not all end in end. And the capitalist centered mysteriously wishing to bring Hitler to power in 1925 or something like that. This is not how it works.
- [44:05]
Joe Williams
Sure. So there was some kind of convergence of interests, of various points and divergences and so on. Yeah.
- [44:11]
Carlos Martins
And the fight against communism was one of these, one of those interests.
- [44:16]
Joe Williams
Sure, sure, sure, yeah, sure. That's obviously a really big topic. I'll just mention one other thing is of course, you know, fascism, at least in its rhetoric and its discourse, like to present itself as anti materialist and kind of spiritual. And it this. And it was opposed to Marxism, not least on the ground that it was a materialist doctrine which it felt might reduce kind of, you know, human experience down to kind of craft space, you know, liberal modernity, kind of industrial modernity. And fascism opposed Marxism on those grounds. And it's oppose that would also apply to capitalism. So in terms of values rather than interests.
- [44:56]
Carlos Martins
Yes, both were materialistic. Some fascists said we opposed both capitalism Marxism because they were both materialistic. We defend something, we are anti materialists. Sure.
- [45:10]
Joe Williams
So another of the case studies in the book which I found interesting and which may surprise quite a lot, or maybe at least new to quite a lot of kind of English language readers, is you include a chapter on the fascist movement in Brazil, the Integralista Brazileira. The Integralist Action. The Brazilian Integralist Action. And a lot of people from a UK or English language background perhaps approach fascism as excessively Eurocentric perspective. From an excessively Eurocentric perspective at times.
- [45:47]
Carlos Martins
Yeah. Well, that accusation is made. I honestly think that if I was not European, not being represented in studies about fascism was one of the few moments in which I would be happy about Eurocentric studies, honestly. Okay, that's fine. Eurocentric studies in the case of Fasam, because fascism, we outside Europe, we do not have that. If I was a non European, that's what I would think. But the truth is that from my point of view, fascism did exist outside of Europe. This was debated for a time. Some, many historians, many experts said that we cannot really talk about fascism outside Europe. There, there was some things that came closer, but they were not really, really fascists. There were the conditions for fascism to appear and go or not present in outside Europe. Well, I disagree. I think that fascism is really a universal phenomenon. It existed outside of Europe mostly in the form of a party or a movement, not in the form of a regime, but existed as a party, as a movement. It existed outside Europe just like it existed in practically every country in Europe. Almost every country in Europe had its fascist party, its fascist movement. And many countries outside Europe had it too. And I think that the conditions, the structural conditions that existing in a given country, they can explain why fascism fails or why fascism succeeds, but they do not explain the appearance of fascism in itself. It can appear, okay, then the structural characteristics of that society may determine whether it's successful or whether it fails. But it exists, and in some few cases it even witnessed. Some countries even witnessed the growth of a real powerful fascist movement. And one of those cases was Brazil and the Assam, which I view as a fascist movement. And most historians on the subject nowadays see it as a fascist movement. This was not always the case, but nowadays it is the case. And most historians of the topic do see the as a variety of fascism, a manifestation of generic fascism in Brazil and which had a considerable growth in Brazil at the time during the 30s, and which was led by Plinius Salgado, the Brazilian Mussolini, let's call it that way, even though later you'll deny that about that. Another story. But what I want to the. The main point that I'm trying to make here is that yes, fascism existed outside Europe and the study of fascist movements, even not of fascist regimes, even if not of fascist regimes, is still important. If you want to know fascism, study fascism. Fascism outside Europe too. Study in Brazil, in Chile. In Chile there was a movement which was known as Nassau Nas n a c I s m o nismo. In South Africa there are a lot of movements and gray shirts and black shirts and all that kind of shirt society. In the Middle east, in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, there were some manifestations of fascism too. The case that that easily comes to mind is Japan, which had a regime that from my point of view was not fascism, but there were a lot of fascist influences in Japanese society at the time and some real fascist organizations. So yeah, include non European fascism in your study. If you want to study the generic fascism, also include countries outside Europe. I will be clear about this. There was no fascist regime outside Europe. Even the case of Japan to me is not really a fascist regime, even though it had many fascist influences. So I would rather say that there was no fascist regime outside Europe, but still there were fascist movement. Some of them had grown pretty significantly. Significantly. And so study them. Include them.
- [50:34]
Joe Williams
Sure, absolutely. So turning a little bit closer to home then, at least for me and you, Carlos, based here in Portugal. So perhaps quite a lot of people listening to this, at least in England or in some countries, might not be particularly familiar with the Estado Novo, the Portuguese New State and the Salazar dictatorship and so on and so on, but there is a debate here in Portugal about the extent to which Di Estado Novo and Salazarism constituted a fascist regime and ideology. And you, if I understand you correctly, are kind of more or less on the position that he did not. It was more of a conservative authoritarian regime. And in the book, you've included, rather than a chapter on Estado Novo and Salazar, you've included a chapter on hrolaupleto and the national Horlau. Plato is the national syndicalist. As the national syndicalist. How would we say that in English?
- [51:38]
Carlos Martins
National syndicalism, Something like that.
- [51:40]
Joe Williams
Yeah, national syndicalism, yeah, national syndicalism, sure. And you've got a chapter here on that movement, which a lot of people would agree with you, I'm sure was the kind of very. Was the closest thing that Portugal had to a kind of pure, so to speak, fascist grassroots movements. Guys in uniforms and all that kind of fascist choreography and iconography and ritualism and public kind of spectacle and so on, which is very clearly identifiable as fascism to a lot of people. So perhaps for listeners who might not be particularly familiar with this debate and this context and so on and so on, why do you more or less discount Salazarism and A Straddle Novo as an example of a fascist regime? And why do you think national syndicalism is closer to fascism?
- [52:29]
Carlos Martins
Well, I didn't count Salazar and Salazarism as varieties of fascism because they are not, let's say it, that debate about the fascist nature of Salazar's ideology and cells are the gym. It's kind of over right now, honestly, because for decades historians discussed that, but this is kind of over. I think that they moved on to other things. Because when you study, when you go and read all these studies about generic fascism, it is clear, it becomes clear that there is kind of a general consensus that the fascist regimes that existed in Europe were Italy and Germany. These were being dadism and a manifestation of fascism. These were the only real fascist regimes that existed in Europe. Actually, I have a book here, a PDF that I have, which has a quote that says exactly what I said. I can try to. I will try to find it, and I will speak while I. While I try to find it. So what I want. Where was I? So this idea, this idea among generic fascist experts that fascism is this radical strive, this goal of creating the new martial elite, the new warlike elite, the new man, this revolutionary ideology, this existed in movements that came to power only in Germany and only in. In Italy. So the other regimes which existed there were quite a Lot of regimes apart from Germany and Italy, like in France, Vichy in Austria, the regime of Dolphus in Greece, the regime of Metaxas and many others in Romania, the dictatorship, the royal dictatorship of Charles ii, the king. All these dictatorships somehow make a part of. They are included in the same generical phenomenon, which is different from fascism, which is sometimes called authoritarian conservatism. And it is in this phenomenon that Salazar, like all those other dictators, conservative dictators, are included. And this does not really. It's not really controversial to say this among experts on fascism. And you can see it easily. The Salazar regime was not a regime. There was characterized by a radical mass movement which came to power to create the new man and the martial new man, the strong new man and all that stuff, the warlike leader that creates the new society and the new man. This is not what characterizes the Stado novel. And there was nothing peculiar to Portugal in this. The Austrian regime, for instance, just to name this one, was very close to Portugal in ideology. The ideology of the two regimes were very close. The Vichy regime, Spain is kind of tricky because in Spain, the Falangist faction of the Franco's regime did have some power, and the phalange was the. They were the Spanish fascists, so to say. So the component of fascism in Franco's regime was more important and more relevant than in Salazar. But ultimately Franco too was a conservative. In the end, there is this kind of a consensus among historians of generic fascism, just like in the case of. Just like the case of general experts on fascism. What you can say in this, you can say that is that all these conservative regimes, which are not fascist, but all of them to a certain extent incorporated some fascist features. This is true. This is objectively true. Objectively true. These regimes included fascist features in them. The case of the Portuguese cases couldn't be clearer. The Portuguese Legion, Belgium, Portuguese, created in 1936, was a clear fascist influence, just like the musidad Portuguese Portuguese Youth, an organization for the youth. So these were fascist features that existed in the Portuguese regime and which also existed in all the other conservative regimes. So where do we stand in order to capture these important fascist features of these conservative regimes, which are not fascist, but nonetheless, to a certain extent could include some fascist features. Where do we stand? How can we capture these complex features of these regimes? Roger Griffin very interestingly uses a concept which was parafascism, para fascism. Para fascism, in his view, is a conservative authoritarian regime which is not fascism, but in any case adopted some fascist features and for a time could seem fascist to some people, but they were not really fascist because the main goals of the regime was never this radical revolution, but rather conservative goals. And for this reason, these fascist features that were incorporated in the regimes were put at the service of conservative goals of a conservative regime rather than fascist goals.
- [58:28]
Joe Williams
Could I just mention one thing next? I'm sorry to interrupt, but there was just one couple of things I wanted to mention is that, yeah, this kind of idea of panifascism is kind of selectively and strategically incorporating aspects of fascism when it's kind of politically convenient and expedient to do so for more pragmatic goals, more than kind of idealistic, kind of ideological sincerity, really, isn't it? It's kind of, you know, more of a kind of pragmatic kind of impetus. But the objectives, the ideological objectives of a regime such as Salazar remain more or less conservative. Traditionalism, it's just a kind of, you know, a window dressing. So it's been so para English faire, as you might say, in Portugal, you know, just for specific kind of reasons. And just to mention, my own research explores this too, this kind of partial and limited fascist of Salazarism during the 1930s, which I fully agree is just a limited and partial process. But it does, during the 1930s, kind of exhibit certain elements of fascist discourse, an ideology, but it later abandoned those when it was no longer kind of serving its interest to do so. When it kind of looked like fascism was on the way out, he was like, oh, no, Fascism, no, forget that. We don't want anything to do with that. So, yeah, just that concept of panifascism is useful because he kind of refers to a regime which kind of, you know, to certain extents, exhibits a degree of conformity and resemblance with fascism, but only in quite a superficial sense sort of way. And the. The ideology remains more or less conservative and traditionalist, authoritarian.
- [60:00]
Carlos Martins
It could be more than superficial at times. There were some factions of the regime which were really trying to create a fascist, which were trying to create a fascist regime out of a conservative regime. They existed in Portugal. Just to give the example of Portugal, some people in the Portuguese Legion did want to crew to go in a more fascist direction. This was true for them. It was more than superficial, superficial. And for a time it was. There was this possibility that these sectors of the regime could make it come closer to a fascist model or something like that. But at the end of the day, superficially or not, these fascist elements were never the. The most important features of the regime. They were. They were not the features that determined the, the goals of the regime, the nature of the regime, which is, which was conservative in its nature. So I would say that even in the case of Franco, we can say the same. Even if in the case of Franco, the fascist component was much, much more important because the Falange, the Spanish fascist party, was incorporated in the, in the regime and became a faction of the regime. So the, the Falange had more relevance in the Spanish regime than the fascist in the Portuguese case. But at the end of the day, Franco himself was also a conservative. So in the end, even the Franco regime, even the Spanish regime can also be seen as a conservative one, even if with a very, very strong fascist component during its first years after the war. This fascist component was somehow downplayed It.
- [61:53]
Joe Williams
Another feature then of Roger Griffin and his definition of parafascism is that he contends that when a genuinely fascist movement is kind of existing in the context of a parafascist regime, the para fascist regime will see that fascist, genuinely fascist movement as a threat and seek to neutralize it. Which is exactly what happened in Portugal because Salazan exiled Jolo Preto to Spain in 1935 after an attempted grab of power. Right. So that would kind of conform to a large extent with Griffin's definition of panifascism. The Salazar, he didn't want a genuinely fascist movement in Portugal, he would have said, seen that as quite a threat. While he was okay with adopting elements of fascism up to a certain point, as long as it didn't threaten his power. But when a fascist movement looked like he might actually be gaining genuine popularity, he was quite brutal in how he suppressed it.
- [62:52]
Carlos Martins
As long as these fascist features did not really implicate the radical revolutionary project, Salazar was okay with the regime having some fat fascist features here and there. He wouldn't mind that. As long as it did not threaten his power and the conservative ideology of his regime. Oh, I found a quote and I'll try to read it now. It is from a book called Reactionary Nationalists. What the complete title of the book, Reactionary Net. Reactionary Nationalists, Fascists and Idiot Ships in Interwar European. And the quote is this page. What is the page? 10. Nevertheless, we can say that the relatively broad consensus exists across a range of fields of historical study. That views the Italian and German dictatorships as the only fully fascist regimes, or at the very least, the regimes that were most unquestionably fascist. That is to say, what this quote says is that, yeah, it is true that in generally speaking, there is a broad consensus on this idea that only Germany and Italy were the really fascist regimes there was. There are still some experts who might say that the dadism isn't really a manifestation of fascism, that it is something else. The alliance between Mussolini and Hitler does not prove that Nazism is fascism and does not make Nazism fascism. But most historians nowadays do consider Nazism as a form of fascism, as a permutation of fascism, even if with very, very specific characteristics of their. Of its own.
- [64:48]
Joe Williams
Sure, absolutely. So one other question then, staying in Portugal is for listeners who may not be familiar with the political context. Here in Portugal, there's a manifestation of the far right populist movement, which is a general phenomenon, and the Portuguese configuration of that is a far right party called chaiga. So where do you stand on Sheger and its relationship to Estado Novo salazalist ideology, its categorization as populist or far right? Or what do you think the kind of implications of this debate, this conversation we've been having, are for the discussion around Shager?
- [65:34]
Carlos Martins
What are the implications of the characterization of Salazar regime? Actually, I think it does not have any implications at all. It does not have any implications whatsoever because the Shaiga is different from Salazar regime. So the Salzar's regime could have been fascist and Shiga still not be a fascist party for that reason. And the contrary is also true. The Salzar regime not being fascist and CHEGE being a fascist party, because these are very different phenomena and one is independent from the other. But in any case, as I said, I do not think that cells are in his regime or fascist. But the same with Chege is what in political science one could call populist radical right. Portuguese fascism does exist nowadays, even though it is not very. Is that really growing in numbers in and electoral support? Nothing of that. It does exist in small organizations. Some of them support Shira in order to try to come closer to the party and to spread their ideas through Shira organizations like Grupo Mil Centicorente Tres, which I would call a fascist group. Some other more older groups, older organizations that are still active today. The Portuguese fascism does exist independently of Salazar. Having been a fascist or not, it doesn't matter for the classification of that. The simple truth is that CHEGE is not fascist because it does not have the characteristics of our fascist party, of that revolutionary creation of the new elite, of the new man. It's there. The Shaker is a manifestation, a permutation of what in political science one might call the populist radical right, which Every it's varieties. In Spain with Vox in the UK there is now Reform Reform Party Reform Ukraine in France, the subloman national ifrate Italia, la lega di Salvini. Even though AfD in Germany, Alternative for Deutschland. AfD is more radical than Chile. Some would. Some might call it extreme right rather than populist radical right. I still think that is a populist radical right party though. In any case, what matters is that Chia is a manifestation of this phenomenon of the populist radical right and not of fascism. Fascism. Portuguese fascism does exist, but it's very. It's really in terms of electoral success. It doesn't even try to have electoral success because it doesn't context elections. So the characterization of the Salzar regime doesn't matter at all to. Doesn't have any implications in relation to the characterization of Sha and Andrea Ventura's ideology, which is the name of the leader of the party, Andrea Ventura. If you were in Portugal, you would hear a lot about this guy.
- [68:58]
Joe Williams
Okay, sure. Thanks for that answer. So, yeah, just to ask a couple more questions. I'm not a political scientist, so Shager is definitely not something I know a whole.
- [69:08]
Carlos Martins
Neither am I, as I said before.
- [69:11]
Joe Williams
Yeah. But one thing that I'm sort of superficially aware of is some of Kasmut's thinking on this. And he makes a distinction. I've read this in Portuguese and he makes a note about the translations of the radical right verses far right into Portuguese. But he says one of them is anti system. One of them seeks to kind of like engage within the system. But one of them is trying to kind of like overthrow the system kind of thing.
- [69:35]
Carlos Martins
Yes, yes. The one that works within the system is the radical right, while the extreme right is.
- [69:41]
Joe Williams
Extreme right is anti. Systemic. Yes, yeah, yeah. And anti.
- [69:45]
Carlos Martins
Well, the extreme right can at times also contest elections. There are extreme right parties who do it. But this is. This is more easily seen as a pragmatic. It doesn't really have any. It doesn't really implicate any belief in the. In elections and democracy at all.
- [70:05]
Joe Williams
Sure. And like I say, this is my area. Go ahead.
- [70:11]
Carlos Martins
Kazmudi uses three far right, radical right and extreme right. And the far right is the generic term. And both the radical right and the extreme right are manifestations of these radical right being the extreme right, more extremist, let's say it, than the radical right. And this, this causes a lot of problems in translations because some languages do not have separate words for separate. Separate terms for extreme right and far right. They translate far right as extremely right, extreme right as well. So this creates a lot of confusion, mainly in. In the media, on the. The newspapers, television shows, news or news outlets or whatever. They do not have distinctions for these terms. They just use extra extrema data for everything. And this creates a lot of confusions that should be cleared, clarified. And for this reason, I would suggest that news outlets and the like should use. Instead to translate far right, they should use ultra director. That's what that is. The expression that Cosmud suggests, suggests ultra director. This is the right word. It's not perfect, but it is something, because we don't really have another term to translate far right unless we use extreme right, which becomes rather confused.
- [71:56]
Joe Williams
So, yeah, and like I said, this isn't my field, but if I understand Kasmud correctly, one of his kind of central ideas is that what characterizes the most recent wave of far right politics is its mainstreaming. It's becoming more and more part of the political mainstream.
- [72:14]
Carlos Martins
I suppose this is part of the most recent wave of radical right populism, according to Kazmudi. Yes, that's what he says, and I think it's true, because the radical right has become more mainstream in the last 20 years. I would say it started in Italy and Austria at the beginning of the 21st century and the second half of the 90s in the case of Italy. And it. It happened, it has become more mainstream and its ideas also start to influence the more traditional right wing parties. The more traditional conservative parties also begin to incorporate some features, features of the radical right, which is normal. It's not necessary. It's not necessary. They could not do so, but many times they do it.
- [73:04]
Joe Williams
So, Carlos, we've been talking here for quite some time. I think we'll have to end at some point. But before we do go, do you have any other comments or aspects we didn't get to touch on that you'd like to discuss here, anything you'd like to go through?
- [73:21]
Carlos Martins
Well, you are the one who make. Who makes the questions. I don't know, because there were a lot. There's a lot to talk about. What I tried to. I can summarize by saying that this book that I wrote, the Fascism Fascisms Beyond Hitler and Mussolini, is an attempt to bring to the more general public a book that they could read in order to understand more, to know more about the history of fascism in several countries. I only study eight countries, all those manifestations, proto fascists, varieties of Fascist of Fascism. And I really want people who read this book to. To get the idea that fascism existed. It was a universal phenomenon. It existed in a lot of countries, in many countries during the 30s it popped. It practically existed in practically every European country, even outside Europe. Some manifestations could be very, very different from one another. The Romanian Iron Guards, which was one of the most interesting fascist movements of the time. The Romanian Iron Guard had characteristics that set it apart from Italian fascism and German Nazism. German Nazism with. With its focus on race and the Aryan race was different from Italian Fascism. At least the Italian Fascism of its first phases. The Hungarian there were. There was an Hungarian party. The Arrow Cross Party was also, it's very interesting manifestation of fascist ideology. The Spanish Phalange by. Led by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. All these manifestations of fascism are worth studying on its own, but they are also worth studying as a manifestation of a whole, a generic phenomenon, even if with some specific characteristics, some other varieties of fascism, or less original. I would say, for instance, the Portuguese National Syndicalism wasn't that original. Roland Pret was not a very original fascist leader, at least according to my opinion. Neither was mostly Mosley was. Was also not very original, for that matter. But some other manifestations were very original. They were very interesting. The main ones, I would say, are Italian Fascism, of course, German, the Romanian Iron Guards, the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party, some politics and the Spanish phalangeism. These five manifestations of fascism, according to my opinion, are the five most important manifestations of fascism in all Europe, in the world, in every country, among every country of the time. These are the five main manifestations of fascism. And I analyze all of them in my book, except for the Hungarian case, unfortunately. The other four are there, as well as the Portuguese case, the British case, the Brazilian case, which was also very interesting. And I would say it was also original to a certain extent. And I also. I'm trying to remember. Do I study any other variety, any other country? France, of course. France. France is also a crucial country. Is also a crucial country. It never had a very unique fascist movement which. Which was successful and was close to obtain power. It never had that. Actually there were dozens. There were dozens of fascist parties and fascist movements in France between the 20s and the end of the. The Second World War, World War II. But at least five of them were minimally important and they are worth studying. And I mentioned all of them in my chapter about fascism. And there were also a lot of authoritarian organizations. France. In France, the fascist milieu was never united under one single leader. That's one of the reasons why fascism failed in France. Not the only one, but one of them.
- [77:56]
Joe Williams
Okay, so Carlos, thank you very much for joining us. It was a pleasure.
- [78:00]
Carlos Martins
Thank you very much. Yes, my pleasure.
- [78:02]
New Books Network Host
Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. We are an academic podcast network with the mission of public education. If you liked this episode, please share it with a friend and rate us on your preferred podcast platform. You can browse all of our episodes on our website, newbooksnetwork.com Connect with us on Instagram and BlueSky with the handle ew booksnetwork, and subscribe to our weekly Substack newsletter at newbooksnetwork.substack.com to get episode recommendations straight to your inbox.