Read Nationalismus und Faschismus. Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland im Vergleich by Stefan Breuer Online

nationalismus-und-faschismus-frankreich-italien-und-deutschland-im-vergleich

ber den Autor und weitere MitwirkendeStefan Breuer, geb 1948, ist Professor f r Soziologie an der Hochschule f r Wirtschaft und Politik in Hamburg Bei der WBG erschien von ihm u.a die Anatomie der Konservativen Revolution 2 Aufl 1995 , sthetischer Fundamentalismus Stefan George und der deutsche Antimodernismus 1995 und zuletzt Ordnungen der Ungleichheit Die deutsche Rechte im Widerstreit ihrer Ideen 1871 1945 2001....

Title : Nationalismus und Faschismus. Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland im Vergleich
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 3534179943
ISBN13 : 978-3534179947
Format Type : E-Book
Language : Deutsch
Publisher : WBG Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Auflage 1 1 M rz 2005
Number of Pages : 367 Pages
File Size : 792 KB
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Nationalismus und Faschismus. Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland im Vergleich Reviews

  • Alfred
    2019-04-07 07:22

    Das Buch setzt einiges an Kenntnis über politische Geschichte und Geistesgeschichte voraus. Es ist zudem sehr trocken zu lesen.Darüber hinaus hat der Autor eine ganz eigene Sichtweise auf Faschismus als paramilitärisches Klientelsystem. Dem muss man nicht zustimmen. Dennoch hat er einige scharfsinnige Beobachtungen und seine Studien insbesondere zu den französischen Rechtsbewegungen der Zwischenkriegszeit liefern Informationen die man sonst wohl nirgends finden wird.

  • Andreas Umland
    2019-03-20 03:31

    Breuer's study seems to be designed as a response to, or revision of, Ernst Nolte's 1963 classic "Three Faces of Fascism" which also focused on France, Italy and Germany within approximately the same time period. Breuer's book contains nothing less than a new interpretation of classic fascism introducing, apart from much empirical evidence and a comprehensive typology of the varieties of nationalism, a novel definition of fascism. As always in Breuer's research, this study is an exceptionally dense and well-informed text full of revealing details, pertinent observations, and thought-provoking interpretations - a pleasure to read. The study starts with in-depth discussion of the concept of nationalism and, on this basis, develops a comprehensive and informative typology of the different permutations of this ideology. This is by itself a valuable addition to the existing literature on nationalism in as far as Breuer's distinctions between various types and sub-types of nationalism (liberal nationalism, left-wing nationalism, right-wing nationalism etc.) have much to contribute answering the question about the various functions that nationalist ideologies fulfilled in different periods of recent world history. The larger part of the study contains well-structured narratives on the development and nature of fascism in pre-World War I and inter-war France, Italy and Germany. Breuer succeeds, by way of bringing together a large amount of primary and secondary sources, in providing excellent surveys of these movements. While most of his study consists of useful observations and stimulating interpretations, its major idea - a new conceptualization of generic fascism - however, will presumably find few supporters. Such a contradiction reminds one of another classic of Breuer, "The Anatomy of the Conservative Revolution" (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993, 1995), which too makes excellent reading, but eventually did little to contribute to debunking the notion of a "conservative revolution," as Breuerhad clearly intended. Now again, Breuer delivers an outstanding piece of research with a conclusion that, alas, will have little impact on comparative fascist studies. That is because Breuer decides here against seeing generic fascism as an ideology; he instead identifies the "fascist minimum" as the "combination of [Verbindung von] violence, charisma and patronage in the framework of one party" (p. 59). This is a formula that seems almost too eccentric to discuss at length. It raises more questions than it answers, and would seem to immediately multiply the number of those parties that can labelled "fascist" within the context of both inter- and post-war history. What this formula might still be useful for is less to delineate fascist from non-fascist parties, than to provide an interesting hypothesis about the causal link between - what mainstream research would regard as - fascist ideology, on the one hand, and the organizational manifestations of fascism within the party-political realm. Will all parties inspired by a fascist ideology be always characterized by violence, charismatic leadership and a patronage system? And if so: Why? Or, if not: Why not? Whereas it might be that Breuer will in this particular way still make a theoretical contribution not only to the study of nationalism in general, but to comparative fascist studies, in particular, I doubt that his formula will be taken seriously as a concept of generic fascism by comparativists and be applied in empirical research by country or region specialists. What may be consoling to Breuer is merely that other idiosyncratic definitions of generic fascism have also found few, if any application in empirical research - the most prominent examples being perhaps Ernst Nolte's "resistance to transcendence" or A. James Gregor's "developmental dictatorship."

  • Andreas Umland
    2019-04-17 07:28

    Stefan Breuer's major new monograph "Nationalism and Fascism: France, Italy and Germany in Comparison" seems to be designed as a response to, or revision of, Ernst Nolte's 1963 classic "Three Faces of Fascism" which also focused on France, Italy and Germany within approximately the same time period. Breuer's book contains nothing less than a new interpretation of classic fascism introducing, apart from much empirical evidence and a comprehensive typology of the varieties of nationalism, a novel definition of fascism. As always in Breuer's research, this study is an exceptionally dense and well-informed text full of revealing details, pertinent observations, and thought-provoking interpretations - a pleasure to read. The study starts with in-depth discussion of the concept of nationalism and, on this basis, develops a comprehensive and informative typology of the different permutations of this ideology. This is by itself a valuable addition to the existing literature on nationalism in as far as Breuer's distinctions between various types and sub-types of nationalism (liberal nationalism, left-wing nationalism, right-wing nationalism etc.) have much to contribute answering the question about the various functions that nationalist ideologies fulfilled in different periods of recent world history. The larger part of the study contains well-structured narratives on the development and nature of fascism in pre-World War I and inter-war France, Italy and Germany. Breuer succeeds, by way of bringing together a large amount of primary and secondary sources, in providing excellent surveys of these movements. While most of his study consists of useful observations and stimulating interpretations, its major idea - a new conceptualization of generic fascism -, however, will presumably find few supporters. Such a contradiction reminds one of another classic of Breuer, "The Anatomy of the Conservative Revolution," which too makes excellent reading, but eventually did little to contribute to debunking the notion of a "conservative revolution," as Breuer had clearly intended. Now again, Breuer delivers an outstanding piece of research with a conclusion that, alas, will presumably have little impact on comparative fascist studies. That is because Breuer decides here against seeing generic fascism as an ideology, and instead identifies as the "fascist minimum" the "combination of [Verbindung von] violence, charisma and patronage in the framework of one party" (p. 59). This is a formula that seems too eccentric to discuss at all. It raises more questions than it answers, and would seem to immediately multiply the number of those parties that can labelled "fascist" within the context of both inter- and post-war history. What his focus on the themes of violence, charisma and patronage in fascist politics might still be useful for is less to delineate fascist from non-fascist parties, than to provide an interesting hypothesis about the causal link between - what mainstream research would regard as - fascist ideology, on the one hand, and the organizational manifestations of fascism within the party-political realm. Will all parties inspired by a fascist ideology be characterized by violence, charismatic leadership and a patronage system? And if so: Why? Or, if not: Why not? Whereas it could well be that Breuer will in this particular way still make a theoretical contribution not only to the study of nationalism in general, but to comparative fascist studies, in particular, I doubt that his formula will be taken seriously as a concept of generic fascism by comparativists and be applied in empirical research by country or region specialists. What may be consoling to Breuer is merely that other idiosyncratic definitions of generic fascism have also found few, if any application in empirical research - the most prominent examples being perhaps Nolte's "resistance to transcendence" or Gregor's "developmental dictatorship."