<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: What's off the top of his head may go over yours
Review: As others have noted, Laqueur's style compresses so much into less than 250 pp. of text that it left me a bit confused. He knows so much that he writes this book with very few footnotes or quotations. But what's off the top of his head may go over yours: that is, he often throws out surnames of titles of parties and refers to movements and events that, for newcomers, need more context than he provides in the text. Sometimes, explanations are given later, frequently not. The best portions are in the introduction--which shows how indefinable fascism is, in the lack of a Manifesto or a "Fascintern"--although much later, on p. 90, he gives a "fascist minimum." Other bits are worthwhile--for me, the skinhead vs. fascist and far-right vs. fascism comparisons; the reminder that the term is overused and misunderstood by the Left; clerical fascism explained and its role in "political religion" in the misinterpretations known as radical Islam; why Soviets taught their people so little about the Nazis--too similar?; the megalomaniacal plans for world domination from Zhironovsky in early 90's Russia out of an Ian Fleming thriller or a Marvel Comics villain. It taught me a lot, and as it anticipates the abuses of ideology across much of the world just before 9/11, remains relevant. Laqueur's study packs a lot into a few pages. It's just that he forgets that we all aren't as smart as he is. Probably better suited for those who know European politics already and want to delve deeper. It did show me that much of the threat in the West from the newer movements has been as overblown as perhaps that from the Middle East had been--at the time of writing in 1998--overlooked.
Rating: 
Summary: Comprehensive, but requires patience
Review: Being a political science student, I found this book to be very comprehensive. It touched not only on the traditional (and perceived) aspects of what we generally define as fascism, but it also went to great lengths to differentiate between types of fascism and how different movements have evolved since the collapse of both Nazism and the Soviet Union. While it covers a considerable amount of material, this book must be read patiently - taking it in steps and sometimes re-reading certain passages because of the complexity of Mr. Laqueur's explanations. That having been said, if you want a good introduction to fascism as a political ideology or even to build on the knowledge that you may already have, this book is worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive, but requires patience
Review: Being a political science student, I found this book to be very comprehensive. It touched not only on the traditional (and perceived) aspects of what we generally define as fascism, but it also went to great lengths to differentiate between types of fascism and how different movements have evolved since the collapse of both Nazism and the Soviet Union. While it covers a considerable amount of material, this book must be read patiently - taking it in steps and sometimes re-reading certain passages because of the complexity of Mr. Laqueur's explanations. That having been said, if you want a good introduction to fascism as a political ideology or even to build on the knowledge that you may already have, this book is worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: Present and future fascism misunderstood
Review: The author presents what appears to be a reasonably unbiased overview of the fascism of the 1920's and 30's, neither ignoring nor overstating its similarities with Communism. Unfortunately, although in his introduction he makes much of the inadequacy of labels like Right, Left and neo-fascist, when it comes to fascism present and future, he forgets his caveats, loses his objectivity, and labels as Extreme Right every element he wishes to consider a successor of fascism past; even though most nationalist groups today are defensive and conservative, only wishing to preserve their own cultures and way of life from the onslaught of globalism, a far cry from the crusading radicalism and totalitarianism of true fascism - as, to his credit, the author admits. His "liberal" and "democratic" bias is however all too obvious here; it blinds him to those present-day fascists who are on the political left or within the ranks of the "liberals" themselves. The new fascist threat, which the author fails to mention, comes not from the powerless "neo-fascists", but from the corporativist establishment that already holds the reins of power. Because they are not nationalist, in the old sense, it is easy to gloss over or obscure the fascist nature of their ideology; despite the author's protestations, fascism is not nationalism, and an international or global fascism is no less compatible with its core beliefs.
<< 1 >>
| 
