Critical Analysis of the views of Dave Denton on Fascism

Critical Analysis of the views of Dave Denton on Fascism

Fascism is a specific form of reactionary mass movement –

Dave Renton

 Fascism is Capitalism in decay – Vladimir Lenin

 Fascism is a religious concept – Benito Mussolini

 Fascism is nothing but Capitalist reaction – Leon Trotsky

 
Introduction

          This essay talks in detail about the views of Dave Renton on Fascism .
Renton (1999: 29) made his point in Fascism:
Theory and Practice, where he criticised historians such as Roger Griffin, Roger
Eatwell and Zeev Sternhell for their
‘idealist’ interpretations of fascism. He took exception to the ‘new consensus’
that ‘fascism must be seen primarily as a
series of ideas’, with one of his main criticisms being that this
consensus of fascism overstates the socialist aspect of fascism, especially
in the case of Sternhell (Renton, 1999: 22). 

          Many ideas of fascism are the commonplaces of all reactionaries, but

they are used in a different way. Fascism
differs from the traditional right-wing
parties like the Conservative Party not so much in its ideas but in that it is 
an extra-parliamentary mass movement which seeks the road to power 
through… attacks on its opponents (Renton, 2000b: 50)

          Dave Renton’s book on fascism is structured to serve two purposes:

firstly 
to debunk the current intellectual wave of scholars like Griffin and Eatwell, 
who consider that “fascist studies” should concentrate on the ideological 
aspect of fascism and not the specific political contexts (as there were only 
two historical precedents); and secondly to provide an alternate approach 
from a Marxist perspective. 
 
        The 1990s has seen a regeneration of fascist groups and parties in Europe
in the form of the BUF (British Union of Fascists) in Britain, FN (Front
National) in France, and the long lingering RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsewak
Sangh), the ideological backbone of right parties in India. However many
scholars debate whether such parties can be considered fascists, as
according to them fascism is an ideology, with certain attributes based on
their interpretation of Italian fascism particularly, which renders their
definitions static and reductionist. In the words of Roger Griffin, Fascism is
described as “palingenetic ultra-nationalism”. 

          Leon Trotsky’s theoretical writings on fascism, most importantly during

the 
year 1930 to 1935, are the basis for probably the most widespread and 
influential Marxist interpretation of fascism and despite other profound 
changes in Trotskyist theory since the 1940s, Trotsky’s theory of fascism 
has remained primarily intact. 
Although the four scholars Renton debunks offer varied definitions of 
fascism, yet they all adhere to Weber’s construction of an “ideal type”. Such
 transcendent attributes has allowed Griffin to separate fascism from 

Nazism albeit conceding that they have a common mythic core Renton’s preferred
alternative approach provides a
delineation of Marxist thoughts on fascism along with its ramifications. 

          Mandel (1971: 29) has claimed that Trotsky’s theory of fascism is viewed
to be superior because of ‘its ability to
integrate a multitude of partial aspects
into a dialectical unity’. This dialectical theory comprehends that fascism
contains a vicious and anti-proletarian ideology, while attracting a mass
base of support.

          Dave insists that the era of fascism might not be over, as capitalist
crisis
still produces misery, and misery may still throw up fascism. True enough. But
when we examine some of these more detailed explanations of fascist success,
Dave model comes to seem crude and mechanistic by comparison, a far cry from the
Marxist demand for concrete
analysis and dialectical explanation Fascism is inherently contradictory. Through
its rhetoric and charismatic personality
of its leader it appeals to the classes which constitute the lumpenproletariat and
the petty bourgeoisie. 

          Renton gets into trouble because he does not understand even the most
basic relationship between ideology and
practice. Renton’s approach in this book is not just elucidatory, but polemical. He
is writing against fascism, even as he is
writing about it. In his conclusion, he
explicitly emphasizes Trotsky’s solution of a United Front of workers to combat
fascism.

         Dave Renton’s short book on fascism serves its polemical intent, however
there are a few points of contention.
Although Zeev Sternhell’s argument of affinities between fascism and leftist or
Jacobin politics is dismissed, Renton does
not seem keen to compare left and right totalitarianisms.

Conclusion 

Chris Brooke notes in his review, Renton’s analysis of the historical

development of fascism in Italy and Germany is unsatisfactory. Renton
disregards the “constraints imposed by the patterns of historical development”.
Brooke’s point is that certain aspects of
Italian and German history, particularly after the unification, when rapid
modernization was coupled with “the failure to
consolidate a functioning parliamentary democracy” before the Great War, gave the
impetus to Fascist parties to mobilize
and gain popular support in these countries, unlike in countries like France or
England. Brooke’s point is well taken as it
throws light on more complex processes of historical  necessity, and along with
Renton’s treatment of the political
processes completes the broad analysis of fascism.

Bibliography :

Dave Renton, Fascism: Theory and Practice, Aakar Books, Delhi, 2007
(Originally published by Pluto, London, 1999)
brainyquote.com
 hatfulofhitory.wordpres.com
radicalnots.org
academia.edu
borderland.co.uk