Revolution from the Right: Fascism - School of Arts and Humanities ...

‘modernist anti-modernism’, 4 or ‘reactionary modernism’ 5 .
4
This chapter flies in the face of such ‘common sense’ by arguing that even if the radical
right in general is ‘reactionary’, at least in its fascist manifestations it does indeed function as a
evolutionary ideology. Or to quote the American academic Eugen Weber’s thoughtful essay on
this topic: ‘fascism, too easily defined as counter-revolutionary, is not a counter-revolution, but
a rival revolution: rival of [the communist one] which claimed to be the only one entitled to the
label...For the fascists, communism is not subversion attacking the established order, it is a
competitor for the foundation of power.’ 6 Before a case can be made for this approach, however,
it is necessary to clarify what we mean by two key words both of whose meaning is strongly
contested by ‘experts’: ‘revolution’ and ‘fascism’.
‘Revolution’ and ‘fascism’ as ideal types
If the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘fascism’ are both conceptually fuzzy and value-laden, then any
discussion of their relationship risks being so subjective as to become pointless. The solution to
such dilemmas, which are a recurrent feature of the human sciences, is to create an artificially tidy
definition known in the social sciences as an ‘ideal type’. An ideal type has the same sort of
relationship to the empirical reality being defined as a stylized underground railway (subway)
map has to the actual network of rails and stations it displays. 7 It does not tell you about the
characteristics of any one phenomenon, but singles out the things which all manifestations of one
type of phenomenon have in common.
‘Revolution’ can be used as an ideal type to refer to ‘a fundamental (structural) change
which, while manifesting itself in a particular sphere of human activity, has radically innovative