The 30s would they be back? These years have seen spread like a cancer, fascism and Nazism, which led to the second world war, which are at the origin of one of the worst human tragedies of all time - the Holocaust - these years, so, would they be about to repeat itself in France today? Yes, we said, bluntly, P. Corcuff in his last try, and soon the expression of its title: "30 years back"; without nuance and without question mark. In a short text, incisive and challenging - not least by the attention and the criticism it arouses - it develops the thesis that the rise of the National Front, but especially the production of certain words and writings in France today would be proper to establish a socio-political context of a similar nature to the pre-fascism or Nazism pre-30s, the author does not also hesitate to describe this new situation " post-fascism. " This pamphlet - which assumes perfectly as such (see p. 11) - addresses and comments and texts, tried neoconservatives, racist, xenophobic, sexist, nationalist, etc., journalists, essayists, but also academics, such as Soral, Zemmour, Finkielkraut, Elisabeth Lévy, Laurent Bouvet, Jean-Claude Michéa Frédéric Lordon, Olivier Todd, many others, believed, to varying degrees - for example for a lot Zemmour Soral or more secondary or "accidentally" or for Bouvet Lordon ... - to remake the bed of the foul beast ... If there is a risk, if it is indeed to avoid a new war or nothing less than genocide, the exercise undertaken by Corcuff is obviously beneficial. However, it is the thesis developed by him convincingly? I do not think so. Without the ability to build an actual demonstration, given the format used and the preferred form - the pamphlet -, the author relies on reconciliations waves: the Jewish 30s and the Muslim today, nationalism 30s and appeal to a certain protectionism today, exhortation to order - 30 years - and demand for security policies - today - and of course the pamphleteers of the past compared to current essayists: for example, as so many "analog winks" (p. 33), Finkielkraut and Maurras both elected to the French Academy, or on a political level, Valls and Daladier (p. 33) ... There would obviously have much to say about each of the comparisons made and to challenge its accuracy. To take just one example, perhaps the most obvious, why should we necessarily associate the one hand, the defense of a national regulatory framework, as is envisaged today against the excesses of globalization and the European negligence and, on the other hand, the deadly nationalism that led to fascism of the 30s? Is it not rather the right to bring the national framework broadly supportive of economic growth during the patriotic war boom or spring that has just helped the fight against Nazism during the Second World War (De Gaulle)? Paradoxically, Corcuff denouncing "essentialism," the tendency to give a determined and invariable content to a disparate yet reality ("Islam," "Jews," "the people" ...) and that would be the one of the main foundations of the alleged rise of post-Fascism does nothing else than to apply to the realities that analyzes itself and, by inverting it: by what essentialism is "evil" to eyes of neoconservatives seem necessarily "good" to him (Islam, Europe, immigration ...) and conversely what was good becomes evil (the nation, France ...). There may be a form of naivety in this attitude - (pp. 112), for example the candor of the author, his "anti-globalization activist committed to the left" facing EMU puzzling ... - but more likely Corcuff magnifies the line by a kind of "precautionary principle" the unacceptable face horizon of "absolute worst". This is, in this case, one of the major implications Corcuff withdraws its analysis. He blames the Michéa, Lordon, Todd and others, to be, by their writings "recoverable", the "reckless désarmeurs of anti-Conservative and anti-fascist resistance left" (p. 86). He urges them via an "ethic of responsibility" renewed "reflect the political and ideological context in which to register their speeches" to absolutely prevent their analyzes can be "arraisonnées the side of the neoconservative logic and post-fascists" (p. 87). Forbidden to see any downside to unlimited immigration, even at 10, 15, 20% unemployment rate: it would play into the hands of the fascists. Forbidden to see increased insecurity: it would play into the hands of the fascists. One could criticize Brussels rigor of the action, but we can not certainly not regret a national regulatory framework, especially not question the appropriateness of countervailing measures of a protectionist kind: it would play into the hands of the fascists. Ultimately, it is critical thinking that is required to silence with regard to a doxa the analytical foundations are yet far from proven; doctrinaire catechism to spread and apply to deemed accomplices face of the post-fascist discourse. Curious intellectual perspective advocated by the political science teacher ... Remains a point and not the least troubling. I would also have to start there. This way of doing was already practiced by Lindenberg in The Call to order: Survey of the new reactionaries in 2002. It is reiterated by Corcuff. I mean this quite detestable practice of preparing lists of writers to condemn: the real fascists, the neocons, deviant, the unwary, those that should be put into the right path; a way somehow to revive Stalinism or if preferred, to remember the 30's ...
