If you read the passage in context, you may note that Griffin was outlining the scope of the problem. He then goes on to describe his take on it. Matters of history are subject to revision as new information comes to light, but we make the best we can of what we have currently while keeping an open mind.
Originally Posted by Solo
Now, if you look under that paragraph, you will notice the next section is The New Consensus Guiding the Selection of Texts, which establishes what the consensus at the time of writing was.
Would you care to tell me your understanding of what Griffin's New Consensus is? I'll give you a hint: one of the following sections is titled The Inclusion of Nazism.
Now, we must keep an open mind, so if you have any actual evidence that the majority of historians consider the Nazis to not be fascists, you are free to present it.
He's saying *his definition*, a social scientists definition includes nazism, even though other definitions do not, specifically historical references. Again, if you read the book, it talks about the differences between social scientists or philosophers viewpoints on what fascism is, and not historical.
The consensus he's talking about, in the book, is for political scientists specifically. He goes on to say "Cumulatively, they serve to underline the need for any scholarly 'nomethic' interest in it's generic features on the art of political scientists
to be balanced and tempered by an intense ideographic concern with the singularity of individual variants that is the specialty of historians.
" What are those differences? Well...
""For those attached to their traditional assumptions about fascism, perhaps the most contentious premise underlying the new consensus is that the item is to be defined ideologically
. It's proponents claim, or merely take for granted, like any other genus of ideology (e.g. liberalism, ecologism, anarchism) fascism can be treated as having a definitional or "ineliminable core" of components that remains intact even when the adjacent or peripheral properties seemingly welded to it in a particular permutation or historical phase of it's development are replaced by others."- When you look under the "ideological definition" part, you'll see that he's trying to treat fascism, within the "new consensus", as a definition for a broader ideological term like socialism or capitalism, or anarchism etc. rather than in it's historical reference. He specifically delineates between the two concepts and says that, except for historians, there is a consensus on it from an ideological perspective. Later down he talks about the inclusion of nazism, but this is for the ideological definition of fascism in the view of political science, rather than history. It seeks to define the ideology in broader contexts, rather than as an actual specific time period. Someone can be a fascist in this context even if they do not identify themselves as a fascist. Sort of like how saying someone can be a nazi, even if they weren't ever a part of the actual nazi party, or a white supremacist even if they aren't a member of the KKK. The term nazi is used synonymously to refer to both those within the ideological camp and actually a part of the group, just like how fascist is being used to mean two things, here. It's a slight, but important distinction. In this way fascism can have two meanings, one that includes nazism, and one that doesn't.
"The application of the new consensus
also explains the inclusion of Nazism as a variant of generic fascism, even though some major scholars
are resistant to attempt to place it in any generic category other than 'totalitarian'." The new consensus being the ideological belief system, the ideological definition of fascism as a broader philosophical concept by political scientists, rather than it's definition from a historical perspective. Again, it's important to know to separate these two ideologies from each other rather than take every single statement in the book as a statement for every definition of fascism as a whole. In his own words:
"Readers should be conscious of the tentative nature of the taxonomic categories
it proposes". In other words, it's important to understand what the new consensus is defined as being, which is an ideological view of fascism, treating fascism as an ideology rather than an actual group (where as the KKK is a group, but you wouldn't say someone has a "KKK" mentality, but is a white supremacist). Above this statement so you can find the context, he refers to three separate volumes of information he draws from to form his different definitions, Volume I being post WW1 observations, Volume II being social dynamics, and volume III being information from a historical perspective(pages 2-3). In this way the new consensus he's referring to is only in regards to a political scientists view on the subject, rather than it as a whole, and he makes this fairly clear. This is about as much as I'm willing to go in to something so pedantic in this post, and I mean that in the truest sense that semantics is a truly pointless concept, as a rose by any other name is still as thorny; or smells as sweet, if you prefer that. But my mom's an English teacher so I know all about the taxonomic roots of words, and it's been a topic of discussion for me for quite some time. I also love boring things. If you want to go in to even more discussion we can but know it's probably not worth the effort or time, and would be off-topic so we should take it to PM's. We'd also have to scrounge up some more e-books.
Obviously, this is what the experts have to say on the issue and is of course derived heuristically. That might not be convincing enough for you, but since you did cite the book as evidence I'm presuming you'd stand by what was said within it as evidence for the information being right or wrong.
I now formally invoke the forum rules and ask you to retract your claim that most historians do not consider the Nazis fascists as you have constantly failed to present evidence.
In addition, you have engaged in a personal attack on me. I formally invoke the forum rules against personal attacks, and request that you withdraw the remark.
It wasn't a personal attack at all. And this only continues to reinforce my point. My proof is the expert's statements on the position to describe a general trend and belief, an example of which is referenced in your own book. What you need to realize is that parts of the book talking about one thing, don't talk about everything in his book. So while in the book it may say that "this definition includes this!", that doesn't mean all definitions include it. It's important to remember context, to understand how the statements applies to the topic it regards, rather than to think that everything in the book is about the book as a whole.
To simplify all of this, there are two main definitions of fascism. One is fascism as a group, and the other is fascism as an ideology. Just like how a person can be a feminist, but not actively participle in actual feminist groups. The ideological definition of the new consensus is primarily what he is talking about in his book, but he does make reference to the historical view which is that of the group itself. You don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to share the same viewpoint, even if you aren't actually a member. But where as people don't say you have a "KKK ideology", they do say you have a "fascist-like ideology", so that's why a distinction is needed.
""In doing so, it (the new consensus) treats fascism no differently than other generic ideologies such as communism, conversavatism, and feminism, all of which are routinely defined by the social sciences in terms of the goals they set out to achieve rather than in terms of their negations or the harm they have caused historically in attempting to realize their ideals. " Page 5, under "Ideological definition of fascism".