I bought book this based on the title. Whoever calls what we’re living through today by its proper name—fascism—deserves to be read, I thought. I did not recognise the names in the back cover blurbs (except Simon Schama), so I bought it. Had I checked the sleeve flap, with blurbs from Anne Applebaum and Francis Fukuyama, I would have reconsidered.

First, the good things: As I said, Riemen calls the ’populism’ of 21st century European far right what it is: Fascism. If it talks and walks like a fascist, then it is a fascist. The one thing I agree with him is that one of the greatest tragedies of the first 20 years of this century is the unwillingness of the media and politicians to recognise this. His characterisation of fascism is spot on: Fascism was/is ’not interested in solutions, had no ideas of its own, and did not want to solve social problems, because injustice was necessary for maintaining an atmosphere of vilification anf hatred’.

Unfortunately, everything goes downhill from there. Riemen’s analysis of the causes for the rise of fascism and his proposition for a cure are completely off and estranged from the reality of Europe and Europeans. For Riemen, the problem is the ’mass society’ and the fact that ’elitism’ has become a swear word. Like for any good liberal, the problem is with the ’rabble’, that is, anyone who’s not a highly educated liberal like himself. He explicitly says that ’social abuses and the economic crisis certainly influence the rise of fascism, but they are definitely not the cause of it’ (p. 53). This is simply wrong.

The cure is as implausible as the attribution of cause: we need to return to the morality of the great religious and humanities traditions, or the supposed ’spiritual values’ of Europe. The answer to fascism is, according to the author, not the organisation of society so that everyone may live a dignified life, but metaphysics. The liberal view of equality is also brilliantly on display when Riemen bemoans the fact that everyone may (or should, gods forbid!) get a university education. What happens to the poor elites, if their educational privilege is taken from them? I completely agree that there has been a dumbing down of university education, but that is not an outcome of ’mass society’, but the commodification of education. Because this neoliberalism is a descendant of Riemen’s beloved liberalism, it is convenient to turn one’s gaze the other way.

On top of everything, the argument is advanced with massively selctive view of history. Riemen actually says that ’there wasn’t a single party that wanted to lead the resistance to the National Socialist monopoly’ (p. 55-56). Perhaps he should have googled ’KPD’. But that, of course would have lead to uncomfortable territory that doesn’t fit the elite morality argument. I have to give credit for Riemen for being brutally honest, though. An elite white man writing to other elite white men, saying that only they can save Europe (the second part of the book is a diary from a symposium where, with the exception of one student, everyone is an older man). It takes confidence and certainty about knowing where ’truth’ lies—which, of course, comes easier for someone who sees the world from a privileged position.

We need to talk about fascism. Because it is real in 21st century Europe. Unfortunately, this book will only provide smoothing balm for privileged liberals whose political tradition got us where we are.

More of a pamphlet than anything else, but still an interesting read. I have a bit of a hard time with philosophy, since it all starts to feel like generalized pablum at a certain point. But I did like Rieman's idea that fascism is the misbegotten child of democracy. That it's the result of democracies losing their cultural ethos, which he characterizes as an elevation of truth and beauty, and devolve into mass politics based upon popular resentment and rage. Can certainly see the truth of that in contemporary politics.

Καταπληκτική πραγματεία πάνω στην κοινωνία του κιτσ, τον μαζάνθρωπο, την παρακμή οποιασδήποτε αξίας ή αρχής, φιλοσοφικής και μη και του λαϊκισμού.

Σίγουρα θα ψάξω τον συγγραφέα περαιτέρω.

A slap in the face. What it is to be human? How can a democracy change into a mass democracy or to fascism

Only about a fourth (and it's a small enough section given how short the book is) of this work was what I was expecting and interested in, the reasons for fascism's persistence, the warning signs of its resurgence, and ways to combat it's pernicious spread. And all things considered it's a succinct, pithy analysis of the issue, I found it intriguing and educational, and I had high hopes for the rest of the book. Another volume on exclusively those topics would suit me just fine.

The rest I could honestly do without. The author suddenly shifts tone and perspective, writing more of a travel log than a political essay, complete with his musings and preferences on a couple elite European hotels. For the last 120 pages or so fascism and it's spread are only obliquely mentioned, the loss of morals, the decline of European values, and the spiritual bankruptcy of science and commerce take center stage instead. I found it difficult not to interpret this whole latter section of the book as merely the soliloquy of a conservative, upper class, Euro-centric academic, secure and sheltered in his ivory tower of grand hotel symposiums and conferences with like minded intellectuals. At it's very worst it reminded me of a common, irritating scenario in which an older individual lays out exactly what they think is wrong with the world today (overemphasis on speed and quantity, superficiality, addiction to immediate gratification, the examples in this book are so ubiquitous in today's society I need hardly list them,I could just as easily being the sentence "Kids these days..." and let you fill in the gaps with the same complaints we've all heard before), without a clear solution to these apparently evident problems let alone a word on how they relate to fascism. Needless to say It's not what I anticipated or care for and it makes for terribly dull reading.

One of the longest short books I've ever read, Riemen demonstrates the singular talent of academia to obfuscate the clear and drain the vital of its lifeblood. To understand the potential rise of fascism, you'd be better off reading more immediate sources like Fromm and Klemperer.

The reviews I've read claim that Riemann was singularly prescient, but my (admittedly extraordinary) high school history teacher David Gould was giving us almost exactly the same warnings in 2010. Reading this just makes me sad that his clear, entertaining communication style is so uncommon.

I agree with what others have said - it brings up some valid points. It is very Eurocentric. And it is interesting that the author did mention that when Fascism would come to the USA, it would be branded under “freedom”. (As my country is about to start the 2024 Presidential campaigns in a matter of only 96 hours.)

I don’t know how we can control this spread of Fascism 2.0 in both the USA and in Europe. It seems like the specters of Imperialism, Colonialism, and Xenophobia will not die. (And the older generations will NOT let them die.)

I believe education is key. But how you can prevent it from being twisted in this age of technology and half truths is the question. I think more average people MUST speak up and out when they see, hear, experience, or witness this bad behavior. We shouldn’t stand by while our brothers and sisters shout and cry out in suffering.

We must remember the words of Elie Wiesel, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim."

It is hard to pigeonhole Riemen's politics - but at heart he is a cultural conservative. Blurbs and quotes from Schama, Gassett, Steiner, T Mann, and Fukuyama. But hs is a Humanist. OTOH he does appear to believe we need to depend upon an enlightened elite to bring us back to a just, cultured society.
The first of the 2 essays that make up this volume is excellent - we need to call fascism for what it is, and the lies fascism tells about itself.
But, like Gassett, he fears "populist" movements, and "mass democracy". Oh, I do agree with much that he says, but his cure for today's ills is so vague. He complains about academicians and universities - but then stresses that we need education. He uses broad, unclear terms such as "universal truths" and "soul" as what we need to return to is not helpful.
The second essay is in the form of ancient Greek, or Enlightenment, dialog. 3 presentations (4 with the early priest) to a group, some comments, some private discussions on walks - I really felt like I was in the 18th Century again. Again, excellent point - technology/science is good, but not the complete answer. It needs culture, and philosophy and human inquiry to make it complete.
Again, I agree with much that he says, I just know more about what he is against than what he *actually* stands for. And I did enjoy his efforts to reclaim Nietzsche from the Nazis, without mentioning their misappropriation of his works. And I did like that he did not harken to some imagined Judeo-Christian set of morals as the basis for "truth". (In fact he calls out Christianity for allowing the Holocaust.)
Long on ideas, short on details of what it is we need to work towards. Use of overly broad terms such as "culture", "soul", and "truth" do not point in any particular direction. But yes, we need to call a fascist a fascist, even when they try to appropriate the language and redefine/rename themselves. A thoughtful book, well worth a read.