Enzo Traverso on Fascism, Marxism and Israel

Enzo Traverso is an Italian scholar of European intellectual history, and the author of several books on critical theory, Marxism, Fascism, revolution, and contemporary historiography. He teaches at Cornell University, and his most recent book is Revolution: An Intellectual History www.versobooks.com/products/2...
In this interview with his Verso editor, Sebastian Budgen, he discusses the origins of his political thinking, fascism in Europe in the 20th century, the new far-right, totalitarianism, and Israel.
You can find all his work, including Revolution: An Intellectual History, here www.versobooks.com/blogs/auth...
0:00:00 Political beginnings
0:20:12 Marxism and the Jewish question
0:28:48 Siegfried Kracauer, Frankfurt School and Post-structuralism
0:49:35 Totalitarianism
0:59:33 Fascism in Europe in the 20th century
1:10:57 The New Far Right
1:21:17 Left melancholy
1:31:10 Israel and Jewish modernity

[@gianmarcobozoglu]

Fantastic interview ❤ thanks a lot!

[@joanofarc6402]

Excellent interview! So interesting I may listen twice to see what else I missed. 😊

[@nohisocitutampoc2789]

Traverso è uno de li piu grande istoriatore dil mondo adesso.

[@nicosge6742]

great talk! His books are amazing! Highly recommend

[@thecompetitionistparty8991]

The competition for power is a competition of individuals. You don’t have to choose someone else’s fantasy, you can make up any fantasy you want. But if you think you can’t win then you make yourself into a tool to give someone else power.

[@halbertking2683]

" I went to the jungle to make them into Marxists and instead they made me into an Indian . " Subcomandante Marcos , Zapasta Army

[@MaurizioPeleggi-hr3st]

Traverso is an excellent scholar and deserves great respect. But his analysis of socialist Zionism underplays its origins in theblate 19th c nationalist-imperialist ideological milieu. So i disagree with his conclusions about the exhaustion of the israeli state's initial ideal motor and its current transformation into a fascist state as he argues. Instead it was from the begining a colonist state that has consistently enacted the repressive and even genocidal policies of every colonial state. This misreading, at least in this otherwise enlightening interview, is stricking.

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

Galore

[@areiorum]

Heartbreaking to witness how Israelis are behaving like Germans of the 1930's with U.S. support.

[@commonwunder]

Just like religion, socialism absorbs you. Burrows its way deep into your mind... when you are young. It's how utopianism works... it indelibly attaches itself to those with little to no life experience. Once inside you, once fully captured, it colours everything you see in an unequivocal form of escapist idealism. You're then trapped your entire life inside a fairytale story, unable to turn away and into the light of reality. A coping mechanism for the child growing into an adult. To hide from the knowledge oppression is universal and constant. For a few, life experience will self-correct this imbalance... but for so many, it is a life long drunken intoxication. Religion and all political 'Ism's' are just power seducing structures for those in control. They're not solutions or pathways to a better life... for those that live under its dictates. There is no way out of this power dynamic. Every political idea is used by its societies wealthy or powerful, as a system of dominance... not as a journey for the hordes under their control to a utopia. Intellectuals and those who prefer their constant dream state... unconsciously understand this, yet chose to remain entranced in their youthful fantasies and fairytales. They chose to ignore reality.

[@kljwilliam]

Wow I have never seen some one write bullshit so well, good for u at least learn something about the thing are criticising to actually rebuff it meaningfully, please elaborate the idea and critique it not just writing hollow paragraphs as if u are making a point but end up wasting peoples time reading it.

[@MK-jc6us]

Man, as if being a Trotskyist is not bad enough, to "bridge" between Trotskyism and the French Theory guys is really a (bad) achievement. OK, I am biased, I need to read him first. But the rather acritical vision of Trotsky (Deutscher is a lousy historian) and the adherence to Foucaulian method is already something that really must be taken with a huge grain of salt...

[@MoMAPS5]

if this is the only thing you can get from this interview then you aint paid attention hard enough. enough with the sectarianism already this is why the left isn't taken seriously rn.

[@MK-jc6us]

I will stress here once more that I do not read this author yet. Based on this interview only, I do not have a great deal to comment. Marcuse, Althusser and Foucault are not "post-marxists" they are anti-marxists. The "post" concept used by the author to refer for example, to the new Fascism as "post-Fascism" is imo wrong. "Post" per se is rather empty as a category as the neo-Fascists must be better defined and the author (at least in this video) does not do that. Trump for example is not a neo-Fascist in the strict ideological sense of the word. He is rather a Benthamian or Spencerist Liberal. His nostalgia is for a romanticized idea of US in its 50's, not for any kind of Fascism in a Mussolinian sense. Of course, in practice Trumpists will support Fascists whenever required, but they are not Fascists because of that. They are Capitalists, which is a broader category. About your "sectarianism" claim. It would be good if you could define what you understand by sectarianism. We have historical evidence to demonstrate that Trotsky's main ideological concepts and concrete strategies / tactics are flawed and misunderstood by its supporters. I don't want to make it very long as this is just a youtube comment. But the accusation of "Stalinists" as supporters of a pseudo-"Socialism in 1 country" strategy is flawed. 1st - There is no theoretical defense of such stance, 2nd - What Stalin (and Lenin when explaining the Revolution to German Social-Democrats) is that Socialism rule can be achieved in Russia, it does not mean that they were referring to a very developed form os Socialism, and of course, not to Communism. 3rd - Soviet Union directly acted on Xinjiang under Stalin, so there was no "isolationist" policy in place. This is just an example. On Trotsky's tactics and despite his supporters' claims, Trotsky was not a close associate of Lenin after the April thesis. We all know that Trotsky is a very late Bolshevik, before finally joining the Bolsheviks he did a last push to not join Bolsheviks by joining the Mezhraiontsy organisation*. This "neither meat nor fish" organisation failed and Trotsky was finally decided to join the bolsheviks, not for ideological sympathies with Lenin, but because he realised that Bolsheviks had a solid case to seize power among all Socialists organisations in Russia. This of course, perfectly matches Trotsky's openly assumed tactic of entryism. Entryism is a failed tactic as the history of the 20th century allowed us to observe and learn. Only his supporters fail to learn from the past experiences and continue to actively use entryism. This entryism, much more than "sectarianism" takes a whole lot of credibility from Marxism-Leninism as a whole. *"[Trotsky] reached Russia on 17 May 1917. After his return, Trotsky substantially agreed with the Bolshevik position, but did not join them right away. Russian social democrats were split into at least six groups, and the Bolsheviks were waiting for the next party Congress to determine which factions to merge with. Trotsky temporarily joined the Mezhraiontsy, a regional social democratic organization in Petrograd, and became one of its leaders. At the First Congress of Soviets in June, he was elected a member of the first All-Russian Central Executive Committee ("VTsIK") from the Mezhraiontsy faction (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky). /// The Mezhraionka, with about 4,000 members, merged with the Bolsheviks at the 6th Congress of the RSDLP in late July to early August 1917 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhraiontsy)". So, I don't want to "judge" Trotsky's position being good or bad because he didn't join Bolsheviks right away, I am just stressing the fact that all the harmony between Trotsky and Lenin after the April thesis is a Trotskyist mythology and not based on historical facts. I won't develop the details here. @@MoMAPS5

[@ilyapolishuk5126]

@@MK-jc6us Trotsky was a war criminal. Not much better than the Nazi generals. I'm amazed at the level of moral degradation one can go to in order to honor such a character.

[@bbegins10]

Jesus what an insufferable comment from someone who hasn’t even read the author in question

[@MK-jc6us]

You must be a troll, I made clear on my 1st comment that I didn't read him yet. I simply developed a 2nd reply in response to the guy above. Cheers. Anyway, if you learnt anything, from this interview, good for you. Nothing new for me.@@bbegins10