ested.)So, whenyouhavea termlike
fascism,whichhademergedin a spe-
cific historicalcontextwithcertain
featuresandwitha loadeddoctrinal
connotation,youobviouslycan’tgive
anystrictanalytic definition of it.
Youhaveto justsee if thereis enough
reasonto thinkthatthosehistorical
featuresare beingreplicatedso as to
promptits appropriate use again.
Butnow,againobviously,“replic-
ated”is too strong.So, we would have
to requiresomethingweaker.Let’s
say,“approximated”. (Incidentally,
thatis whyWittgensteinoncesaid
thatconcepts shouldbe thoughtof
notin termsof definitions but in
termsof “familyresemblances”.)
If yourecall in a previous inter-
viewwithyou,I hadsaidthatthatis
thereason whyI don’t thinkthat
“secularism”,whichhadits originsin
a Europeanhistorical context,really
appliedto anything happeningin In-“EVER SINCE THEBRETTONWOODSINSTITUTIONSwereremantled,we have witnessed a kind of unleashingof
capitalmobilitythat has...deprived nation states of sovereigntyover theirown economiesbecauseof anxietiesabout capital
flight.”In Athenson September25, 2012,the day beforeunions in Greececalledfor a nationwidegeneralstrike to protest
againstnew austeritymeasuresbeing forcedon the governmentby the country’sinternationalcreditors.
THANASSISSTAVRAKIS/APrationalewhenwemakeboththese
differentiationsfromotherformsof
oppositionto theelitesbyordinary
people:conventionaldemocratic
politics andconventional class
politics.
Justso.
FASCISM’SFAMILY
RESEMBLANCE
Youhavesaida lotaboutpopulism,
wouldyouliketo saysomething
aboutfascismsincethat is a word
nowwidelyin currencyto describe
theright-wingpopulisms?
No,I wouldn’t,really.Ifind thatto
do so is a thanklessenterprise. It just
getsoneintopointlessscholasticde-
batesaboutwhetherthe situationin
Indiaor Hungarytodayis exactlylike
it wasin Europe(GermanyandItaly)
in the 1930s and 1940s. These
quibbles aretiresomeandarenot
wellmotivated,theoreticallynor,in-
deed, politically.
I havesomesympathyfor seeing
thematterin thefollowingway.(I
amjustgoingto stateit andthen
walk awaybecauseI don’treallysee
thatit is fruitfulto discussit in detail.
I haveno majorinvestment in seeing
it thisway,so I don’t particularly
wantto defendit. I justthinkit is one
sensiblewayto see it.)
If youput asidemathematicsand
perhapsthe neologismsthatnatural
sciencesometimescoinsin its strict
taxonomies,thereare no definitions
of concepts andterms.Interesting
concepts simplydon’t have strict
definitions.Onlytrivialconcepts do.
Recall that Socratessaidat the endof
hislifethattheonlythinghe had
managedto define everwasthe term
that we translate in English as
“mud”. (Hedefinedit as a mixtureof
soilandwater,in caseyouare inter-