Known for his typological description of fascism, Payne specialized in the
history of modern Spain, particularly on the
Spanish fascist movement, and has worked on comparative analyses of
European fascist movements in
Western Europe. In the 1960s, his books were published in
Spanish by
Éditions Ruedo ibérico (ERi), a publishing company set up by
Spanish Republican exiles in
Paris,
France, to publish works forbidden in Spain by the
Francoist regime ruling the country at the time. He has been referred to by some historians as a
revisionist due to his views. One of his more famous books is
Spanish Civil War, The Soviet Union and Communism, which analyzes
Joseph Stalin and the Soviet government's intervention in Spain. He also wrote
The Franco Regime,
The Spanish Civil War and
A History of Fascism 1914–1945.
Typological description of fascism Payne presents his
typology of generic fascism divided under three headings: A. Ideology and Goals: • Espousal of an
idealist,
vitalist, and
voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and
secular culture • Creation of a new
nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models • Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called
national corporatist,
national socialist, or
national syndicalist • Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence and war • The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers B. The Fascist Negations: • anti-
liberalism •
anti-communism • anti-
conservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right) C. Style and Organization: • Attempted
mass mobilization with
militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia • Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and
mystical aspects • Extreme stress on the
masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly
organic view of society • Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation • Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective To distinguish between fascist and non-fascist
authoritarian nationalist groups, Payne divides these movements into fascist, radical right, and
conservative authoritarian right. Payne notes that these groups shared some of the same goals as fascists and that there were instances of usually temporary or circumstantial tactical alliances between them which sometimes led to outright fusion, especially between fascists and the radical right. Originally presented in his 1980 book
Fascism: Comparison and Definition, Payne updated his typology in
A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 in 1995 to place a greater emphasis on ideology. In the book, Payne also offers a one sentence definition: "a form of revolutionary
ultranationalism for national rebirth that is based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, is structured on extreme
elitism, mass mobilization, and the
Führerprinzip, positively values violence as end as well as means and tends to normatize war and/or the military virtues." He also asserts that there were some specific ways in which
Nazism paralleled Russian communism to a much greater degree than Fascism was capable of doing. Payne does not propound the theory of "
red fascism" nor the notion that
Communism and
Nazism are essentially the same. He states that Nazism more nearly paralleled Russian communism than any other noncommunist system has.
Reception Roger Griffin described Payne's work as a "methodological breakthrough" and praises his typology as being "a deliberately schematized and simplified model which identifies what fascisms have in common rather than highlighting their undeniable complexity and uniqueness". Griffin further describes Payne's typology as "[setting] up a superbly positioned and equipped base camp from which to carry out gruelling scholarly expeditions" and views it as "the most comprehensive and sophisticated expression" of the "new consensus" that sees fascism as a tangible political ideology centred around
utopia rather than
nihilism.
Roger Eatwell describes Payne's 1995 book by saying: "Overall, there is no doubt that Payne's latest book is the best general history of fascism in the inter-war period, offering a finely tuned account of how the national differences between the various fascist movements do not negate the attempt to create a generic model." However, Eatwell also criticises Payne's work for largely ignoring the intellectual basis of fascism and considers it a useful
heuristic starting point that "ultimately does little more than underline a few key words". Eatwell criticises Payne's focus on fascism's negations and asserts that his typology places an undue focus on the context of the
interwar period.
Dave Renton has criticised Payne's approach to definition of fascism, which he describes as an attempt to present fascism as a static set of certain beliefs without examining the relationship between these ideas within a dynamic and contradictory process. In particular, Renton notes that in Payne's description of fascism through "three negations", anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, the latter label is troublesome, since Payne "cannot explain why the rise of the two fascist parties that actually seized power was helped, in both cases, by an alliance with the conservative ruling classes." It becomes clear that "fascist anti-conservatism is different from fascist anti-communism" and the conflict of anti-communism and anti-conservatism has always been solved in the favor of the first. According to Renton, because Payne founds his theory on description but not explanation, he and other historians "fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to a conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor of the definition of the ideology. This is not a critical theory of fascism, and hardly any sort of theory, at all."
Controversy surrounding Francoist revisionism Payne's work has been criticized as sympathetic to Francoism by some historians since the 1980s. In 1988,
Charles Powell in a review of Payne's
The Franco Regime, 1936-1975 described Payne as the "[having shown] the greatest benevolence toward the Franco regime" among "Anglo-American" scholars of the Spanish Civil War and wrote: "The attempt to summarize the origins of the civil war in a few pages leads the author to make value judgments that are not always justified... In general, his interpretation — and the use of expressions such as 'latent authoritarian situation' used to describe the political climate in the spring of 1936 — tends to justify the rebellion." In 1989, Robert Whealey praised
The Franco Regime as presenting the "freshest account yet" on the Spanish Civil War, and stated that Payne "will remain the leading U.S. authority on twentieth-century Spain for some time to come." Whealey noted that the book had a conservative tone, but claimed it was essential reading for any twentieth-century historian of Europe. F. J. R. Jiménez argues that Payne has become more conservative over time. Payne has been supportive of "
revisionist" authors on the Spanish Civil War and Francoism. In 2003, Payne published an article in defense of the writer
Pío Moa, praising Moa's work as "critical, innovative" which, according to Payne, "introduced a breath of fresh air into a vital area of contemporary Spanish historiography"; Payne accused the Spanish universities and academics of undeservedly silencing and ostracizing Moa in the vein of "fascist Italy or the Soviet Union."
Santos Juliá wrote in response: "Stanley Payne's paternalistic contempt is perplexing and disappointing [...] Today, researchers who, in Payne's opinion, publish nothing but "narrow and formulaic" studies have provided the necessary data to finally put an end to the purely propagandistic disputes surrounding the violence unleashed by the victors in the construction of [Francoist Spain], during and after the war."
Ángel Viñas is highly critical of Payne's methods of research, including Payne's founding his interpretation almost entirely on secondary sources and not on primary evidence: "Payne's methodology and assumptions simply have no basis." In particular, he writes that Payne's work
The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism (2004) which supports
Burnett Bolloten's theses that the Communists and Stalin sought a takeover of Spain with the help of Juan Negrin "has now become hopelessly obsolete" due to "archival material" proving the opposite to Bolloten's and Payne's theses which, according to him, have never relied on concrete evidence. Viñas stated that while he admired Payne in the past, now he sees his works as driven by political agenda instead of research and accused him of promoting "Francoists myths" and narratives. The Hispanist Henry Kamen praised Payne's work for utilizing research in Russian which used materials from Soviet police archives. In 2014 he published
Franco. A Personal and Political Biography with
Jesús Palacios, who during his youth had been a member of the now-banned neo-Nazi group
CEDADE. Since then, he has been considered an iconic figure in
Francoist revisionism.
Felipe Fernández-Armesto described this work as "vindication" of Franco; Juan Carlos Losada writes that "Payne and Palacios drastically reduce the amount of violence lashed out by the rebels and add some alleged factors which militated in the same direction," "extoll Franco´s strategic capability and oppose the view that his military decisions kept the war going for too long," "take refuge in the customary topics about Juan Negrin being a Moscow agent and adhere to the conveniently modernized Francoist myths of the old historiography established during the Franco regime." Claudio Hernandez Burgos in his review wrote that the biography of Franco presents itself as objective and a "third path" between neo-Francoist publications and "leftist" "anti-Francoist" historiography, but in fact offers "soft revisionism" which partially disagrees with neo-Francoists, but still places Francoist myths "beyond critical enquiry", downplays Francoist violence and Franco's personal role in it, and presents an "excessively indulgent" account of Franco's life and rule. ==Books==