>>> James Devine writes
.
>But is there a category of "fascism" divorced from "Naziism" that is still
useful?<
The three popular definitions of fascism I've seen are (1) authoritarian capitalism in general (from Pinochet to Thatcher); (2) the corporate state, where business, labor, and government meet in tripartite bodies, with labor as a subordinate in the trio, having lost its right to go on strike; and (3) a fascist or authoritarian mind-set, as in the Frankfurt school's "F scale" (which measures degrees of fascist mentality). I prefer #2, but I also feel it's best to avoid the term unless I make it clear exactly what I mean. Like Naziism, the term "fascism" has been overused, including by the New Left, which used a version of definition #3. _________
Charles: Another classic definition of fascism comes from Comrade Georgi Dimitrov, who won in a court against being falsely charged by the Nazis for starting the Rheichstag fire : the open terrorist rule of the most reactionary, chauvinist, militarist sectors of finance capital or the financial oligarchy.
It would be good to add "racist" to the string of defining characteristics above. The financial oligarchy is the form of capitalism's ruling class in its imperialist phase.
Of course the word "fascist" derives directly from Mussolini's party and is rooted in the bundle of rods which was called the fasces in an ancient Roman symbol. So, it is difficult to say that Mussolini's party was not a fundamental type and the Nazis were. The Nazis were the most murderous fascists, but not different in type.
The "populism" of fascists depends especially on their extreme demogogy and money from the capitalists enabling use of mass media.
Charles Brown
>From the market to the Marxit