Doug Henwood wrote:
>kelley wrote:
>
>>nazism, a type of fascism, was indeed racist as it turned out. but it did
>>not necessarily have to be so. the basic underlying move of fascism is to
>>create a highly solidaristic *nationalism* by defining the nation, the
>>people, the soil *against* some Other. that other can be anything.
>
>But ethnicities don't exist in nature. Defining a nation means the
>invention of a nationality or an ethnicity, which is a kind of
>racialization. As Etienne Balibar says in Race, Nation, Class (pp. 52-54):
>
exactly where in either of my posts to charles did i say that ethnicities exist in nature? that's precisely what i was arguing against. i know charles doesn't agree with this either. i'm objecting to the constant conjunction of fascism with racism. it is quite conceivable that fascism can exist without racism. indeed, it has existed without founding itself on genocidal, violent racism. all political regimes associated with the modern nation-state are ab initio founded on racism, in any event. the point is, it seems to me, to take a concrete, sociological look at actually existing forms of fascism in order to delineate ideal types as methodological tools for analyzing historical and existing forms of fascism.
“touch yourself and you will know that i exist.” ~luce irigaray