Thanks for a substantive response. Here are some thoughts.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Ivins on FDR on defining fascism
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
>
> >The FDR quote was not derived from the Comintern
definition,
> >nor do I believe I ever said it was.
>
> Note smiley face. Smiley faces are not a sneer, by the
way, they are a
> joke, noting my point that there are lots of people out
there using
> different definitions of fascism. I don't claim mine is
exclusive. I wish
> you weren't so insistent that a word with widely different
useages should be
> used only as you direct.
Actually, I am not insisting that people agree with me, what I am suggesting is that is is silly to debate a topic where most of those debating have not read any new research written in the last 30 years. There are still lots of disagreements in current scholarly literature. But this thread has, at times, sounded like a debate on cancer treatment among doctors who have not read any medical literature in the last 30 years. Such a debate would be silly, no?
There have been several people other than me who have pointed out that more recent research exists, especially Michael Pugliese.
I don't agree with everything posted by Carrol Cox and Brad DeLong, among others, but they are contributing to a serious discussion. I notice that no one has responded seriously to Kelley Walker's post.
> >It would be nice if you actually debated this issue.
>
> Debating does not entail agreeing with you, so I'm not
sure where I haven't.
>
> >You seem to be saying that if China is embracing
capitalism,
> >then its repression can be described as fascism. I think
> >that view is simplistic and reductionist. I have tried to
> >have a debate, but between Charles' nasty diatribes and
your
> >non-responsive posts, it is difficult.
>
> I think I've been very responsive. I've said that I think
if the Chinese
> state is increasingly dominated by capitalist forces and
that is tied to
> dictatorial rule, that begins to look like fascism,
especially when combined
> with some of the other marks of cultural fascism, such as
eugenics, the
> point that started this thread.
How is this different from the type of political repression that can happen under any political system? You keep going back to the idea that capitalism + repression = fascism. There have been several definitions offered here that are not the same as mine, yet they are more complicated than your definition. Also Umberto Eco's definition is a powerful summary view.
>
> >I still am interested in whether or not you think it is
fair
> >to call the British National Front or the US National
> >Alliance fascist. This is in addition to several other
> >points you apparently have decided not to address.
>
> As I noted, it is probably useful to divide fascist
ideology from fascism as
> a historical state phenomena, since no purely fascist
ideology would achieve
> power without an alliance with the elite capitalist forces
that have always
> been required for that. It's probably also worth
separating out Nazism as a
> specificly virulently racist form of facism from the more
> economicly-oriented versions such as Mussolini.
Actually, we agree on these points. Also add in clerical fascism as in Hungary and Croatia.
> The emphasis on fascism's racism and anti-semitism is in
some ways a
> post-WWII emphasis, largely due to the horror of the
Holocaust that
> redefined what people thought of the whole phenomena of
fascism. But as the
> old saying went about Mussolini, he "made the trains run
on time",
> emphasizing the authoritarian economic management
associated with fascism as
> a general phenomena.
>
> The racism should not be disconnected from the corporatism
of fascism, but
> you seem to emphasize the former to the exclusion of the
latter. I think
> that is historically inaccurate.
Corporatism as in corporal syndicalism? Or corporatism mis-translated as corporations?
That detail aside, I see fascism as a movement as autonomous, but fascism gaining state power by cutting a deal with a faction of capitalist elites. Still, some type of appeal to the "Volk" to rally around some ethnocentric theme seems part of all forms of fascism. Where can you find an example otherwise? And I am sure the Ethiopians were well aware of the racism of Italian fascism in real time.
But we agree that fascism in state power has forged a deal with key sectors within capitalism. In Italy, it also cut a deal with the monarchy.
:-)
-Chip Berlet