Let me see if I can tease out something that caught my eye in the great Battle Between the Tape Recorders (just joking).
Chip said:
>I see fascism as a movement as
>autonomous, but fascism gaining state power by cutting a
>deal with a faction of capitalist elites.
I agree, however I am curious about your ideas on the dynamics of fascism GETTING state power i.e. what happens before the fascists cut their deal, what makes them popular to the point that the elites are willing to get behind them.
In what little reading on fascism I've done, historically at least, fascism gained numbers primarily from people who were pushed to the margins by capital's dynamic (either in the short- or long-term). In post-WW1 Germany, economic conditions brought on by capitalism and exacerbated by the war and it's after-effects (the Treaty, occupation by the French of the Ruhr industrial area, etc.) pushed even more people who were vulnerable to such "shocks" (the petit bourgeois) into either joining the fascists or approving of their race-based ideas e.g. "We have barely enough jobs/food/etc. for members of the nation! Why should it go to foreigners/welfare bums/etc. (I've heard more than my fair share of such "razor logic" as this during the recession here in Canada; it's just under the surface, but only comes out in times of trouble). I see the same sort of thing happening now, but in slow motion, over decades, as capitalism starts hitting its limits again, and people who don't want to lose what they have start making hard choices and turning gimlet eyes on the "Other".
Anyway, I think that's what Nathan was roughly getting at, with regards to the "capitalism+repression=fascism" bit that you (I think falsely but understandably) characterize him with. Nathan, how about commenting on this analysis?
Todd