>Fascism was, ALSO, specific to a particular
>historical juncture -- that very odd and precarious armistice between
>the two halves of the Great War. History really does not repeat itself,
>and those who think it does are doomed not to repeat it but to make
>stupendous new errors.
Jim Devine usefully summarizes the international political economy of "that very odd and precarious armistice between the two halves of the Great War" at <http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/subpages/depr/d2.html>. Among other things, he notes:
***** In most of the core countries, capitalist competition had been transformed and limited since the mid-19th century, as domestically-based capitalist industries became increasingly concentrated and centralized. The rise of these limits on atomistic competition -- cartels, trusts, joint-stock corporations, and the like -- spawned the term "Monopoly Capitalism." But instead of being abolished, capitalist competition increasingly spilled out on the international level. As nationally-based capitalists pushed for state policies in their favor (especially tariffs), competition shifted from being firm-against-firm to being increasingly nation-against-nation. In many ways, this shift to "national capitals" (state/capital unity) intensified competition. Further, by limiting foreign competition, protection (along with transportation and communication costs) gave further support for the consolidation of cartels in each country. Thus, protectionism and the centralization of capital interacted, reinforcing each other to form a vicious circle.27 [[p. 130]]
Nation-against-nation competition was based on and intensified by ethnic nationalism, which had arisen as part of capitalist socioeconomic development (rather than as an exogenous force). Economic and political unity -- fomented by absolutist monarchs -- encouraged the rise of the nation-state. Within this framework, nationalism represented a cross-class alliance, replacing overt class struggle: this involved an uneasy merger of popular and democratic proto-nationalisms of the working classes, the ethnic-linguistic chauvinism of many of the middle strata, and elite state-patriotism aimed at stabilizing the social situation, legitimating taxes and centralized government, and raising troops [cf. Hobsbawm, 1990].28 Nationalisms defined themselves relative to each other as the modern nation-states increasingly began to collide in economic and military competition. *****
Capitalism, since the USA decisively assumed hegemony at the end of WW2, has been moving into the direction opposite to what is described above, & the transformation has accelerated since the 70s. Today it would be absurd to speak of "national capitals" (even between quotation marks).
Yoshie