So the original fascist movements (corporatist, racialist, clericalist) arose as a response to interwar tensions created by contradictions caused by nationalist capitalism.
OK, that makes sense.
But a number of scholars argue that new forms of fascism--neofascisms--have emerged to defend the threatened "Volk" against both collectivism (replacing communism with a fear of globalist/intrusive government) and the nation-smashing pressures of globalization on behalf of multinational capital. This takes the form of decrying parasitic international finance capital (can Jewish bankers be far behind?) and calling for a rebirth of national soveriegnty (which can slip into volkish ethnocentrism).
Given the fact of numerous fascist movements and groups throughout the world, the idea that fascism in the generic sense was limited to a specific historic period has been largely discarded by scholars across the political spectrum; just as the idea that populism was limited to the late 1800s was demolished by the work of Margaret Canovan and Michael Kazin.
Precursor movements to neofascism with similar themes also have emerged, and scholars such as Hans Georg Betz call these movements "radical right-wing populism." In the US leading figures would be Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis.
A more radical right-wing alternative is the neofascist Third Position.
Fascism is the most virulent form of right-wing populism. Not all right-wing populist groups are fascist, but all fascist groups use right-wing populist rhetoric. They work together in a complex dynamic.
So the main danger from this direction is not that a fascist movement is about to seize state power, but the dynamic of demonization and scapegoating leading to ethnocentric repression that often accompanies right-wing populist movements.
This is in addition to the threats to democratic goals posed by government repression, repressive religious fundamentalism, and globalization controlled by multinational capital.
All four are threats to democracy.
-Chip Berlet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 4:32 PM Subject: Fascism & Monopoly Capitalism (was Re: Ivins on FDR on defining fascism)
> Carrol wrote:
>
> >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