Because both of you--while disagreeing with each other--seem rooted in the Comintern notion that all authoritarianism against the workers ends up a form of fascism. Even Arendt complained about this type of formula in a later preface to her work on totalitarianism where she said that not all forms of communism or fascism could be said to be fully totalitarian. Stalin and Hitler fit the bill in her mind. Kirkpatrick misrepresented Arendt's work to imply that all communism was on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism, but while right-wing military dicatators might be authoritarian, they (Kirkpatrick claimed) could be weaned toward democracy while communist governments could not make that transition becasue of their totalitarian nature.
Of course history has shown what an asinine argument that was.
So then social scientists passed through the odious Lipset phase claiming extremists of the left and right are a lunatic fringe and ended up asking what the hell that actually meant.
Fascism began to be studied as a right-wing populist movement seeking the overhaul of society. Griffin argues that this involves palingenesis--or heroic rebirth. Once in power fascism forms an alliance with certain power elites, but as a social/political movement it uses populist anti-elite rhetoric. Once in state power it uses demonization and scapegoating to write conspiracist narratives of subversion to blame all societal troubles on a targeted group.
Since Matt Lyons and I just wrote a whole book on Right-Wing Populism in America that looks at the dividing line between fascist and non-fascist right-wing populists, I agree with his "non-definition" at:
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
while also agreeing with much of Griffin at:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:19 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: China Fascism weeds out the "unfit" from higher education
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
>
>
> >Actually, contrary to several off-list complaints, I am not
> red-baiting
> >Nathan Newman or Charles Brown, I am saying they are using
> definitions
> >of fascism that the Comintern articlulated, but which have been
> >discredited over the last 30 years throughout social science.
>
> Chip, I didn't think you were redbaiting, although how we
> could both be
> parroting the Comintern when we are violently disagreeing
> with each other on
> definitions is beyond me.
>
> My argument was one of politically provocative analogy of
> China to those
> identified states historically known as fascist. I find any
> social science
> attempt to formulate some "objective" definition of fascism
> outside of the
> whole complex of rhetorical, economic and social meanings of
> the term to be
> a pretty fruitless goal.
>
> But I'll bite- what is your thumbnail definition of fascism?
> And does China
> fit any of its categories?
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
>