A red herring.
My point was to ask what books on fascism written in the last 30 years have you read? I never said you had to have read Griffin or my stuff. I wanted to know, but that is not the point. A lot has been written in the last 30 years.
I certainly agree that there are economic aspects of fascism, especially once it is in state power. And the theories articulated by Matt and me (and Griffin we we draw from) in no way interfere with an economic analysis that is complex. But the simplistic notion that totalitarianism + capitalism = fascism is an idea that has been pretty much rejected in the last 30 years of study of fascist movements and fascist states.
So I think it is justified to ask what books on fascism written in the past 30 years have you read? In doing this I am not disresepcting your PhD but asking you to defend you views. I don't have a degree, but write about fascism in a way that has gotten me invited to present papers at the International Sociological Association and the American Sociological Association, and several chapters in academic books and even one peer review journal.
So I'll respect your credentials if you'll respect mine.
So answer the question. What books on fascism written in the past 30 years have you read? Then I can get a snese of what theoretical base you are building your arguments on.
:-)
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:40 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Defining Fascism
>
>
> Chip,
>
> Haven't read your book. Read lots of other books about the
> history of Nazi
> Germany, of the sociology of the economy - remind you I have
> a Ph.D. in
> sociology where my major study was workplace organization and
> institutional
> economics - so it's silly to play the game of saying, if you
> haven't read my
> favored book, you are ignorant.