OK, Nathan, sometimes social science gets lost in theorizing, and that's a valid point. But here is the problem. As Michael P. has pointed out in another post, some of the fact base as to who actually supported Hitler has been revised by later research using computers and voting records from Germany. My favorites are:
Fritzsche, Peter. (1990). Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fritzsche, Peter. (1998). Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
So we now can see that many early theories about fascism were based on innacurate data about the social base of fascist social movements and political parties.
Same with the Authoritarian Personality studies. There are authoritartian personalities, but it turns out they do not predict political direction or prejudice. There are authoritarian personalities on the right, the left, and the middle. There are authoritarian vegetarians.
A better approach to personality and prejudice is found in:
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. (1996). The Anatomy of Prejudices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/contents/YOUANP_toc.html
A very new look at authoritarianism is found in:
Altemeyer, Bob. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
So if traditional Marxist theories on fascism and authoritarianism are built on factually false data, then no surprise that I would argue they are outdated. Not outdated in the trendy social science sense, but outdated because new data has been generated that calls for a very different analysis.
So that's why I argue that authoritarianism + capitalism = fascism is not always the case. But we can certainly agree that along with other factors it CAN be the case.
So then the question revolves around analyzing authoritarian state power and political repression in socialist and capitalist settings. There is left-wing repression. There is right-wing repression.
Also, there are left wing revolutionary movements and right wing revolutionary movements. Fascism is a right wing revolutionary movement whereby the middle class and others in similar positions of relative privilege are convinced to side with one faction of the ruling elites in a power struggle to resist left wing alternatives that would radically redistribute power and privilege in a society.
So clearly we agree that fascism can be a tool of elite capitalist power. But it is a semi-autonomous tool, neither fully created by nor controlled by either the state or the capitalists. It's part of a faction fight. The deal is--crush the left and when our side takes state power we will reward the middle class and even those sectors of the working class that break ranks and abandon union/worker solidarity for their selfish interests..
Hey, so its a lie. Not the first lie in a power struggle, eh?
-Chip
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:45 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Defining Fascism
>
<SNIP>
> Hmm...a range of books on 20th century socialism such as
> Sassoon's, Gramsci
> (sorry I don't think old books are useless), Habermas,
> Collier and Collier
> on latin american political formations, books on liberal
> corporatism like
> Katzenstein, a number of histories of Nazi Germany, and a
> range of other
> works that touch on fascism through broader economic,
> political or social
> analysis. Oh yeah, a bunch of the social psychology studies
> looking at
> authoritarian personalites.
<SNIP>
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
>
>
>
>