> APR: I think it is really important to define fascism carefully and the
> definition I think is important to use does not fit with Jim Crow. I see
> Jim Crow as reactionary and violent but not fascist. Fascism combines an
> intense cultural romanticism with an aggressive modern technophilia....
>
> [WS:] I disagree. Both can be viewed as a violent reaction to big social
> changes that target a scapegoat and aim at symbolic restoration of mythical
> past rather than attack the social agent of that change (e.g. the
> industrial
> bourgeoisie). Barrington Moore called that reaction "catonism," but I do
> not think that terminology matters that much here.
>
APR: What I don't see here is a rejection of the different role and use of advanced technology. Do you or do you not agree that the Nazis, once in power, were focused on aggressive technological development in service of blood and soil while the Southern elites and laity behind Jim Crow did not? I am saying that they are importantly different violent reactions, not that they weren't both violent or reactions.
Last, I guess its possible that the industrial bourgeoisie caused the problems in the South that led to the institutionalization of Jim Crow - though Jim Crow was legislated during the golden age of American agriculture - but I am more than pretty confident that the problems in Germany weren't the making of the German industrial bourgeoisie but, much more, the making of the Treaty of Versailles, reparations, etc.