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.
^^^^^ CB: Hey Alan. We've had a number of threads on the list on this where I have discussed my definition. Here are some:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2008/2008-October/016427.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2008/2008-January/000144.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-October/008693.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-October/008414.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-May/000875.html
I use Dimitrov's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Dimitrov) definition as the core of my definition: Open terrorist rule of the most reactionary, chauvinist, bellicose sector of finance capital. It occurred to me ( I see it was as long ago as 1998) that Jim Crow fits this standard Marxist-Leninist definition, which focuses on class aspects natch, fairly well. It ain't sloppy, anyway (smile). In the case of Jim Crow, the "open terrorist rule " is important; there was open terrorist rule of the Negro People under Jim Crow. The Negro People were a large minority. Most people were not under open terrorist rule. I'm pretty sure that Nazism was open terrorist rule of a signficant minority , but not the majority of Germans. But in addition ,interestingly, Jim Crow arises coincident with the rise of imperialism, finance capitalism in the US . Fascism is a feature of imperialism ( See Lenin's _Imperialism_). So, I use a fairly specific definition. Others here, of course, use different definitions.
The mass social base of fascism in the classic locations - Italy, Germany , Spain - was not, of course, the finance/indusrial capitalists, as they don't have mass numbers. It is that the fascists masses acted in the interests of the right-wing of finance capital. The mass social base of fascism seems to have been petit bourgeoisie and befuddled or intimidated workers and peasants.
Notice, I didn't even mention racism, which the Jim Crowers and Nazis had in common. I think another characteristic that might enhance the "open terrorist rule" element is that the "open" includes especially the bourgeoisie and their agents violating their own best laws and norms, especially civil rights and liberties, of course. That's a more specific aspect of "reactionary " too.
Another element that I don't use , but might be added is anti-Communism. Dimitrov modestly didn't emphasize this. Many here who discourage use of "fascist" applied to other contexts than the Nazis and Fascists point out that fascism was imperialism's response to rising Communist ,working class movements, which are not happening today.
In discussion of the Iraq invasion, I pointed out that that invasion violated the UN "convention" or international law on "Crimes against peace" that was the basis for executing the fascist Herman Goering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace). This goes to "bellicose" and "chauvinist".
^^^^^^^^
I see Jim Crow as reactionary and violent but not fascist. Fascism combines an intense cultural romanticism with an aggressive modern technophilia... it is industrial modernization in the name of premodern values. This is very much not like patrician conservatism and reactionary populism neither of which has any necessary connection to advanced technological efficiencies and both of which tend - in their communitarian romanticism - to be quite opposed to such things. Jim Crow relied on traditional power relations in the state and chronic low-tech violence to reinscribe and enforce devastating racial injustice... very different from what Fascists did in the 30s and 40s, much less more recently.
^^^^ CB: I think it might be that fascism relied on sort of pre-feudalistic nostalgia and mythology in its propaganda, Richard Wagner, Nietszche and all that. The word "Fascist" is derived from the Roman fasces, the bundle of rods in the Roman legions SPQR coat of arms ( Senatus Populusque Romanus; the Senate and the Roman People). Mussolini definitely was into nostalgia about the Roman Empire in developing fascism. This is an aspect of chauvinist nationalism. There is a neo-Paganism to fascism. US Jim Crow might have lacked this. The KKK is the _Knights_ of the KKK, which moves in this direction.
^^^^^
I also think it is imperative not to limit populism to agrarianism (though I have to admit, CB, I couldn't quite figure out from the content of two of your posts if you're actually arguing for this or not), especially given its historical ties to Smithian moral and economic philosophy. Tea Partiers are disproportionately small independent business folk, not agricultural producers (there are very few farmers left in the country - the vast majority of folks who live on farmsteads earn the majority of family income through off-farm employment), and this independent small producer sector (whether agricultural, craft, service or retail) is the broad ground from which populist politics swells.
^^^^ CB: Doesn't it work empirically to say the main social base of "populist" movements are peasants/small farmers and the main social base of "socialist/communist" movements are wage-labor/proletarians ? Of course, there are mixed class elements in both. A Marxist approach, which I take, emphasizes class.
Thus ,put it this way: Tea Partiers don't have the traditional social base of populists. Their social base is more like the fascists'. It was a capitalist who did the television rant that supposedly launched them.
^^^^^
There's been far too much sloppy language in this thread conflating populism with appealing to the self-expression of the interests and whims of the populace - however ideological and not tied to what's good for independent small producers those interests and whims are... this reflects the generic and asociological use of the term in the mass media and conventional politics but that doesn't mean its right or a useful habit to embrace.
^^^^^ CB: On this subject, my language is pretty "neat" not sloppy (smile) . See above. I'm not using the term the way the mass media does. For example, I'm saying Tea Partiers are not populists, but closer to fascists. I'm not saying they _are_ fascists. More like proto-fascists. They are petit bourgeois agents of the most reactionary sector of finance capital.
Another factor the Tea Partiers have in common with fascists is the high level of demogogy, i.e. lying, half-truths , in their propaganda. The similarity between some US masses and the German masses is that they are buying obvious Big lies on a scary scale. How u gonna be for balancing the budget and cutting the taxes for the rich. That's patently stupid. Oh then there's the redbaiting: Obama's a socialist. That's a little like "second time farce", though. I don't think populists were known for redbaiting and anti-socialism, were they ?
The populists were not known for espousing libertarianism like the Tea Partiers, were they ?