[WS:] I think it is a bit complicated. In Germany, they certainly did, but in Spain and Portugal - not quite so. The latter lagged behind in development under the fascist rule. But then, the Soviets promoted the technological progress too. As to the Southern elites, I am inlined to agree with you. I think what explains this difference is that Euro-fascists were sovereign states and technology (esp. military technology) was critical for maintaining that sovereignty vis a vis other sovereign states, whereas the Southern racists presided over a backwater part of an empire ruled by the highly industrialized North - so their main concern was to maintain their big fish in a little backwater pond status rather than fending off challenges to imperial sovereignty.
Also do not forget that Euro-fascism had a significant backwater rural support especially from labor repressive landlords (the so-called iron-rye alliance.)
So in sum, there is a significant within-group variation re. the technology, and thus I am not sure if it is a good discriminating feature (but I can be persuaded.) My inclination would be to put both in the same basket - or perhaps up against the same wall :)
Wojtek
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>