[lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism, and contemporary research

Marv Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Fri Feb 19 06:35:55 PST 2010


On 2010-02-19, at 8:55 AM, Chip Berlet wrote:


>
> Really Marv?
>
>
> There is no such thing as a fascist movement after 1945, it is all histrionics?

There have been fascist movements since 1945. No one has said otherwise. You expression of "utter despair" about the course of the discussion is what could be interpreted as histrionic.


> There are only a tiny handful of obscure fascist movements in the world?

Offhand, I can't think of any which are contending for power. Which ones do you have in mind?


> There is no connection between fascist movements and "real" politics?

Of course there is, as we learned to our horror the interwar period in Germany, Italy, Spain, and elsewehere.


> There is no connection between right-wing populism and fascism?

There share many reactionary themes in common. Which right wing populist movements would you describe as "fascist"?


> There is no connection to the mass base of the Tea Party movement and the potential for fascism?

I've previously described the teabaggers as "incipient fascists" in that if the crisis deepens and spawns radical resistance on the left they could become the base of a fascist movement garbed in American colours which discovers and exalts that tradition. But think they are not that yet and use "fascist" as a cuss word against liberals and socialists, considered one in the same. But we seem to be in agreement then that the movement has the "potential for fascism". I think most people on the list would also agree.
>
> If a movement is libertarian in rhetorical style it can have no connection with fascism?

Free market ideologues, like socialists, can turn to fascism, and have.


> Anything analysis after the 3rd Comintern is a waste of time?

Certainly not.


> Anything analysis after Dimitrov is a waste of time?

Certainly not.
>
> Anything analysis after Kautsky is a waste of time?

Certainly not.
>
> Anything analysis after Trotsky is a waste of time?

Certainly not.
>
> If Mussolini didn't write it then it is not a useful definition of fascism?

This question is better addressed to Chris.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list