It seems that a non-trivial amount of this discussion has been about definitions. More to the point would be the usefulness of a definition. An historical definition is useful for understanding history. If there is some way of classifying political formations in terms of their potential to trend to historical fascism, or something similar and comparably awful in modern form, that would be useful too.
I think it's a mistake to try to extrapolate a movement's future in terms of some intellectual progression, e.g., fascism is for the state, an anti-state movement cannot become fascist. Nazism included an crypto-anarchist tendency (eventually liquidated).
An anti-state movement might become pro-state-sub-two if they see it as the best way to repudiate the state they think they oppose. I don't see a rich vein of political theory underlying the tea-baggers, more a bundle of political and cultural neuroses. They're looking for a Daddy.
Note that at CPAC many speakers bashed the Republican record, then the mob had a collective orgasm when Dick Cheney showed up.
Teabaggers have shown they can mobilize people, so even absent any left agitation they might still do damage on fledgling signs of progressive mobilization. Some time back, there was the pretty nasty vigilantism directed at strikers in Detroit, and recently you have the disruptions of the health care forums.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>> There is no connection to the mass base of the Tea Party movement and the
>> potential for fascism?
>
> I know that ideology exists in a non-simple relationship with material
> interest and political outcomes, but the TPers are fiendishly anti-statist,
> esp central-statist. That's the opposite of fascism, if that word retains
> any meaning. They have a lot in common with long-standing traditions in
> right populism, American style. Was that always potentially fascist, or is
> it just that way now?
>
> I know you love to debunk the hoax Mussolini quote, "Fascism should more
> properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and
> corporate power." But corporate power, in the sense that American populists
> use it, isn't the same as corporatism - and corporatism has a lot to do with
> fascism.
>
> But why does the U.S. need fascism? There's absolutely no serious challenge
> to the existing order coming from the left. Precisely what needs to be
> repressed?
>
>> It is like watching a group of botanists discuss the work of Luigi
>> Pirandello.
>
> What's wrong with that? It might be fun.
>
>> This could be a forum for a serious discussion. I look forward to it
>> starting.
>
> There's nothing non-serious about it. You just don't agree with what's been
> said.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>