Considering all the complaints about the international (often Jewish) finance, the oppression of the little man by the banking systems, etc. by the local fascistoids, I have my doubts. Demagoguery against financial capital is nothing alien to fascism. Industrial capital gets off much lighter and is often even praised.
Finance capital is an international power. Fascism seeks to control power and hold it nationally.
This is simple nationalism. Capital has a life of its own, and free-moving capital enjoys this power outside of the power of national borders. Wherever it threatens the hegemony of racial or cultural "fasces" (this distinction is almost always progressing toward the
national form of identity) it is an obvious target.
There is nothing "progressive" or "reactionary" about this. It is the simple relations of power.
Chomsky has discussed this point in reference to the free movement of capital which acts as a referendum on the relative profitability of markets. This is why production markets tend toward less compensation, less benefits, and low environmental standards as seen in China. This is also why consumer markets tend toward financially robust nations like the US, who have maintained power by controlling finance capital. Indeed, even when seeming progressives like Ratigan rail against the transfer of money, capital and power outside of the US they are propping up a nationalist, fascist paradigm.
The economies of the world today are fascist if they have any strength at all. The US is obviously this way, with robust, expansive military spending (at the height of the debt "crisis," on July 8th, the military budget was approved for an 18Bn$ increase over last year's budget). Expansive government purchases toward nationalist programs are fascist; the alternative is capitalism (the hegemony of private control over capital, which is not as important as control of management positions or other bottlenecks in capital) or socialism, which is the decentralization of power.
What the "progressives" in the US want, and this even is fringe, is fascist economics: expanded government purchases but no more democracy. The reactionaries want capitalism, which is probably worse than this kind of economic model, and possibly just as fascist. There is no real demand for the popularization of power; "free market" types are merely asking for consolidation of power with some quixotic notion of property.
