Not only a Marxist, but Executive Director of the Critical Theory Workshop! And according to Claudio Corradetti, author of the article "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory" at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Critical Theory" is nothing other than the proper philosophical name for "the Frankfurt School". As Corradetti further explains: "Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture."...his phrasing in the quoted essay strongly indicated to me a Marxist background on his part.
Indeed, Rockhill is at least questioning whether the concept of fascism can be limited to that specific historical milieu which (as you say) arose in response to Bolshevism and other socialist movements. He says that this bourgeois capitalist definition of Fascism (limited to Mussolini, Franco and Hitler) is exemplary of an invalid ideological operation that "transforms the systemic into the sporadic, the structural into the singular, the conjunctural into the idiosyncratic", ultimately leading to the ridiculous conclusion that "if there are no jackboots, Sieg Heil salutes and goose-stepping soldiers, then we cannot possibly be within what is commonly known as fascism."He does not acknowledge that Fascism - big F Fascism - arose only because of the Leninist activities leading to Bolshevik Russia and the Hungarian and Bavarian Socialist Republics.
And above, you defined "big F Fascism" as the rule by a savior figure who would implement a Georgist single tax and other reform measures to respect the rights of the public. In contrast to this, you gave the definition that a (small-f) "'fascist strongman' in our era is one ruled by Western capitalism, ultimately by the USA, so he has no real independence, being but a figurehead, a small-f 'fascist.'"
By your definition, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all small-f 'fascists' ultimately ruled by Western (Anglo-American) capitalism, certainly unable to implement the Georgist single tax or any other serious populist reform measures. In other words, simply, tyrants.
Or perhaps the distinction between "big F Fascism" and "small-f fascism" is collapsing under scrutiny?
The big Marxist failure is its refusal to deal with finance capitalism - a striking contrast to Fascism which understood that finance capitalism was the real killer, hence the Judaeo-Christian antipathy to Fascism as the latter knows where the power lies, unlike the idiotic Marxists who blame but "capitalism" for everything - as if the true cure is collectivized farming and factories (with an accompanying dictatorship of the proletariat a temporary situation before egalitarian anarchism is achieved as the ultimate goal)! This is why the capitalists quickly became supportive of Fascism, because the Fascists promised to protect them from the Bolsheviks! In contrast, Hitler's victories (starting from 1933) would ensure that German finance capitalism could not control and dominate the Nazis - contra the Marxist prattle about Fascism being merely a manifestation of capitalism.
Marxists historically failed to deal with finance capitalism, and they also failed even more spectacularly to deal with the remnants of the monarchical system, nobility, and landed wealth. Perhaps this is because Marx himself was some sort of Prussian government agent. And I must agree that "farming and factories" is a limited aspect of "capitalism". A proper analysis needs to address finance capitalism as well as other influential cultural, religious and political powers.
But -- if Hitler was able to escape domination by German finance capitalism, it was only because he had fallen under the domination of Anglo-American finance capitalism.
Thanks for that.PS: This is also why I like Richard's corrections here.