AUT: "keynesian fascism" vs "neo-liberal fascism"

[Michael Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Based on cwright's comment about changing class
composition and fascism, I thought of something that
might be useful in distinguishing different forms of
fascism.

The fascism of the 20s and 30s can be considered a
type of "Keynesian fascism"....If we look at the
numerous fascist movements today, they seem to be far
more of a "neo-liberal" brand of fascism (Berlusconi,
in puarticular).



--- cwright <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just a thought.
>
> If we take the idea of class composition seriuosly,
> isn't it possible that
> fascism corresponds ot a particular class
> composition?  After all, even
> commie00 would agree, I think, that a mass petty
> bourgeoisie existed in
> Germany and Italy in the 1920's and 1930's.  Fascism
> has been connected with
> a mass petty bourgeois movement (as separate from
> any kind of military
> dictatorship) by a wide range of commentators, from
> Trotsky to Sergio
> Bologna (Common Sense #16).  Fascism may certainly
> respond to mass workers'
> movements, but it is a specific response, not just
> of the bourgeoisie, of
> the capitalists.  It also took place in the era of
> the transition from
> professional to mass worker.  What might this have
> to do with fascism as we
> knew it?  Would it also be connected to
> statification as a way of
> reorganizing the class composition, hence the
> tendency towards state
> capitalism?  If so, maybe we would have to reverse
> the relation of fascism
> and state capitalism, with fascism being one means
> of bringing about greater
> integration with the state of all aspects of social
> life for the working
> class?
>
> If this is reasonable, then might the end of the
> professional worker and a
> mass petty bourgeoisie have meant the end of
> classical fascism?  After all,
> even if I argue that the PB still exists as a class,
> it is certainly much
> tinier than it was in the 1930's, prolly less than
> 20% of the total
> population.  Might this also not explain the
> emergence of fascist or
> fascist-like regimes in countries with the
> professional worker class
> composition?  (Harald's comments on Iraq and the
> Baathists come to mind, but
> others as well, such as Argentina, Greece, etc.)  As
> such, it would also
> explain why fascism has ceased to appear in the
> developed countries.
>
> Also, fascism is not an aberration of the state form
> (as Poulantzas
> thought), but one of the actual representations of
> its form.  If in thinking
> of the discussion of form and essence raised a while
> back, we might want to
> concretize it in the Hegelian idea of Universal,
> Particular and Unique, in
> which essence and form play the role of Universal
> and Particular, while any
> actual state is not a form (the Particular), but the
> Unique, since each
> state apparatus is a unique happening of the state
> form as the
> particularization of the political as Universal.  Of
> course, I could also be
> stretching the Hell out of this and mixing my
> categories.  ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ps  Welcome on board Marco.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:03 AM
> Subject: Re: AUT: Fascism
>
>
> > hi all
> >
> > I broadly agree with Floyce's response to Tahir on
> fascism but i have a
> bit
> > to say on the subject myself.
> >
> > fascism to me means a violent anti-proletarian
> movement outside of the
> > normal channels of bourgeois rule. the obvious
> examples being Italian
> > fascism and German Nazism which were both
> responses to mass proletarian
> > struggles. as a form of government i don't think
> fascism is that different
> > to other forms of capitalist rule such as
> Stalinism or military
> > dictatorship.
> >
> > >One last point: I don't think that fascism will
> disappear within a
> > >capitalist order. It just ebbs and flows. The
> significance of this:
> > >democratic anti-fascist movements are futile in
> the the longer view of
> > >things; they just preserve the social order which
> will bring back fascism
> > >again at some later stages and in some other
> places.
> >
> > if my definition is correct then fascism while not
> disappearing has never
> > reappeared fully fledged either. sure there are
> plenty of violent 'Nazi'
> or
> > 'fascist' groups but they have little support from
> the bourgeoisie. they
> > could only get that support if proletarian revolts
> make normal rule
> > impossible.
> >
> > Dauve/Barrot in one of his pieces on fascism
> claims that fascism has been
> > surpassed by better methods of integrating the
> proletariat into
> capitalism.
> >
> > cheers
> > peter
> >
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list
> aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---