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

[Thiago Oppermann <topp8564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Isn't that enough reason to conclude that Berlusconi isn't a fascist?

What is "neo-liberal fascism"? Isn't that like "statist libertarianism"? To
make sense you must mean that neo-liberalism is a cynical joke.

. . .



On 2/22/02 12:02 AM, "Michael Handelman" <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 ---



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