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

["Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe I'm not using the terms the same way you are, but I don't equate
neoliberal with anti-statist, which means I don't seen an opposition between
fascism and neoliberalism (though I don't have a fully clear definition for
fascism, which is why the present thread is so interesting to me). In the US
Bush etc are not anti-statists, their
anti-social-benefit-provision-via-the-state. They still want big military
and police forces.

Someone with a better grasp of various histories could better comment on
this, but as I understand it, Pinochet in Chile is not considered a fascist,
but was a brutal military dictator and ardent support of neoliberal economic
policy (didn't neoliberal policy get off the ground in Chile?) Now if a
situation like this arose with some sort of ultranationalist mass movement
for it's backing, would that be considered fascist, even if there were
neo-liberal economic policies as part of the movements' platform? I would
say so. If not, why not?

>From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: aut op sy <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: AUT: "keynesian fascism" vs "neo-liberal fascism"
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:34:58 +1100
>
>
>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 ---




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com



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