Re: AUT: Fascism

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter wrote:

    "But foreign domination i'm not so sure about. i
    guess that's a minor point although i reckon fascism was
    primarily a response to an insurgent proletariat," and "... if
    we accept (and i certainly do) that the proletariat is the only
    proper subject then most things capital does are responses
    to proletarian, struggles. fascism was one particular re-
    sponse to some particular proletarian struggles. 'responses
    to mass proletarian struggles' is not the only criterion -
    fascism is also a violent mass (as opposed to state)
    movement."


First, I would want to point to that Nazism had some very marked
characteristics that needs explanations not adequately covered
by the more general term fascism.  Also that Mussolinis fascism
in many aspects had more in common with Peronism than Nazism.
Regardless of this, it seems to me that the magical explanation
above, evoked by several on this list, comes very close to saying
nothing. And what does the phrase "capital does" mean anyway?
Was the emergence fascism of populist mass movements
something capital *did*? And what was the "mass proletarian
struggles" in Germany in the 30ies? It seems to me that the lack
of such struggles is a more adequate description of what was
the situation.

It may also be provocatively asked, what precisely made these reactionary
movements so less proletarian than what today goes under the name
"the anti-globalisation movement," in particular taking into consideration
the almost all-inclusive definition of the working class many operate
with on this list? Certainly parts of the working class have more often than
not let itself been attracted by these reactionary movements, even if I
also believe it is right to say that they as a rule have had a particular
attraction
to, and their main social base among, other social layers. But it is not
possible
to understand the power of these currents without taking their attraction to
segments of the working class into account. We are talking about popular
movements, and that is precisely what makes them so ugly and
dangerous.

Fascism (subjectively percieved) as a means to overcome atomi-
sation and alienation? Certainly that is a crucial part of this. Here we
also see one of several links to popular religous fundamentalism and
"third world" and not so-third-world nationalist movements.
Fascism and fascistoid currents certainly are reactions to what capitalist
relations may do to people but it is still  the popular movements
and not capital that "do".  They are the main actors, however disoriented.
However you look at it, fascism must also be seen as the relative
weakness of the working class, in both ideological and organisational
terms. Even in Spain, the attraction of several social layers (or passivity
or indifference towards) the various manifestations of fascism
(stalinism not excluded), must also be seen as a weakness of the
working class in not being able to reach these, at least to the point
of convincing them that they had far more to gain from a social
revolutionary road than a fascist/stalinist one.

At last, the organisational and consciousness questions certainly are
crucial here. They always have been and always will be. Class
consciousness _is_ important.

Harald





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