Re: Fascism Seminar -- Guerin, Part 1.

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

Bryan Alexander writes:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Matt D. wrote:
>
> > Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin (1936)
> > *****
> >...
> > Chapter 1: Big Business Finances Fascism
> > *****
> > Contra L. Proyect, Guerin has it that fascism comes to power not to thwart
> > imminent revolution -- indeed the absence of strong revolutionary forces is
> > one factor in its rise -- but rather to allow the bourgeoisie to resolve
> > acute and persistent economic crises in ways made too difficult by
> > "democratic" forms of government and civil society.
>
> Good point to bring up.  I've heard lefties make a similar argument more
> than a few times - and it seems to be wrong

The way I would put it is this : the bourgeoisie only turns to fascism in
earnest when they are forced to, since it an all out assault on the
working class can provoke a revolutionary response ( Kornilov in
Russia, Franco in Spain ). There must be deep economic and political
crisis - in other words an objectively revolutionary situation.
However, the subjective element ie the revolutionary leadership
of the working class may well be lacking. In fact, the lack of
such leadership makes the bourgeoisie more likely to turn to
fascism, since they will be less afraid of a revolutionary response
to any fascist take over.

I think Louis may be too much of "political marxist" like
Mary ? Ellen ? Wood  to recognise the economic factors
involved. Unprovoked attack or what ?

>
> > We find it in Italy and Germany because as "late-bloomers" among the
> > imperialist nations, they did not have the resources to "ride out" the
> > post-war collapse in the manner of, say, the Rooseveltian New Deal.
>
> I'd love to see some stats on this.  It doesn't convince me, offhand.

Britain was to a large extent cushioned from the worst ravages of the
30's slump. We had fascists, but not on a massive scale - probably
the British fascists were smaller than in France at the same time.
Britain had an empire because it was an "early bloomer" and got
there first.

> >
> > Guerin points out the division between light industry and heavy w/ regard to
> > the fascist solution.
> >

There is possibly another factor here :

light industry in the 30's was new industry. New industry tends
to be less well unionised than old industry, so perhaps light
industry could restructure as it wanted more easily than heavy
industry.

The heavy / light industry is quite artificial, I think.
How would you describe the car industry ? In the 30's,
this was described as light. Either way, it has little
to do with the "department"s discussion.

Some of the factors listed seem to be specific to the 30's.
I can see no reason why today the ruling class wouldn't
turn to fascism precisely in order to integrate into
the world market ( there are rumblings of this
when right wing commentators discuss the advantages of the
more authoritarian "Eastern Tigers" like Singapore ).


> > Heavy industry -- nationally organized, integrated w/ the military machine,
> > and with a high organic composition of capital meaning high fixed charges --

> > Light industry is not necessarily as open to fascism.  Production for the
> > international market, a need to maintain the purchasing power of consumers
> > to realize value, a low organic composition of capital meaning low fixed
> > costs, and a resentment of the social and economic domination of heavy
> > industry lead light industry to tend to favor "industrial peace" labor 
> > policies.
> >

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------