Re: Buchanan a fascist?

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Bradley Mayer wrote:
>
> I would propose that Buchanan is a transitional "democratic" fascist - a
> fascist transitionally deploying (or being deployed beyond his own
> ideological consciousness of himself) a "democratic
> (counter)revolutionary" tactic.  All smart European neofascists (Fini,
> etc.), deploy this tactic today, even "denouncing Hitler".  Also, note the
> transition of forms between Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.

Louis: There were numerous Bonapartist politicians who preceded, and
paved the way, for Hitler. They shared with Hitler:

1) anticommunism

2) extreme nationalism

3) appeals to "rise above class" in order to save the nation

All of the above are ideological characteristics. That is to say, the
ideology of Bruning and Hitler has similarities.

What should interest us, however, are the differences:

1) Hitler's goal was to destroy any independent working-class
institutions such as the unions and electoral parties.

2) The dynamic of his movement was "extraparliamentary". It involved
maddened, petty-bourgeois gangs in direct action against working-class
groups. It was, in effect, a civil war conducted in the streets.

3) The end result of fascist movement is to create a totalitarian state
which incorporates agencies of control at the most minute level. The
object of such agencies is to ensure that "dangerous" thoughts are not
circulated among the masses. This feature, of course, was common to both
Hitler and Stalin's regimes and led many middle-class radicals to
conflate real German fascism and a purported Soviet "fascism". This, of
course, has no basis in class relations. The USSR, despite its lack of
democracy, was a workers state.

Now, clearly, this historic project of the Nazi party is not Pat
Buchanan's. Buchanan is an interesting figure, but the key to
understanding him is not German history in the 1920s and 1930s, but
American history prior to the Great Depression.

There has been a strong streak of xenophobia and nativism in the United
States from its inception. The Know-Nothing Party was one such instance.
This has not been limited to right-wing parties. Socialists in the age of
Debs also attacked immigrant workers. Jack London wrote novels
incorporating "yellow peril" themes.

We are in a similar period to the 1920s today. Capitalism is stagnating,
while the growth sectors are distorted and speculative. But this is
*normal*. Capitalism has two aspects. It can stagnate in one sector, like
the rust-belt cities of the United States, while growing explosively in
others, like the economies of the Far East or some Sun Belt cities.

If capitalism was in a general world-wide slump, like the 1930s, class
polarization would be immense. Bourgeois democracy would be taxed to its
limits. Bonapartist figures like Buchanan would be inadequate. Fascist
bands, who are already in their incipient form today, would begin to
attract frustrated middle-class and lumpen elements.

We are not yet in such a period.

Our task today is to build a socialist movement that can defend the
workers' interests in an intelligent manner. We need a program for
socialist change. Such a program is linked to the objective conditions of
American society and to the tempo of the class-struggle.

Overreaction to evanescent displays of bourgeois reaction (George
Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Ronald Reagan, etc.) is something we must learn to
avoid. The tasks of the socialist movement are daunting enough in
themselves. We should not exaggerate our difficulties by turning every
strutting, foul-mouthed bourgeois politician into the latter-day
embodiment of Adolph Hitler.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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