Re: fascism, buchanan, etc.

[Bradley Mayer <concrete@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thnks for the responses from L. Proyect and S. Ryan on this subject.  I
don't have the time right now for a detailed response, BUT....

Just let me say this.  My approach is not to engage in a coin-flipping
contest over whether Buchanan, the militias, etc., are or are not
fascist.  As should be clear from now, I am also not one of those
'chicken-littles" who think the sky is falling.  But I am a believer in
the reality of transitional politics, which, simply put, sees a politics
as not simply being already at someplace, but as also headed to some
other place.  As such, politics in motion has a definate direction,
trajectory, or tendancy.  This is where I disagree with S. Ryan's
statement that "we should not be looking at moment-to-moment
developments" (paraphrased from memory); on the contrary, we
precisely need to examine moment-to-moment events ("the conjuncture"), not
only to test our theories about fascism or anything else, but also to gauge
the direction of political events and arrive at a concrete
characterization of the conjuncture so that we can act in it.

So much for method, a discussion which can't be avoided or abstracted
from in connection with fascism or any other question - methodological
differences are bound to arise.  On fascism, this: 1) The "classical"
fascism of the interwar period was the product of a myrid of
interconnected, overlapped tendencies in European politics, economics,
culture and philosophy reaching back to the 1880's. None of these
tendencies were by themselves fascist. 2) Would-be fascism today has
learned much about transitional politics since (and because of) its
historic defeat after WWII - we should only have learned as much. 3)
Fascism in the U.S. can develop out of minority elements in the militia
movement, underground paramilitary groups linked to the U.S. military
(such a group is linked to the Special Forces, and is a fervently
anticommunist group which informally calls itself "capitalists armed"),
already existing fascist groups (Aryan Nation, etc.), and errant
mainstream bourgeois politicians and their opportunisti advisors
(Buchanan and Pratt).  These last are the most important catalyst for the
rest.

Finally, it is insufficient to simply say that rightwing populism,
militias, etc., "have always been with us".  Today's militia movement has
experienced a rapid growth in only the last few years, and rightwing
populism, if taken to its logical conclusion today, can only lead to
fascism. Why? Because the economic crisis we are experiencing today is
more severe than even those of the 1930's or 1880's in one key respect:
in its unrelenting permanence.  For the American bourgeoisie and the
population at large, this is a situation unpreceedented in its history.
The illusion of the "cyclical recurrence" of these phenomena has been
produced by the American bourgeoisie's ability to use certain, now
vanished, historical advantages possesed by them to extricate themselves
from the previous crises.  This eliminated the basis for the growth of
populism, militias, and many other things as well, such as socialism and
a militant, class conscious working class movement.  Today, American
imperialism enjoys only two advantages over its competetors: military
supremacy and a backwards working class.  Use of the first advantage can
only lead to a WWIII in which it would be highly unlikely that the U.S
could duplicate the results of the second; exploitation of the latter
advantage can only further *deepen* the very crisis which can give rise
to militias, populism, and fascism - in fact it is this latter process
which is driving the crisis forward.

These things must be kept in mind when we discuss fascism.

                        Thats all for now,

                        -Brad Mayer


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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