Re: Land, Bread and Sex !

["George Windau" <gwindau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After reading some of the later posts about 'fascism', I don't think that I
am that far afield of the other views expressed by my collegues here.
Perhaps I use slightly different terminology and perhaps I find some
approaches more useful (or more enlightening).  I could split-hairs about
what is, or what is not, a 'marxist' analysis of fascism.  I have no
objection to anyone using a 'psychological' analysis of anything for any
reason, I just mean to point out that such tools are not 'marxist' as such.

On the other hand, if Willhelm Reich's theories on fascism, as built upon
his observations in Germany, are worthwhile; then show us, stodgy old
marxists that we are, their value in combating fascism in all of its
flavors. What are the correct slogans, programs and/or antidotes that you
have derived from Reich's insights??  In other words show us a solution that
is 'in the present' or 'in the future' based upon Reich's work. It is of no
use-value to us to merely know that the problem stems from mass-based sexual
repression 'in the past'?  OK, if so, NOW WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

In my vernacular, the phenomenon of 'fascism' appearing to be all things to
all classes is called 'Bonapartism'.  A bonapartist power formation stands
astride the class structure giving 'symbolic' victories to the working class
while giving 'material' victories to either the 'middle class' (petite
bourgesoisie) and/or the 'ruling class' (bourgesoisie). The greatest of
these material victories that a bonapartist formation can give the
bourgesoisie is to defend the existing forms of property (. . .  even if the
bourgesoisie must yeild some or all of its political power in the process).
Now it is true that not all 'bonapartist' formations are 'fascist' and it is
also true that some 'fascist' formations are not too skilled at the science
of 'bonapartism'.

I believe that even my most virulent detractors here would agree that Juan
Peron was a 'bonapartist' even thought they might object to my
characterization that he was also a 'fascist'. Likewise one could make a
case that Iosef Stalin was a particular or peculiar sort of 'bonapartist'
without fully meeting all of the standard criteria for this
characterization. But was he a 'fascist?' No, he was not.  But yes, there is
room for debate, disagreement and discussion about 'bonapartism' and
'fascism'. If we find that we cannot come to common agreements, it is,
perhaps, that our criteria for applying a certain characterization does not
coincide.

For 'marxists', however, there is a curious pre-occupation with this
scientific fetish called "the test of events". If your characterization of
some leadership, movement or power formation is accurate, then you should be
able to make some extremely accurate statements (either forecasts or
_post_hoc_ explanations) for policy choices that have been made or will be
made by this political creature that you have characterized.  If we admit
Willhelm Reich to our 'characterization forum' then how do his theories pass
the 'test of events'??  Shall we expect the next fascist movement to arrive
in the most sexually repressed nation that we can find (. . . I submit that
Great Britain is the next to go 'fascist' under the Reich theory! Trust me,
comrades, these people are 'hung-up' Similarly, Israel and Italy would be
the last places on earth that 'fascism' could pick up steam . . Hmm, makes
you think, does it not!).  I think I shall rest my polemic against Willhelm
Reich.  I don't mean to be impolite, but frankly, Reich does not belong
here. He has little or nothing to offer us that is of any 'use-value' to a
'marxist analysis of fascism'.

Adios
George
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com