Fascism and Juan Peron

["George Windau" <gwindau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comrade Julio: The points I was trying to make with my posts were:

   1) Fascists do not have some 'super-talent' at myth-making which allows
them to relate more successfully to some human psychological archetypal
images (sexual or otherwise) compelling some form of 'mass psychological'
political expression. Thus, the idea that 'there is something about fascism'
is a dead-end formulation for a 'marxist analysis of fascism.'  I am sure
that there are/were no professional fascists who could spin a myth to save
the Greek Junta from its demise, so how could I expect anyone else (without
any 'super-talent') to do what they could not do? My challenge was
rhetorical.

   2) I wanted to show the material conditions (based on a capitalist crisis
of some sort), the objective class struggle conditions (based upon some
current or recent workers movement being crushed or suppressed) and the
subjective conditions (based upon some 'weak' bourgesoisie or one that
'perceives itself as weak' due to its historical 'newness' or other factors
which make make if feel weak) which make 'fascism' a viable option to save
capitalist forms of property. On this point, today's Russia may be
approaching the fullfillment of this condition of 'weak' and 'historically
new' bourgesoisie. I don't know if Russians are sexually repressed but I
would guess that they are not. I suggest that we examine my thesis with
respect to Russia instead of Willhelm Reich's sex/mass-psych theories.

   3)) I also hoped to broaden the definiton of 'fascism' from the narrow
images of 'Fascist Italy' and 'Nazi Germany' by hinting at the 'tasks of
fascism'.  That is why I characterized 'fascism' as essentially a
bonapartist power formation (no matter if the basis of that formation is a
mass-based movement or a narrow movement during a time period when the
masses are demoralized, fearful and/or apathetic). Thus, as long as the
masses do what is expected of them, either marching in the streets giving
'Sieg Heil' salutes or hiding under their beds when military or
para-military fascist forces take to the streets, then fascism is getting
the 'mass response' that it wants. So, while there may be some
mass-psychological aspect to pro-fascist mobilizations in Italy or Greece
(Oops, wasn't Spain also visited by fascism? Now how is this 'mass
psychology' tool to be used in Spain? Let's see, the Spanish fascist slogan
was "Long Live Death!". Now isn't that just 'super-talented' myth making!?),
how do we explain an entire population hiding under their beds when ordered
to do so by the fascists?
    How do we explain, using mass-psychology, an entire urban population
under a virtual 'house-arrest' as was the practice in Greek cities when
fascist/monarchist street actions took place? Yes, fear is a variable in
mass-psychology, but to say that the people were fearful is merely a keen
perception of the obvious, comrade!
    Some of the functions of fascism are (according to my training):
      a) Save capitalist forms of property and/or save/hide
         imperialist alliances in the case of a compradore bourgesois
         or a settler class bourgesoisie in a colonized or
         neo-colonized nation (or in an imperialist client state).
      b) Co-opt, destroy or otherwise control currently militant or
         recently militant worker or peasant organizations such as
         labor unions and peasant collectives.  This may be done with
         'bonapartist' methods of leadership where the workers/peasants
         are allowed to enjoy 'symbolic' victories as long as they do
         not threaten or call into question the functions shown in (a)
         above. Or it may be simply done with naked violent repression
         for those regimes that have no special skills at 'bonapartism.'
      c) Crush 'leftist' political organizations with whatever level of
         violence is required for the task. The goal is to make a nation
         'without parties' (save the fascist party or power formation).
         The actual fact is that 'fascist' and 'rightist' groups are
         given full opportunity to act and react with impunity in this
         so-called 'nation without parties (save one)'.

Comrade Julio: Now with respect to Juan Peron in Argentina, I believe item
(a) and item (b) can be shown to be true even though Peron used anti-British
rhetoric in his 'bonapartism'. Item (c), I may admit, did not come to full
bloom until Peron was gone, however, but it was well 'in-process' in-so-far
as it was tollerated on a certain scale when Peron held office. In short,
the level of violence against the 'left' was kept to a minimum under Peron
(except in the trade union movement where it was blatant) but not
extinguished by him or his leadership. You have every right to disagree with
the criteria offered here. I only present it to justify my characterization
of Juan Peron's leadership. However, if you generally agree with my
criteria, then we have only to throw facts, events and Peronist speeches at
each other to settle this point. Shall we go to this next level or shall we
first diagree about the criteria as I have presented them?

No creo en el Senior Dios! Soy Marxista-Leninista. Pero, Yo siempre digo
"Adios" porque tan muchos otras personas creen. ?Entienden Ustd?
Puede ser que aqui es mejor decir . . .
"Vemos companieros!"
George

P.S. I do not know why Stalin banned Freud but I might mention that he
     also banned Einstein as well. While I disagree with both 'bannings'
     I fail to see that either supports or indicts Reich's
     theories as they may or may not apply to political analysis. In
     other words, your statement is 'true' but 'irrelevant'.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com