Forwarded from Anthony (on Peron)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lou

A paragraph on the Peronism/fascism debate.

I propose we use this definition of fascism.

Fascism - and all of its varieties - are mass
movements of the petty bourgesoisie mobilized against
the working class. Period, punto final.

This is true whether they are in imperialist
countries, semi-colonial countries, or elsewhere.

Fascim in power is another matter. It must transform
itself into bonapartism. But that is another question.

Such mmovements are the last defense of capitalism in
a crisis, even though they are terribly inconvenient
to the various priveleges of the capitalist class, and
mortal to the interest of some sectors of the
capitalist class.

But, better cut off your arm, than die of gangrene.

Peronism - despite its ideological similarities to
Fascism, despite its organizational relations with
fascism in countries outside of Argentina, and despite
its criminal repression (but mostly it didn't have to
- it coopted enough of the the anarchist, social
democatic, Stalinsit and Catholic workers leaders to
make repression a secondary tool) of the left within
the working class- was not fascist.

Peronism mobilized the working class in its own
interests - because of the coincidence of those
interests with the politivcal interests of the
Peronist political clique and because of the
coincidence of the the interests of the working class
with the interests of the marginalized national
bourgeoisie.

Peronism was - in power - Bonapartist. But an
interesting and uniquely Argentine form of
Bonapartism.

Don't get me wrong. I think that Peronism, and all
other variants of bourgois nationalism in semicolonial
countries, are complete dead ends.

But, the idea that Peronism is fascist is
anti-materialist, anti-historical, and just plain
false.

Anthony


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/