Forwarded from Anthony (on fascism)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On fascism.

James Tait/Red Rebel wrote that my little note on fascism and peron was way
too simplistic when I said that  all fascism consists of mass movements of
the petty bourgeoisie against the working class. Tait went on to advise
readers that the left today is mostly petty bourgeois, whereas the fascists
- at least in London - have substantial working class support.

First, I have to agree that my definition was way too simplistic - but not
in the way Tait says.

All fascist movements, are not mass movements. But all fascist movements
are petty bourgeois, even when the majority of their members are drawn from
the working class.

How can this be?

1. The working class is not ussually conscious of itself as a class, and
most workers are not conscious of themselves as members of their own class.

2. Most workers, in most places, at most times in the history of
capitalism, have been conscisous of themselves as members of some other
kind of social group - and have given their loyalty and solidarity to that
group, rather than - instead of, and often in conflict with, their own
class in society.

Those other groups include their extended families, their church, their
national or ethnic group, even what they believe to be "their race", and
often the country where they live.

All of these groups cut across class lines - with the occassional exception
of extended families - but most extended families in capitalist socieites
include members of the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.

Who are the leaders of these social groups? The people with the most money,
power, prestige, respect - in short the bourgeois, or petty bourgeois
members of these groups.

Political movements with ideologies reflecting such cross/class social
groups are always petty bourgeois or purely bourgeois in capitalist society.

They are not always fascist, because they do not all, do not always, and in
fact ussually do not, mobilize their base against the working class. At
times  political movements based on petty brougeois ideologies and cross
class social groups can be the closest of allies of the working class.

A good example of such a movement is consumerism - a la Ralph Nader. It
certainly is petty bourgeois in its ideology - which cuts across class
lines, obscures class lines, and includes all consumers regardless of class.

Consumerism can mobilize workers - and can even mobilize workers as members
of the working class - not just as isolated individual members of class
society.

But fascist political organizations - when they do organize workers -
organize them to fight against other workers - as in the anti-immigrant
BNP, and therefore fight against the working class.

Scabs in a strike may be workers, but they are fighting for their class
enemies against the working class.

Just like the BNP.

Anthony.

I like what Lou Paulsen wrote,

"But going back to fascism: for years we have talked about fascism as being
a movement which mobilizes the petty-bourgeoisie to crush the workers.  I
personally think it's more accurate to say that it's a movement of
petty-bourgeois class character which mobilizes from among the masses to
crush the workers.  Fascists don't refuse to recruit workers; they will
recruit as many as they can get.  If, however, the working-class parties
are strong, they will be less successful among the working-class and will
have to concentrate on the petty-bourgeoisie.  But where working-class
organization is weak, as in the U.S., AND in England (I don't think that
Tony Blair's vote totals make him an example of 'working-class
organization' ), fascists are free to graze among the working class
elements which are sick with the infection of bourgeois ideology."


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