Fascist Danger

[Charles Brown <BrownBingb@xxxxxxx>]

I'm glad Comrade Paulsen has initiated a thread to assess the level of threat
of fascism. I associate myself his analysis of the historical features of
fascism, and the wise practice of avoiding crying wolf in the U.S.

Of course, fascism was a historically specific phenomenon especially as a
response of the bourgeoisie to the successes of the revolutionary workers'
movements of the beginning of the 20th Century. Because we are in a different
historical period, we will not see exactly fascism again. On the other hand,
we do want to anticipate the possibility of a qualitative leap in the level
of repression, that was captured in the concept of "open terrorist
dictatorship by the most reactionary sectors of finance capital." We want to
anticipate it in order, as comrades have rightly emphasized here, in order to
better defend ourselves against it, although a major downer about "fascism" ,
if it actually comes about, is that there is very little defense against it
for us. By definition, it means that the bourgeoisie are going to get their
pound of flesh.

I think one element of historical fascism that is present today and not
explicitly mentioned by Lou Paulsen is the U.S. repeated, aggressive war
making. The  number one, Nuremburg,  criminal offense is "crimes against
peace", because the Nazis carried out a bunch of wars. Since 1991, and really
the late 80's the U.S. is carrying out lots of wars. There is an interactive
causal relation between the wars and the repression at home in a number of
ways: as a rationale for more repression allegedly to secure the homefront
against "traitors", et al, to numb sensitivity to concentration camps such as
in Guantanamo, and to just generally whip up a tolerance and enthusiam in the
population for the use of violence. Obviously, heightened militarism and
heightened chauvinism and racism were features of historical fascism and are
features of our proto-fascism.

I think Paulsen is correct to point out that historical fascism was
especially a way that the bourgeoisie defended itself against the rising
communist movement; and that today there is an ebb of the communist movement
compared with the 1920's and 30's. I have had this discussion with a couple
of comrades here lately. If fascism is the response of the bourgeoisie in
crisis and desparation, why are the bourgeoisie desparate today ?  Of course
, there are always crises in capitalism (especially crises of overproduction
,about which we are well schooled on this list), but as historical crises go
and compared with the 1920's and 30's ,  the bourgeoisie, especially in the
U.S., are sitting pretty good.

I would suggest we not ignore or deny the obvious: September 11. Just because
it is _their_ stated analysis that "things will never be the same after
September 11", doesn't mean that there  is not a kernel of truth in this
assertion. Afterall, that attack was historically unprecedented in many ways.

I am referring not just to that particular attack, but what it represents in
terms of the imperialists' sense of their own vulnerability in this period.
The communist threat is hugely abated for now.  Just because we , properly,
do not assess rightwing Islamic fundamentalism as an appropriate successor to
communist working class movements as the threat to the capitalist system
doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie do not see it as a successor.  I suppose
Henry Liu's recent argumentation here on related issues is pertinent to this
point.  It is not just Islamic Fundamentalism , but general national
liberation struggles against imperialism that can make the bourgeoisie
desparate enough to play a fascist card. Never before has a national
liberation struggle attacked the U.S. homeland, even with the gargantuan mass
murder that the U.S. war machine has visited all across the globe for the
last 50 years. 9/11 was a qualitative leap in the military boldness of
retaliation against U.S. imperialist aggression. The fact that its form was
by a rightwing group is misleading in this regard ( see Henry's discussions).
 The imperialists don't necessarily buy their own hype and propaganda about
neo-liberal triumph and globalism. The anti-globalization and peace movements
may have more impact on bourgeois worries than they let on, especially now
that the gay 90's are over again.  But the real muscle behind the fight back
against globalization is in the masses around the globe.  In a way, 9/11 was
the tip of their spear.

I don't have much to add right now on what is to be done in the face of the
neo-fascist potential.  In a way, we are saying what can we do to protect
ourselves personally against them coming to get us. In a way, there is
nothing different we should do to protect ourselves than what we already do
to try to win the U.S. masses to fight against imperialism, racism and war.