Re: [Marxism] Buying off the German people

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>

> 1) It is nonsense to say that marxist writers of the last 30 to 40 years
> have dismissed any question as "superstructural." In fact, almost all
> marxist writers have been (correctly) obsessed precisely with
> superstructural questions.

Yes, other superstructural questions. But on the question of the State, they
either fall into defensists tactics of not touching "our" States or simply
repeat "State and Revolution" as a mantra.

Hey, I repeat "State and Revolution" as a mantra, but it is a guideline, not
an specific and much less timely evaluation of an specific State, the USA.

And again, I said that *I* haven't seen marxists texts as refreshing an
innovative as Marcuse's or Chomsky's. If there are, I certainly would like
to read them and discuss them. I hate to have anarchists and pomos guiding
me.

> 2) "Totalitarian" is (a) a general -- generic -- label, and many
> specifically different forms of totalitarian states may well exist;
> hence (b) The fact that State A and State B are both totalitarian
> contributes nothing to the question of whether either is fascist or not.

I agree, but, and this is pure deductive logic, if you know "Fascism" to a
form of "Totalitarianism",  hence in determining if a society is moving
towards "fascism" we must first explore if it is "totalitarian".

So the question if the USA is a form of totalitarianism is a vitally
important question in that it is a pre-requisite to answering if it is
moving towards fascism.


> 3) Marcuse chose his terminology badly; the word he wanted was
> _Authoritarian_, "Totalitarian" being a word exploited in the 1940s and
> thereafter for the specific purpose of identifying Hitler with Stalin.
> Here is the OED on the word (which includes Marcuse's passage quoted
> above):

I disagree. I think he precisely wanted to use that word, because his
critique was one against the modern State in general.

Marcuse actually treated "authorianism" as a separate concept from
"totalitarianism", and he was clear about this.

Lets let him speak:

" In this respect, it seems to make little difference whether the increasing
satisfaction of needs is accomplished by an authoritarian or a
non-authoritarian system. Under the conditions of a rising standard of
living, non-conformity with the system itself appears to be socially
useless, and the more so when it entails tangible economic and political
disadvantages and threatens the smooth operation of the whole. Indeed, at
least in so far as the necessities of life are involved, there seems to be
no reason why the production and distribution of goods and services should
proceed through the competitive concurrence of individual liberties."

In other words, for Marcuse, the question of "authoriatarianism" or
"non-authoritarianism" is a moot question. A system could be both
totalitarian and non-authoritarian, in so far totalitarianism could render
authority as we know it obsolete. When a person internalizes the mode of
thougth of the dominant regime, it is no longer needed for repression to
exist in the form of authority. Yet this system remains totalitarian, in
that the individual has all his or her's choices made by the State for its
benefit.

I think that actically he was replying, in essence, to liberal critics of
the USSR, using their own terms, to basically expose them as hypocrites.
Strategically, he was furthering a non-statist view on Marxism, and doing a
general critique of alienation as phenomenon.

I am not a non-Statist Marxist, but Marcuse's critique is interesting in so
far it explains that hyper-alienation is a form of totalitarianism, and in
separating, as different concepts, "autoritarianism" and "totalitarianism".

> It is simply bad politics -- I would say, probably _disastrous_ politics
> in the long run -- to lump all forms of capitalist tyranny under one
> label.

I agree with you in this sense, but it is also bad politics to ignore the
writing on the wall.

Right now, at this very moment, as you and I speak freely under the
protection of the First Amendment, the USA has a concentration camp in
Guantanamo, Cuba.

They are no different, in content or form, that the camps for political
prisioners the Hitler chancellorship of 1932-1933. Even the "legal"
justification is the same, the popular support and/or apathy and even the
legal challenges presented by the liberal opposition are almost verbatim the
same.

We cannot ignore the lack of a massive public reaction to the Guantanamo
concentration camp in so far the other example in history we have of a
society ignoring such move led to the worse fascist state we have known.

Far from grouping all capitalists tyranies, in the abstract, together, I am
preoccupied with the specific content of the specific capitalist tyranny I
live under, and which affects the world the most: the USA.

And what better, Marxist way to seek out answers for the future by learning
from the past?


> P.S. Incidentally, the bad-mouthing of Chip Berlet that takes place
> intermittently on this list is also bad politics. Berlet is on the whole
> on our side -- and he is _very_ useful on the topics of fascism and of
> conspiracy theories.

I have not bad mouthed Chip Berlet (as a matter of fact, I admire his work,
and believe him to be one of the foremost sources for street anti-fascism in
the USA).

And yes, he is in our side, and any street anti-fascist in the USA knows
this for a fact.

I might disagree with him from time to time, but if I didn't disagree with
someone time to time I would start to question myself...

> P.S.2 The chief political effect of calling Bush fascist is to help the
> Democratic Party and to hurt efforts to build a movement outside the
> two-party system.

I do agree some people who use off-handlely the label "fascist" to refer to
Bush are indeed doing this, but I disagree that this is the "chief political
effect".

Furthermore, I believe it is in the interests of Marxist to clarify the
notions upon we base ourselves. If the USA is indeed dominated by reaction
on a march, we must be prepared for that struggle. On the other hand, if
this is just business as usual, we must also face this.

This effort is certainly not helped by taking the possibility of the USA
turning (neo)fascist out of the table simply because some Democrats (and
fellow travelers) use the label opportunistically, as you argue for.

I do believe there is mounting evidence that there is a qualitative change
in the intentions and content of the current political system in the USA. I
do belive this evidence points in the direction of a complete overhaul of
the more positive social aspects of the society in the USA. And I do believe
some of this changes we have in the past described as "fascism". I wouldn't
go as far as to describe BUsh & co as fascists, not the USA as fascism
(after all, if that were true, I wouldn't be writing this email). Yet it is
indeed moving away from a dynamic, secular, society internally, and into an
unknown form or imperialist organization.

The Republic as we know it is dying.

I suspect it is either moving towards a new form of fascism (something
approximating Chile in the early 80s) or to a more classic form of
imperialist fascism. (The "Buying off German people" article is very
relevant in this terms, because it explains something that should be
self-evident, Dresden, like 9-11, was the chicken coming home to roost.)

In any case, "After Hitler, Us!" is no longer an option.

In any case, I don't see the Democratic Party as opposing this totalitarian
process, but rather being part and parcel in it. They are not analogous in
this sense to the SPD in 1932, but to the C.Ds and other "liberal"
right-wing forces who helped Hitler in order to crush the SPD.

Incidentlly, Junaid Alam was mostly correct, in my opinion, in describing
the Democratic Party in the way he did. It actually strengthen my belief in
the above conclusion, and that in order to stop fascism in the USA and
effective anti-fascist united front of the forces outside of the democratic
party is needed. The cynic in me says I would probably end up dying in a gas
chamber before that happens, but I remain hopeful we can at least reach
those chambers after figthing the good figth.

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism