[Marxism] fascism and capitalism

["Jeremiah Gaster" <jeremiaszevi@xxxxxxxxx>]

although i am just an egg, in the last paper of my undergrad i tried to
address the issue of the inhernet fascism in capitalism.  I attacked the
problematic using a gramscian analysis, with the additonal analysis of
arendt's 'banality of evil' as played out in everyday capitalist life.

I probably erred more then i suceeded, but the crux of my arguement was that
capitalism is inherently fascistic for the more 'choice' (in pop, energy,
cars, politicians, jobs, toys, etc.) we have the more our choices are
leached out of us.  My form of fascism then is less about the relationship
of state/non-state and is more tied to how we activly particpate in fascism
in our daily lives.  Also, i probably confuse my idea of fascism with the
actual ideology of fascism (esp as studied by more advanced Marxists then
me).  Furthermore, at the time i had not studied Lenin, and did not have a
strong analysis of imperialism.

However, to the extent my arguement succeeds, it is in the notion that the
structures 'at-play' in capitalism legitmize themselves through our everyday
actions, and certainly under a capitalist-imperialist regeme this is as true
as ever.  Today, i would try and grasp how fascism (was allowed to) emerged
out of the embers of succesful counter-revolutions in Europe, i would also
examine how imperialism, even before twisting into capitalist-imperialism,
has always tended to have proto-fascist elements.  Again, i am probably
confusing what the dilly is fascism with my concept of it, but i'm open to
criticisms.



> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:27:18 -0300
> From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" <nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Dubbya's unpleasant forerunners and the
>         consequences of monopoly




I have always opposed the widespread equation of "fascist" with
> "evil" and "wrong", that turns something that should be an analytical
> tool into a stupid Shibboleth. But at the same time, I have always
> wanted to know if there was some Marxist expert who drew the
> conclusion that imperialist capitalism must necessarily have some
> kind of "fascist" regime (either "democratic" through sense-emptied
> elections, either through open dictatorship), simply because the
> starting point of imperialism is monopoly, and monopoly, by
> definition, breaks the rule of equal competition WITHIN THE RULING
> CLASS.
>
> That is, modern capitalist societies at the core of the world system,
> by definition, do not have a single rate of profit, interest, and so
> on. Rather, what they have is a monopolist sector which enjoys higher
> rates of profit and lower rates of interest than the non-monopolist
> sector.
>
> Tensions within the ruling class, at the very least, require an
> enormous degree of militarization of the democratic institutions of
> the "traditional" bourgeois state.
>
> Has anyone given to this issue more than a passing interest?
>
> Este correo lo ha enviado
> N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky
> nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [No necesariamente es su autor]
> *********
>
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism