[PEN-L:1319] Nestor's reply to Gregory Schwartz

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

I found the response of Gregory Schwartz very instructive
and interesting, though I protest the adjective "screwed"
as he used it.

As I said on the mail I sent and Gregory
criticized, if something depicts my vision of Russian
facts is that all my opinions are both "worried and uninformed".
These conditions may, we shall all agree, bring about
"screwed" conclusions. I am not _that_ sure, however, that
the particular line that Gregory has thus qualified
deserves the criticism.

After recalling one of the basic features of fascism
(the one which, IMO, gives it its social content though _of
course_ says nothing on its actual appearence), its
indisoluble link with a (menaced) ruling imperialist
bourgeoisie, I say:

> > I doubt that there can be a regime more "fascist" in
> > this sense than that of Yeltsin, I have a feeling that
> > his is a Platonic Republic of the true Fascists, the
> > great imperialist bourgeoisies:  so perfect that any
> > change will have to be for worse.
>

I carefully wrote "_in this sense_", in the sense that the
regime served the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisies
-in this case, by melting down, or ensuring the meltdown
of, the Soviet Union and the Soviet state. The
puntualization was meant to stress that the phrase was
written in the understanding that this was an essential but
not sufficient condition to define a regime as Fascist.

But IMO regimes in the Third World that can look
"democratic" are -or can be- nearer to Fascism if they
serve the imperialist powers than regimes that confront
them albeit many times under "fascist" robes. I recall
now the Argentine regime that overthrew Peron, the so-called
"Revolucion Libertadora" of 1955 and the cohort of
"democrats" who -from right to left- launched a massive
attack on Argentine workers in the name of the struggle
against our local "fascism".  This "democratic" regime was
the first "gorilla" regime in Latin America, and you would
be astonished to realize how many Left wing gorillas there
were (and still are).  BTW, it was in the Buenos Aires of
1955 that the political usage of the word began (I hope
gorillas will some day forgive us humans for such an usage
of their name).

In the Third World the dictatorship of the
imperialist bourgeoisies may sometimes be exerted through
formally and even actually quasi-democratic regimes. If
these regimes cannot be discerned as what they are, because
of their respect for some individual rights (or should we
say for the rights of some individuals?), then much the
better. But _in the structural_ (as opposed to formal)
sense, they are fascist, or if you prefer corporate
regimes.

When I say that the Yeltsin regime is a Russian form of
fascism I do not

> ...lose sight of what is the central element of fascism
> (i.e. increased labour discipline and greater productivity
> to affect sucessful valorisation and to sustain the the
> expanded reproduction of capital in the face of crisis).


What I am saying is that this is an important element, a
central element of fascism _in imperialist countries_.

Fascism in a colony may well combine superexploitation of a
section of the working class with widespread devaluation of
industrial capital, in order to "sustain the expanded
reproduction of capital" in the metropolis "in face of
crisis", through _thwarting the expanded reproduction of
capital in the colony_.  I do not diminish the differences
between regimes that are politically fascist and regimes
that are not. In this sense, the Yeltsin regime may not
qualify to Fascist (I do not know; however, there are some
members of this list, V. Bilenkin for example, who
think that the Yeltsin government has, at least, fascist
tendencies). But _in the sense I used the word_, I feel
that the usage is not "screwed".

Gregory himself explains that Yeltsin's regime

> has brough further disintegration of stability, a
> slackening of labour discipline (through the reinforcement
> of workers' negative control over the production process
> by the workers, see Burawoy, 1993, NLR), a collapse in
> manufacturing and agriculture, and greater reliance on
> imports and foreign debt,

and this was a task he accomplished in depth, or so it
seems. But unstabilizing the decaying SU, reducing
industrial output, and collapsing local manufacturing and
agriculture, since they imply "greater reliance on imports
and foreign debt" are a great service rendered to the
social classes that, "le cas echeant", back and upholster
Fascist regimes in imperialist countries.  I insist once
again: things in the Third World use to be the negative
image of things in the First World. To say this is more or less
the same as saying that the First World and the Third
World constitute a _dialectical_ unity. So that Gregory has
still to explain why does he think that calling Yeltsin
"fascist _in this sense_" is wrong.

There are some other points where I would argue with
Gregory, namely the Mandelian conception according to which

> ... it is in fact much less precarious
> for the local ruling classes to pursue accumulation by
> remaining parasitic on the existing methods of production
> and relations of production while becoming component to
> metropolitan accumulation process, and only thus the
> component to the expanded reproduction of capital on a
> global scale.

This is clearly true, but the way Gregory (and Mandel) pose
it seems to forget that when a local ruling class chooses to
remain parasitic and become component to metropolitan
accumulation processes (a good way to depict the behaviour
of the ruling classes in the Third World countries),
accumulation _within_ the frontier of the country is
obstructed (and even forbidden, if need be, by political
means), and a "national question" immediately arises. A
"national question" where other classes must develop the
tasks that "normal history" reserved to the bourgeoisie and
carry them to victory. If we recall Isaac Deutscher's (and
better still, Carr's) mention of the dual character of the
October revolution, socialist and colonial, the scenario I
depicted after the fall of the Soviet regime may be
"logically" possible, though I agree with Gregory that the
chances that such a ruling group carries on these tasks are
almost nil. Though it may seem screwed (I am using the word
this time myself), a Russian "national question" might,
although most probably won't, imply a progressive struggle.

Well, I hope that's it. Will not re-read this mail. It's
been too long for someone who is just guessing, like the
blind lookout in Mel Brook's _Men in tights_.  "Zapatero a
tus zapatos" is a Spanish saying, so I will try to stick to
what I ignore less: my own country.

Regards to all,

Nestor.

>
> This is only my understanding of what's going on/what
> awaits Russia, though I am not much interested in
> forcasting. I would be happy to leave this to the
> bourgeois economists.In solidarity,
>
> Greg.
>
> --
> Gregory Schwartz
> Dept. of Political Science
> York University
> 4700 Keele St.
> Toronto, Ontario
> M3J 1P3
> Canada
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)



Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)