[PEN-L:7696] Re: Re: Re: "social fascism"

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 06/03/99 06:36PM >>>
Charles writes: >I disagree with getting rid of the word "fascism" itself,
too, because there is still a danger that at some point the financial
oligarchy will become desparate and try to institute wholesale, open
terrorist rule again. This is one reason, the U.S. will not outlaw fascist
groups, because it might need them at some point. "Fascism" is an important
scienttific term we should continue to use to measure the U.S. political
economy.<

(a) I wasn't advocating getting rid of the word "fascism" -- but I was
"trying to avoid" the word. Like a lot of rhetoric, it loses value in
overuse. (It's a classic case of diminishing returns.)

Charles: I don't agree that "fascism" has lost value from overuse. I would say it is underused and misapplied.


((((((((((((




This is especially
so since the it has been applied to describe not only the social system of
Italy in the 1920s and 1930s but also a kind of personality (the F-scale)
and also anything we don't like. Looking at the way it's been used, it's
hardly a scientific term. What does calling the Governor of Michigan
(Engler?) a "fascist" say except that we don't like him?

Charles: That's "social fascist". You are using "fascist" loosely and not the way I use it (  I specifically call Engler a "social fascist" because he is not a full fascist) . Then you use your loose usage ("rhetoric" ?) as a basis for saying all usage of these words is loose and so we shouldn't use them.

((((((((((((





If I were to use the word "fascism" in a scientific way (linking up with
the original fascism of Mussolini) I would use it to apply to Pat Buchanan,
who combines a lot of the classic elements (fierce nationalism, rabid
anti-communism, opportunism, use of "proletarian" rhetoric, racism, etc.)
His personal history also links up with the old fascist movements.

Charles: A more precise usage for Buchanan would be "proto-fascist". He seems to have some potential to be a full fascist.

(((((((((((((((





(b) Do you think that the "financial oligarchy" (which I think could be
described in less hackneyed terms)

Charles: If we start calling terms hackneyed, the impliedly fresh vocabulary that gets substituted for terms like "financial oligarchy" will win the hackneyed prize over "imperialism", "monopoly capital" , "financial oligarchy".  All of Doug Henwood's work that I have seen confirms that there is a huge financial oligarchy running the global economy. "Wallstreet" is a financial oligarchy. Debt is the leash system of the whole thing. Financial  Oligarchy is so fresh and unhackneyed it isn't even funny. A hedge fund is a  form of the financial oligarchy's organization. What a perfect description of it.

(((((((((((((((



is likely to become desperate in the
near future?

Charles: The periodic crisis is a permanent feature of capitalism. Despite the hype, the business cycle has not been "cured". Eventually, there will be economic crisis in the U.S. too. That would be a potential time of desparation for the U.S. ruling class. They prepare for it. The prison system is being expanded in case they have to go to full concentration camps. The storm troopers are in PROTO form in the various and sundry rightwing fascistic fringe groups and militias.

(((((((((





The anti-capitalist movement is very very weak. It's nothing
like in the 1960s and 1970s. Then they did bring in COINTELPRO. By the way,
CONINTELPRO was very bad (using agents provocateurs to break up the
Panthers, etc.) but I don't think the word "fascist" adds much. It
stretches the analogy with Mussolini to the breaking point.

Charles: The word "fascist" is like the word "imperialism" or the term "military-industrial complex" . It comes from "them".  The bourgeoisie's boy Mussolini invented the term "fascism".  Who is it , Hobson, from whom Lenin got "imperialism". The "military-industrial complex" was a concept from the inside given us by an insider Eisenhower.  They know their own system better than we do.

"Fasces" are the bundle of rods in the SPQR Roman symbol that Brad D quoted (Senatus Populisque Romanus; The Senate and the Roman People).  The Roman culture is an ancestor of all Western culture. So "fascism" is a good general statement of the tendency of the modern West to go to a barbarically cruel state as the Romans had.


More later gotta go, comrade,


CB


((((((((((((((((((((((((






(c) I'll grant you this point: there is a kind of "fascism" (gross and
violent social injustice) going on right now in the US, the war on drugs,
which has led to massive incarceration rates, disproportionately falling on
the backs of "minorities." However, to call it fascism again stretches the
analogy. (BTW, the war on drugs doesn't seem to be due to the desperation
of the financial oligarchy.) Also, to call it fascist distracts us from the
point that heroin, cocaine, etc., should be legalized and medicalized.
Calling it fascist simply says we hate it -- or that we need a revolution,
which doesn't seem to be on the agenda at this point.

(d) I _hope_ that the US doesn't outlaw fascist groups (which "they" might
need some day -- sounds paranoid). The reason is that the kinds of laws
which would ban fascist groups (militias, etc.) can and will be applied to
ban leftist groups and parties, even labor unions. (W. Germany banned Nazis
_and_ Communists.) My commitment to civil liberties tells me we shouldn't
ban fascist groups, only fascist activities. And the word "fascist" doesn't
add much if anything to clear thinking about this issue.

>My example of the assassination by the SD's pokes more of a hole in your
notion that "social fascist" was inaccurate than you admit. I don't take an
approach that communists and social dems were equally to blame for the
failure to  unite against the fascists in Germany.<

I didn't say that "social fascist" was an inaccurate term to describe the
SDs in Germany during the 1920s. That's sort of an impossible argument,
since the word "fascist" can be (and has been) stretched to fit almost any
group or individual we don't like. (Wasn't it Susan Sontag who labeled the
old COMECON countries "successful fascism"?) I was arguing against the
_utility_ of that phrase.

I also do _not_ say that the CP and the SDs were "equally to blame," since
blame can't be quantified. Both of these groups had their problems, both
contributing in different ways to a lack of unity against the Nazis. If I
were a German leftist in the 1920s, I wouldn't join either of them. (Of
course, I also wouldn't be communicating with you over the Internet if I
were a German leftist in the 1920s.)

Capitalism sure seems to be in big trouble on a global scale, but there's
hardly enough of a movement to replace it. This seems especially so here in
the "belly of the beast": the US left is in big trouble these days. We have
to deal with this situation partly through serious theoretical debate and
discussion, and of course, serious action. But crucial is reaching out and
communicating with (not just talking to) the younger generation. I don't
think this last is facilitated by talking or writing as if we lived in the
1930s or 1940s.  Throwing around terms like "fascist" may be gratifying,
but does it communicate with people who aren't already committed to the left?

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out
of Serbia!