[PEN-L:7737] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "social fascism"

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see this discussion going anywhere (but luckily not into
invective), so I'm going to stop my contributions to it.

At 02:02 PM 6/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 06/04/99 12:12PM >>>
>Charles writes: >I don't agree that "fascism" has lost value from overuse.
>I would say it is underused and misapplied.<
>
>I guess we have to agree to disagree on that, but I'll summarize my
>position: using the word "fascism" too much can be like referring to a
>man's disrespectful and unwanted touching of a woman on a date as a form of
>"rape." It devalues the word.
>
>Charles: Or like the little boy who cried wolf. Yes, this is a pretty much a
>common sense idea. It just doesn't apply to "fascism".
>
>I wrote: >>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 all 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.<
>
>I don't see how "social fascist" is somehow less full, somehow milder than
>"fascist." To make it milder, why not call the bastard a "semi-fascist"?
>(Going down this road, we could use Gore Vidal's insult of William F.
>Buckley Jr., "pro crypto-Nazi." But that would be worse, since Nazism is
>even worse than fascism and overuse of the term devalues it, as with the
>US/NATO comparison of Milosevic to Hitler.)
>
>Charles: I think I mentioned earlier in this thread the difference between
>Engler and Hitler is that the former is not carrying out open , direct and
>holocaustic terrorist rule.  The cuts in social programs and racist policies
>are the form of his assault on the working class, not direct death camps and
>actual war. It is a "war" on the poor not with guns, but social policty.
>This is aptly captured by SOCIAL fascist. And it has the value of continuing
>the tradition from the 20's and 30's , which I prefer to connect to rather
>than differentiate from. In other words, I see the communist historical
>movement as something that the next generation of revolutionaries should
>draw more from than is the trend right now, in this extreme revolutionary
>slump.
>
>The fact that some people inflate the meaning of fascism by conflating
>political critique with insult does not stop me from using the word
>precisely. As I said, otherwise, Gore Vidal will determine what words I can
>use, Can't have that. We must have semantic self-determination in the
>movement.
>
>(((((((((((
>
>Actually, my impression (which could be wrong) is that Engler is a
>standard, garden variety, neo-liberal. Wouldn't it be great if
>"neo-liberal" attained the negative connotations of "fascist" in peoples'
>minds? I think that's where we should go. Even better, since "neo-liberal"
>is jargon that few outside of the left use, we need to convince people that
>whatever Engler calls himself ("Republican"? "Democrat"?) should have
>really bad connotations.
>
>Charles: I agree that we need to convince people that whatever Engler calls
>himself should have bad connotations, but we should have our own names for
>him too. We  don't have to JUST call him a  social fascist. The proposal
>isn't that people be restricted to that term. To describe him would actually
>take a number of paragraphs, not just two words, but you know, soundbitism.
>People need to be shocked out of their complacency and comfort with the
>"Englers" of today, and "social fascist" has some potential for that.
>"Neo-liberal" helps with analysis. Actually, I am not sure that Engler is
>exactly a neo-liberal. His constituency is largely the
>isolationist/anti-free trade/militia crowd.
>
>
>I wrote: >>(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.<
>
>Jim D.
>The problem with "financial oligarchy" is not that it's hackneyed as much
>as it suggests a conspiracy. It ignores a central problem of the rule of
>finance capital these days, i.e., competition and "invisible hand"
>automatic operations.
>
>Charles: This is not different from the time that Lenin used the term. Lenin
>was an originator of the critique of conspiracy analysis of capitalism. He
>analyzes state-monopoly capitalism as a system, not a conspiracy. Thus, the
>term "financial oligarchy" orignates in a systematic ,not a conspiracy
>analysis. An oligarchy is a ruling CLASS. Or the leading elements of the
>class. The bougeoisie has leading elements.
>
>Jim D.
>There doesn't have to be a conspiracy: speculators
>suddenly begin to believe a country's finance minister might do something
>mild that goes against the ruling financial orthodoxy (like a mild Tobin
>Tax). So they all panic, like a herd of cattle, pulling their funds out of
>the country, imposing a financial crisis. Or they impose a crisis on Brazil
>because of things that happen in Russia.
>
>Now there are oligarchic elements to finance capital: the Federal Reserve,
>the IMF, the big banks, Hedge Funds, etc. all are pretty clubby, sharing a
>common culture and a common ideology (the financial orthodoxy referred to
>above). But to simply refer to the oligarchy without the competition/market
>dimension of it is to provide an incomplete picture.
>
>Charles: See above. Lenin's use of "financial oligarchy" is part of a
>classic systematic , not conspiratorial, analysis of state-monopoly
>capitalism. The financial oligarchy is a ruling class , not a conspiratorial
>cabal, although there are cartels within the oligarchy.
>
>I have not here given the overall description of finance capital and the
>financial oligarchy, because this is an e-mail post. I am using the term
>"financial oligarchy" as a syntagmatic ( or is it metanomyic) reference for
>the whole system of fianance capital. This is a standard Leninist analysis
>of imperialism. This fianancial oligarchy is just one part of that.
>
>
>Jim D.
>I asked if the "financial orthodoxy" >>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.<
>
>Jim D.
>I agree that economic crises are inevitable under capitalism. But an
>economic crisis isn't a social crisis for capitalism unless there's a big
>opposition. Without the social crisis, there's no need for concentration
>camps. Mussolini was responding to a social crisis in Italy, while Hitler
>responded to one in Germany. If people are instead sucking opiates and
>watching TV, there's no social crisis of the sort that threatens capital's
>rule.
>
>Charles: Yes, there must be opposition for it to be a crisis for capital. I
>agree with that. Yes , there is some possibility that there will be working
>class opposition to the ruling class at the next economic crisis and that
>this will contribute to the ruling class' desparation.
>
>Jim:
>The above (and Charles' previous message) seems a bit paranoid, too. It
>makes it sound as if the "financial orthodoxy" cultivated the militias etc.
>(though my impression might be wrong). I would say instead that the failure
>of US capitalist growth to give to many white male younger workers the same
>standard of living that their fathers had received encouraged a bitterness
>and resentment (along with their bitterness that women and "minorities" are
>getting any respect at all) that spawned the militias and the like. In
>other words, it's the "economic crisis" (another overused phrase) that
>spawned the militia, rather than their genesis being orchestrated from above.
>
>Charles: I prefer to think that you are somewhat opiated against worry about
>the real danger of the open terrorist methods of the bourgeoisie the next
>time they feel desparate. It is easy to look at the proto-fascist groups and
>pols in strict isolation from the overall class picture with the ruling
>class, and say well ,the bourgeoisie didn't exactly put these proto-fascist
>groups together directly. Sure ,socio-economic factors make potential storm
>troopers.  This is a partial picture , not dialectical , in the sense of not
>thinking holistically. The bourgeoisie are opportunist enough and ruthless
>enough to use the materials at hand when the time comes. The political
>"material" they use does not have to be created by them anymore than the
>computer technology wealth they steal has to be originated by them. What I
>would say the bourgeoisie impact in the U.S. is preventing the outlawing of
>the fascistic groups. They use their influence to keep them hanging around
>as fringe groups !
>!
>in case they become necessary. Unfortuntely , there is no premature
>anti-fascism and calling that paranoia is lulling yourself to sleep in the
>face of danger.
>
>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.<
>
>
>Jim D.
>Of course there does exist an elite, or competing elites, that are most
>powerful decision-makers in the imperialist system and the
>military-industrial complex. But to focus on elites alone is to miss the
>organization structures of these two institutions, missing the fact that
>the elites "make history, but not exactly as they please." These are social
>institutions with internal contradictions.
>
>Charles: "Elite" is your concept here. My focus is on economic classes ,
>about as social institutionalist in analysis as you can get. The term
>"elites" is not precise in describing what I am referring to. Notice how
>often I speak of the "ruling CLASS" or "financial oligarchy" .  I can't
>understand how you would think I am not analyzing internal contradictions.
>This is dialectical materialism.  The internal ruling class contradictions
>are discussed at length in my analysis. You have heard of interimperialist
>rivalry.  You aren't seriously saying that Lenin doesn't do analysis of the
>internal contradictions of social institutions, but only looks at "elites" ?
>
>
>Jim D.
>One of Lenin's big theoretical contributions (and I'm not a Leninist) is
>that he argued that imperialism is a system rather than merely a policy.
>That's an insight to think about.
>
>
>Charles: Exactly. See above. Why would you say that the standard Leninist
>analysis I am giving here treats imperialism as a conspiracy and not a
>system  ?
>
>>"Fasces" are the bundle of rods in the SPQR Roman symbol that Brad D
>quoted (Senatus Populisque Romanus; The enate 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.<
>
>Jim D.
>I think that illuminating the similarities between the Roman empire and the
>US empire would be more useful than labelling either "fascist."
>
>Charles: I know you do, but I gotta use words when I talk to you.
>"Labelling" has become an overused .vague criticism for words people don't
>like. Email would come to an end without "labelling" at this level. What
>word would you use to describe them ?
>
>
>CB

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 now!