Jim: At 09:37 PM 7/30/97 -0700, you wrote: >I don't see why the "populist" explanation and the social-structural >explanation (Moore, et al) have to be contradictory. It seems to me that the >two are _complementary_. I've always liked Moore's theory, but there's a lot >of evidence for the populist theory too. Obviously, it would not hold water to argue that popular sentiments are unimportant. I was, however, thinking more in terms of the sufficient and necessary conditions of certain historical development (which, BTW, is the focal point in hisorical inquiry in the Moore tradition) and I was arguing that popular sentiments are neither sufficient, and possibly even not a necessary (i.e. in their absence, they can be manufactured by the media, as it happened in Yugoslavia) condition of the Fascist development. As I see it, "popular sentiments" -- conflicts, racial/ethnic/national stereotypes & animosities, perceived or real injustice are always present in most societies; they are the manure that aids to the growth of fascism. But for fascism to grow, it needs much more than the manure of bigotry -- and that "more" usually comes from above -- the oligarchy, government officials and kindred self-styled "saviours" of the nation. As I also understand it (this is somethinng that I "intuit" and cannot really prove it in a scientific manner -- I could be of course wrong) -- the US society is full of the manure of bigotry, but until recently, the ruling oligarchy kept a tight lid on those sentiments. As Schattschneider (_The Semi Sovereign People_) argued, the limited number of players makes the game relatively stable, and that stability is usually in the interests of the ruling elite. However, things changed recently -- not as a result of the challnege from the Left, but as a result of intensified competition betweem different sectors of the international capital -- and the Republicans started to exploit those popular sentiments to their tremendous advantage. This is precisely how fascism started in Germany -- in 1929 nobody in the liberal Weimar Republic would foresee the barbarism unleashed by the Nazis only a few years later. Nor would anyone in 1989 predict that similar barbarities would happen in Europe again, this time in Yugoslavia. If I remember correctly (I read this stuff really long time ago) Hermann Rauschning, a high-ranking Nazi defector to the West argued in his book _The Revolution of Nihilism_ that the pro-Nazi popular sentiments were initially "manufactured" by skillful organizing startegy and propaganda, but once these sentiments wre set in motion, even the nazi leadership could not control them, all they did was to "ride" them as they would a surf. Playing with fascist sentiments can be a very dangerous thing, and the outcome oftentimes surpasses even the wildest dreams of the instigators. Gauleiter Wilson who, if I remember correctly, used to be a liberal Republican in favour of the Civil Rights movement might see his actions as a short term maneuver to defeat his political opponents. In the same vein, many Christian Democratic leaders in Weimar supported Hitler because they saw his program as an antidote ot liberalism and communism. A case of the conservative German social relief agencies (which were heavily politicised during Weimar) is telling -- their leaders supported Hitler because they saw as a promise to gain advantage over their competitors -- socialist relief agencies. However, they could not foresee that Hitler would renege after gaining power and not only "switch off" the private relief agencies, but also exterminate the population served by these agencies. Of course that prompted opposition on the part of many Church leaders (cf. the famous Martin Niemoeller's quotable) but it was too late (cf. Rudolf Bauer, Voluntary welfare associations in Germany and the United States, VOLUNTAS 1/1). But once the fascist machine is set in motion, it would be very difficult to "switch it off" even if the conservative social engineers who devised it genuinely wanted to. They succeeded in "switching off" Duke, but they might not be so successful in the future. Fascist sentiments are running very high in this country, and will be running even higher if the economy takes a nose dive. And then the Buchanans, the Robertsons, the reeds, and their business supportes will have their day -- and nobody will switch them off. >I wasn't denying these "marvels" (obviously using the term ironically) How could I? Efficiency is efficiency is efficiency :). Besides, most nations display artillery pieces, tanks, warplanes, warships & other means of mass destruction as "national monuments" (there are quite a few pieces of that junk around Baltimore, not to mention DC) -- so why not worship a Zyklon B delivery system? Or a Diesel-powered truck with the exhaust pipe inside the "passenger compartment?" >the Nazi state machine. I didn't make it clear, but I think it's a mistake >to take the Nazis' propaganda at face value. The more I read about them, the >more it seems that various branches of the Nazi war machine were actually >working at cross purposes to each other, for example, given a social basis >for Hitler's policy of always advancing and never retreating (which doesn't >make sense in purely military terms). That seems quite plausible. A professor for whom I did some work on his Nazi project in the grad school tried to show that Naziism's success was grounded in successful organizing rather than ideological appeals. In fact, Naziism was not ideologicaly unified, but extremely opportunistic. Its ideological appeals were rather contradictory, as the nazis would tell any potential group of supporters whatever they wanted to hear. > >On the other hand, the right-wing populist base of the Nazis broke a hell of >a lot of windows. No disagreement here. I would only add that if these thugs were not supported from above, they would have ended up as what they actually were, a bunch of thugs, rather than leaders of a major European nation. > >As I said before, there are some similarities between US capitalism and >Naziism, but there are also some major differences. The further you get from >the the US white population toward the third world, the more the analogy >works, but it still is a mistake to treat US capitalism as identical with >Naziism. I'm not saying it's identical. Was it Marx who said that history repeats itself only as a farce? I think that the GOP-middle America version of fascism is a relatively benign form, if not a travesty, of the real thing -- but still very ugly. > >This seems right. BTW, I see nothing wrong with sociological conceptions, >being a closet sociologist. (Strictly speaking, the distinction between >economics and sociology is artificial, a distraction not a reasonable >abstraction.) I agree. That's why I'm spending a lion share of my inet time on this list. >I don't think it's right to see this as an either/or thing, but it is right >to say that nation-building in Europe may have involved a lot of destruction >of precapitalist institutions. Of course, nation-building in the US did >involve the destruction of chattel slavery in the South and the Indian >organizations. Yes, but there is one major difference: those Europeans whose pre-capitalist social institutions were destryed during the capitalist nation building were eventually fully integrated to the capitalist society. By contrats, neither Black Slaves nor the native Americvan wre fully integrated to this society. To my knowldege, the native tribes are even legally separate from the US states. Of course, Blacks are nominally integrated, but the informal apertheid persists: virtually no inter-racial dating or marriages, no integrated schools, neighbourhoods, seprate labour markets. Just to make a point. The concept of "mesalliance" (a marriage to a person from an "inferior" social class, usually a peasant) is an anachronism in Europe. On the other hand, lables such as "jungle fever" or "white trash" are alive and well in the US. Contrast that also with Brazil that also had Black slavery, but Blacks are now more-or-less fully integrated to that society. This is not to say that racism is absent from Brazilian society, but that there is much more Black-White interaction on the personal level in Brazil than there is in the US. > >A major difference between W. Europe that's not been noted (but should be >stressed) in this discussion: the working-class organizations have been much >stronger there than here (though that's changing). Granted, but that requires an explanation. IMHO, bigotry and its social origins in race/ethnic relations played a major role in the weakening of any class-based politics in this country. >In sum, it's a mistake to reduce popular hatred of government to a single >dimension. No argument here. I was just trying to point at one such dimension. >Of course the state isn't a unified body. But Cointelpro (which was not an >"incident" but a program that extended over several years) was supported by >Johnson and Nixon. The war against Viet Nam (something worse than anything >J. Edgar Hoover did) was organized by those creeps (and also by that icon >Kennedy). I think there are very good reasons to be suspicious of the >federal government. Probably true. But do not forget that a government waging a war outside must make considerable concessions to its population who serves as cannon fodder in that war. As Theda Skocpol (_Protecting Soldiers and Mothers_ and _Social Policy in the United States_) argues, a grat deal of "progressive" instituions in this country (e.g. social safety net) were implement as a result of the federal governement's war effort. Of course, that is NOT a justification of the war effort, but simply point to the quid pro quo aspect of war making. >From my personal point of view, the "gummint" is not as sinister as most Americans want it to believe. True, there is a lot of arrogant people there, but at the same time, this institutions seems to be considerably more open than any other institution in this country. Just one example: out of a hundred + job applications I sent out to colleges and private employers -- not even a single one resulted in an interview (perhaps I should have suppressed any info indicating my foreign background). On the other hand, most job applications I sent to the government resulted in interviews or even job offers. Not to mention the fact that I was able to complete graduate education solely thanks to the federal student aid government subsidies of public education. So from that standpoint, standing in the DMV line or dealing with bureaurcatis hurdles is a relatively minor inconvenience, if the other alternative is holding menial jobs (if I'm lucky, that is) & living in a gutter. Having said that, however, the spooks at the CIA and the FBI give me creeps. I dunno -- the "gummint" is not a clearly black-and-white issue. > >BTW, I understand that most European political parties (especially those of >the left) are becoming deideologized, "Americanized." Look at the British >Labor Party (and cry). To a certain extent, yes. There is definitely a fashion for "Americanism" in certain segments of the European societies, especially among the yuppie class, but there is also a growing reaction to it -- or so I am told by my European colleagues. As far as the British Labour Party is concerned, again I dunno - I heard it both ways (mostly on the inet). But I would still argue that despite trends in political fashion, the structural differences between Europe and the US (the role of labour, class, the level of social integration, the geopolitical structure) make the Us and European politics two quite different animals. > >favored the GOP, along with the factor you pointed to. More importantly, I >think it's a major mistake to focus so much on _votes_, since it's money >that dominates politics. That is true of politics in general. "Money talks, bullshit walks" as an old adage goes. But again, the level to which the US politics have become dominated by monied interests (that, IMHO, is much higher than in most other developed countries) begs an explanation. I think that explanation lies (partly) in social variables that I pointed out. >pluralist theory -- and just as wrong. The pluralistic competition of >special interests is biased systematically by the power of money, by the >_class_ structure of the society. Ditto. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
