*Charles Brown wrote:
> Ralph Johansen :
>
>I'd like to add some takes I have on use of the word "fascism". For
>Trotsky and others at the time of the German and Italian advent of
>fascism in the 20's and 30s this term had an analytical framework,
>social forces and class fractions and a definable economic and political
>context which enabled him and very few others (Dutt did not contribute
>much) to not only pinpoint the contentions and contradictions present,
>but to formulate political/economic imperatives and strategies with
>which to combat this tendency. That his analysis was not taken up by the
>CP in Germany may or may not have contributed to the strengthening of
>fascism at the time, but anyone who looks at his writings on fascism can
>readily see that he had a genius for grasping the heart of a situation,
>unfolding it and laying bare its elements,
>
>^^^^^
>CB: What did he say was the heart of the situation ?
>
>-------------------------------------
>
RJ: I think sometimes, now why did he say that or why did he put it that way. Then I think, well I'm probably still seen as one of the new kids on the block on this list, without maybe the discipline of an academic or even of a fringe party member, a self-informed isolate out here, so I take your response with that understanding. Also, although I'm probably not sufficiently aware of it, if I write sententious phrases like a lawyer might it's because I was one for 28 years. A trained Polonius argot.
Trotsky's analysis assumed throughout the capacity of the working class to resist the fascists. Today no working class threatens. So the heart of that matter is not the heart of the matter today. I'd be interested in hearing from you or anyone what they see as the heart of the matter today, in a sense which relies on the proletariat and even which fits with the characterization of the present situation as one of inchoate fascism. But how is fascism consistent with a situation in which among other things there is no working class organization anywhere to speak of, and the imperialist project, which has been building over many years, is at what could arguably be described as its zenith, with no apparent effective opposition and the world its oyster? What compelling need in this context do those in charge have for the extremes of historical fascism? It would have to be a set of circumstances which none that I have read have yet described in a way that makes that compelling need evident.
I recall, however, that Robert Biel said he was trying to figure out, in preparing his next book, why the perceived need for exercise of raw power at this juncture. As Patrick Bond quoted from Biel's tentative explanation, "the international system becomes increasingly complex, characterized by a range of new actors and processes and direct penetration of local societies in a way which bypasses the state-centric dimension.' Because of the complexity of indirect rule, and the difficulty of coopting all relevant actors, Biel continues, 'A reversion to the deployment of pure power is always latent, and the post-September 11th climate has brought it directly to the fore. This is a significant weakness of international capitalism.'[1] Robert Biel, 'Imperialism and International Governance: The Case of US Policy towards Africa', Review of African Political Economy, 95, 2003, p.87."
Under separate cover I've sent a recent piece by Jack A. Smith of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter, the former National Guardian editor, who has a good grasp of the history of repression in US history, in an article entitled "Bush and the fascist menace."
The fiasco in Iraq may very likely be characterized by those making decisions as an extremely inconvenient screw-up and not much more, compared to the hammerlock they otherwise have gained on the overall global scene - as had been laid out in the prescriptions of among others Brzezinski and the neo-cons. Of course, the situation holds a great many pitfalls, but what are those pitfalls, how can they be ordered as probabilities, what are the underlying contradictions and how are the opposing class forces likely to play out, how are these factors to be taken advantage of and capitalized on by --- whom? On the first points, Michael Hudson, Robert Brenner, Robert Biel and Harry Shutt have been really helpful and I'm still trying to absorb all that they have laid out - but on the last point - taken advantage of by whom and how? - no one seems to have a clue.
-------------------------------------------
>a capacity which is certainly not much in evidence today. But of course we are in a period of abject working class collapse. No course of action appears to anyone on the left at the moment; nevertheless, more cogent >analysis is for that reason alone needed badly.
>
>^^^^^
>CB: Since we might be headed to fascism again ? How does Trotsky's analysis
>of fascism then inform about the fascistic aspects of the situation today ?
>Said better than Unitarian ministers ,like the quoted one here and Rev. Bill
>Moyers.
>
>^^^^^
>
RJ: Again, as Jack Smith said in a note to me and I paraphrase, these conditions for fascism clearly do not exist in America today, although those on the left must always be wary and not be taken by surprise by a turn for the worse, as a matter of course, because there are times in history when a grave crisis erupts abruptly. The Great Crash of 1929, after all, was a surprise to all the governments of the world, a swift and unanticipated crisis of world-shaking consequence.
But fascism?
snip
>
>Which of these elements is present today? That isn't to say that
>bourgeois democracy is not under the gun now,
>
>^^^^
>CB: The U.S. is under the "airplane flown into the building in NYC and DC"
>more than anytime since 1812. An enormous financial crisis maybe on the
>horizon. Bush regime is loping off chunks of the bourgeois democratic
>republic.
>
>^^^^^^
>
> but unless the analogy is a tight one, throwing around the term fascism as
>to one or the other of the increasingly closely aligned ruling factions in the US serves no
>useful purpose.
>
>^^^^^^^
>CB: Wrong. Failure to use term "fascism" now , today, is betrayal of duty to
>working class.
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>I think that Carrol has said it well. The expression has very limited
>if any utility as a tool of analysis in the present imperialist context,
>is at best a scare word and just serves to obfuscate.
>
>Ralph
>
>^^^^^^
>
>CB: This position is to the right of some Unitarian ministers today. Wake
>up !
>
>-----------------------------------
>RJ: Yes, I'm scared and awake, as are all of us no doubt, because of the present situation where the nightmare of unchallenged total world domination seems ever closer to reality, with all its possible apocalyptic consequences, not because of incipient fascism, whatever that is.
As you surely are as well, I’m frightened for all the people all over the world whose situation is going to go from bad to worse, without any effective resistance, in the absence of an organized working class that has shed all illusions about the present system and who are guided by an analysis and a plan that’s worthy of the efforts of genius, no less. That’s what it will take, whether or not that resurgence is in prospect.
This regime has to maintain its legitimacy in order to govern. We’ll see how they weather the shoals ahead, continuing to rule with public support intact, even tacit or enthusiastic consensus within the US, and how they avoid a world-wide working class resurgence - and for how long they can continue to act against the interests of the vast majority. That consensus on which present rule is based in this country is to my mind shallow and evanescent and rests on transparent illusions; consciousness, however lagging in many respects, does not stand still, and confidence in people's capacity to understand their own best interests in the longer term and to gain profound collective insight may be strained but not misplaced. It has happened before, in some cases with less provocation than appears to be building now.
How will they even maintain for long the conditions for the continued comfort or even the extent of the so-called middle class on which they must continue to depend?
On that we probably agree.
I’m not ragging anyone who wants to talk about fascism - I got into this exchange and started nattering because I just don’t think it has utility as a framework of analysis or that it makes much difference to anyone other than the left intelligentsia and some others who get their information from other than conventional channels. In addition, it’s probably for most people a word from a dim past - not recognized by those lacking the cultural memory to apprehend the dangers it may connote. It surely didn’t get the Democrats much, for what that’s worth, even if it mobilized a lot of liberals for the short haul.
Ralph
*
