JD:I think that McKinley-Harding-Coolidge-Hoover "laissez-faire" is qualitatively different from the kind of merger of the state with capital that occur ed under Mussolini. Laissez-faire is much less statist, collectivist, in its orientation than is fascism.
^^^^ CB: I'm thinking the U.S. was the opposite of laissez-faire at this point in time. It was state-monopoly capitalism, finance capitalism. The U.S. state was subordinate to the House of Morgan, etc. Italy's state was subordinate to its big caps, too. Fascism is the open terrorist rule of the most reactionary, chauvinist sectors of finance capital, that is , the bourgeoisie run the state in their interest even more than in laissez-faire. ^^^^^ "laissez-faire" involves the subordination of the state to the short-term and individual interests of businesses. (cf. the looting done by the Bush2 cronies. A key difference of Bush2 from classical laissez-faire is that it's based on borrowed money.) ^^^^ CB; I'm thinking Mussolini subordinated the state to the business interests too. By corporatism ,he didn't mean the state controlled the corps, but that the corps controlled the state. He was running the state at the service of the corps. State-monopoly capitalism is subordination of the state to the corps, not subordination of the corps to the state. Bush is like Mussolini. He's got the state power serving the corps, in his case , I'm thinking certain corps in particular. ^^^^^^ On the other hand, fascism is an effort to save capital's bacon via the forcible suppression of an active and militant labor movement (or perhaps some other movement seen as threatening the _status quo_). It's more about capital's survival. Fearing its demise, capital sometimes "signs a deal with the devil" (Hitler, Mussolini, or whomever) in order to deal with mass social disorder. In this case, the state personnel can gain more than the usual "relative autonomy," often lording themselves over the capitalists, engaging in military adventures, etc. that sometimes contradict the long-term class interests of the capitalists. ^^^^^^ CB: I'm thinking the opposite. The state is more tightly in control of capitalists in fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were running their states even more tightly for the finance capitalists than the previous German state. The Nazis were the agents of big bourgeoisie ^^^^^^ (Mussolini didn't seem to be serving the interests of the Italian capitalists very well when he invaded Ethiopia -- or when he later allied with Hitler.) Attorney General Palmer (appointed by President Wilson, a Democrat, BTW) might be seen as a fascist. But the kind of fascism he embodied did not become established as a _fascist system_ the way it did in Italy. Instead, it set the stage for a period of _laissez-faire_. Perhaps it was because capital was relatively strong and labor was relatively weak during the period of the Palmer Raids. ^^^^ CB: I'm not saying Wilson was a fascist or U.S. was fascist in this period, but he is President for House of Morgan, Ford etc. State-monopoly capitalism, finance capitalism. The dominance of the state by finance capital Actually, Hitler was Ford's guy too. Also, the Nazis expropriated Jewish capitalists, probably for Ford, Morgan and "Christian" German capitalists, probably. So, it was in the interests of one group over another. Long term interests ? Hitler put a fatal hit on the SU. That was really important for the long term interests of the capitalists of _all_ countries. ^^^^^^^^ Laissez-faire can also go against the long-term interests of the capitalists. For example, the "greed is good" decade of the 1920s produced rapidly rising social inequality, which encouraged the onset of the Great Depression. ^^^^^ CB: In general, periodic crisis (i.e. some capitalists in crisis) is not removable from the capitalist system. There is no such thing as permanent and continuous rising profits for capitalists, so "long term" some capitalists will face crisis. Right now, GM, Ford an Chrysler face crisis, even. Fascism was not away around inevitable crisis for some sector of capital, true, but neither is laissez-faire. ^^^^ (What does serve the long-term class interests of capital? social democracy. But that's not as profitable as possible from the individual capitalist's perspective. Its hey-day corresponds to the perceived threat from the USSR.) ^^^^^ CB: Capitalism cannot get around "periodic" crisis. See Marx. The issue is , whose ox will get gored when the inevitable fall in profit rates occurs. ^^^^^^^ Of course, no real-world phenomenon fits abstract categories exactly. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
