Re: [PEN-L] Re BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE
the U.S. government decide at this time to substitute extreme authoritarianism and/or fascism for the capitalist democracy that has kept them in power and riches? Why, when the U.S. is at the apex of its political, military and economic supremacy, with an empire of a new type solidifying in its possession, would it create the conditions for havoc and rebellion at home and catastrophe in the world?> the right wing. It is the most drastic response to particular economic, social and political conditions undermining the capitalist system itself, upon which all other functions of state repose.> HUDSON VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER/CALENDAR Nov. 25, 2004 Issue #103 BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE by Jack A. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Editor's Note: The history of the United States has frequently been punctuated by periods of political repression, from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and many, many instances in between. In the modern era, serious repression has taken place under both Democratic and Republic regimes. In the recent election, a number of progressives raised the fear that the election of George W. Bush to a second term would pave the way for fascism in the U.S. We examine the question of repression and fascism below.] Every several years, the Republican Party puts forward a shockingly reactionary presidential candidate. And each time, most liberals and certain sectors of the left respond by insisting that the only way to save the republic from deep repression, authoritarianism or fascism is for all good citizens to come to the aid of the "lesser-evil" candidate of the Democratic Party, regardless at times of the anointed one's stunning political shortcomings. This has happened a number of times in just the last 40 years, principally in the elections of 1964, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 2004, but it tends to be a continual theme. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has gradually metamorphosed from liberalism to centrism and now appears to be contemplating yet another accommodation toward the right on the question of social "values" ‹ evidently pursuing the theory that the best way to defeat the right is to imitate it part of the way. In 1964, the Republicans nominated arch-conservative Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, author of the famous campaign line, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." A good portion of the left was hysterical about Goldwater, calling him a precursor to fascism. He lost handily. The Democrats convinced the electorate the GOP candidate was going to start a nuclear conflagration. President Lyndon Johnson then went on to escalate the Vietnam War to the extent that he became too unpopular to even run for reelection. Richard Nixon won the GOP nod and the presidency in 1968 and 1972, despite liberal and left warnings that he was a neofascist. The sky didn't fall on democracy, though it did on Nixon's head as a result of the Watergate scandal. His government was no more repressive than Johnson's. In fact, as we wrote in an earlier newsletter, the arch-reactionary, red-baiting Nixon presided over some fairly progressive legislation. He was competitive on that score with his two Democratic successors ‹ Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. A few years later, many on the moderate left trembled at what they thought was the near-audible cadence of jackboots on the cobblestones of American democracy when the Republicans put forward B-movie actor, corporate shill and so-called neofascist Ronald Reagan, who won in 1980 and '84. A long newsletter analysis of Reagan a couple of months ago clearly showed the man was a reactionary, a militarist and imperialist. But fascist, or harbinger of great repression? No. Perhaps one of the more unattractive outcomes of his reign was that it convinced leading Democrats to adopt portions of the right-wing program in order to win future elections. Now seated in the Oval Office for four more years is one of the most ultra-conservative presidents in history, George W. Bush. The fear that he personally is leading the United States toward fascism is palpable among many progressives. In our view, Bush is a dangerous right-winger, but he is neither the personification, nor harbinger, of fascism. Does this mean American democracy is too healthy and resilient to be transformed into brutal authoritarianism, or even fascism? No. Authoritarianism and fascism are proven variants of capitalist governance. Dictatorial regimes have been imposed in many capitalist countries, often with Washington's instigation and support, such as in Iran in the '50s or Chile in the '70s. Fascism has been experienced in Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Japan and other capitalist societies at one time or another as a consequence of extreme crises. Such a fate cannot be ruled out in the United States, though hardly as a direct consequence of a Bush, or a Goldwater, a Nixon or a Reagan. Each has made contributions toward undermining democracy, as have doze
Re: [PEN-L] Re BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE
...for all good citizens to come to the aid of the "lesser-evil" candidate of the Democratic Party, regardless at times of the anointed one's stunning political shortcomings. This has happened a number of times in just the last 40 years, principally in the elections of 1964, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 2004, 1996 and 2000 were also lesser evil years, in my opinion. Dan Scanlan
Re: [PEN-L] Re BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE
*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
Re: [PEN-L] Re BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE
>Then came the 1960s and '70s, when the government encouraged the FBI and local law enforcement to run wild. The FBI's COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) was initiated in 1956 but its worst excesses were during this period, which also saw many city police forces setting up local "red squads." In addition to "reds" and left unionists, the authorities also focused surveillance, infiltration, repression and occasional violence on civil rights workers, the antiwar movement, advocates of women's rights, leftist student groups, radical African-American organizations such as the Black Panthers, Latino groups like the Young Lords, and supporters of gay/lesbian rights. The FBI kept "subversive files" on millions of Americans, including such luminaries as Martin Luther King Jr. and Albert Einstein. Thousands were arrested. Some, such as young Fred Hampton, a Panther leader in Chicago, were murdered by police. By the mid-'70s, the situation was so out of hand that Congress was forced to take measures to limit overt repression, but incidents continue to this day. Bush has already obviated a few of the '70s restraints on police wrongdoing. < Comment Something else happened during the period of the late 1960s and 1970s, that at the time seemed and still seem to be the focus driving the tendency of bourgeois democracy to become increasingly reactionary. This of course is the wave of rebellions that swept the country. http://www.revolutionintheair.com/chron/chron2.html In Detroit what we experienced was a reorganization of the police department and the expansion of policing agencies, alongside side of the growth of intelligence agencies. Here is the meaning of an increasingly reactionary bourgeois democracy as opposed to political fascism. The story is complicated. Prior to the 1967 Rebellion the front line police agency was organized as units with 4 officers assigned to a quad car to "keep order on the streets." In street parlance this was called the "big 4." The 1967 Rebellion outstripped the ability of the local authorities to restore "law and order" and sections of the armed forces were called out to restore order. In the aftermath of the rebellion the police department underwent reorganization on the basis of what was called "tactical mobile units" or the system of the "big 4" gave way to the tactical mobile units combined with beefed by "Red Squad" sections whose task was intelligence gathering. In addition to the Red Squad was the extra legal unit of the police force called "STRESS" with literally the license to kill. In retrospect it is fairly clear that these series of changes led to the nationwide formation of the SWAT teams or at any rate served as the early roots and inspiration for the SWAT formation. Detroit could not be rule in the same old way and the election of Coleman Young Jr. was a turning point in its history. During this period of time there were several armed demonstrations of the police in front of City Hall . . . literally. What halted this open drift towards an increasingly reactionary local regime was mass mobilizations of the population under the banner of stopping the terror and abolishing the "STRESS" unit. Various areas of the country and various cities, depending on their peculiar history and the resistance of the people to terror, degrees of social organizations, trade union, civil rights groups and impact in the electoral arena influence and give force to the shape of the reaction and its strength. The state reorganizes itself in contact and conflict with the spontaneous outbreak of the masses who lack an organizational bond with the state. To this day Detroit is an extremely violent city with an extremely violent police force. There are of course the internal security forces of large corporations with an intelligence gathering capacity. To speak of the unions as a social prop is jargon but this is nevertheless the case. In Detroit the industrial unions are involved in every aspect of the economic, political and social life of the community with profound ties with the various church structures and the state itself. Within the Unions various groups vie for power and authority and this often breaks out into open conflict and assassinations. A complex process unfolded during the 1970s as the city structures were battered by the masses and provoked a wave of increase reaction from the state, corporations, sections of the union and various Civil Rights organizations and Church structures that for various reasons sided with the exiting authorities. It would seem that at this late stage development of the industrial artifact a tendency towards extreme centralization of authority and a closer bond with the state and intelligence agencies is the order of the day. An increasingly reactionary bourgeois democracy has always existed in certain areas of the country. One can chart this progression on the basis of the expansion of the penal system and ra
Re: [PEN-L] Re BUSH AND THE FASCIST MENACE
If my posts have been going out twice, I don't understand why, but apologies. Ralph Ralph Johansen wrote: *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 cut
