Subject: Re: AUT: Fascism
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:27:06 -0500


> > i would. =P   and further, i've often wondered if fascism wasn't, at
> > least
> > in part, a response of the begining of mass proletarianization.
>
> So England circa 1830 was full of fascists?

sorry, i should have been more clear: mass proletarianization of the
petty-bourgeoisie in the 20th century.

> > that is: the pb was defined, in part, by a desire to be
> > grande-bourgeois...
> > and fascism may represent their last ditch effort to integrate
> > themselves
> > into the ruling class.
>
> This doesn't really explain why fascists tended to distance themselves
> from the Grande in grande-bourgeois... or the jewish element...

well, it could be that in nazi ideology the jews were the current
grande-bourgeoisie, who these p.b. were wishing to supplant via. nazism.

in italy, however, prior to being taken over by the nazis, the fascist party
included a number of jews. so something else was going on there, at least at
the begining... which prolly also has to do with the fact that many fascists
were former anarcho-syndicalists and leninists.

> The petite-bourgeiosie is dead? What the fuck? This country at least, is
> swarming with little shop owners with grade-A pb attidue.

i argue that, in the "first world", at least, small-shop owners, etc. were
long ago (by the 30s, 40s, 50s) incorporated into the bourgeoisie proper as
its lowest layer, while other former p.b. folks (like non-practicing owning
doctors, teachers, etc.) were proletarianized.

i don't really feel like going over this whole argument again, here. but
check the archives. chris, myself and others have had some interesting
exchanges about this over the last year or so.

> You can say that again! Actually, please don't.

not entirely sure why you're being kinda hostile toward me... oh well...



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---