Subject: Re: AUT: Fascism
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:53:33 +1100


hi all

Tahir wrote:
>fascism to me means a violent anti-proletarian movement outside of the
>normal channels of bourgeois rule. the obvious examples being Italian
>fascism and German Nazism which were both responses to mass proletarian
>struggles.
>
>Tahir: But this is the type of definition that I was suggesting is not 
>quite good enough. Leaving aside the question of what "normal bourgeois 
>rule" is (if you mean liberal democracy you need to show why that is more 
>normal than fascism)

i do think (often illiberal)democracy is the normal or preferred form of 
bourgeois rule. but if you want reasons i'll have to think about it for a 
while. you could however check out Bordiga on democracy and commentators on 
his views on the subject such as Loren Goldner and Antagonism.

>the Italian and German examples were responses to other things too. They 
>were also responses, for example, to national humiliation and perceptions 
>of foreign domination.

Italy was arguably humiliated by the post WW1 peace treaties, ie not getting 
the large parts of Slovenia, Dalmatia and Montenegro that they were promised 
in 1915 (Treaty of London?). But foreign domination i'm not so sure about. i 
guess that's a minor point although i reckon fascism was primarily a 
response to an insurgent proletariat.

>If responses to mass proletarian struggles is the only criterion than one 
>could argue that Keynes, welfare state etc. are equally responses to 
>proletarian struggles. But they're not fascist.

if we accept (and i certainly do) that the proletariat is the only proper 
subject then most things capital does are responses to proletarian 
struggles. fascism was one particular response to some particular 
proletarian struggles. "responses to mass proletarian struggles" is not the 
only criterion - fascism is also a violent mass (as opposed to state) 
movement.

>Tahir: Sure but liberal democracy is a different way of ruling, through a 
>larger degree of consent and without the ultra-nationalism that I spoke 
>about.

all states are violent, all states promote nationalism although of course to 
different degrees. but if you want to talk about degrees of fascism it seems 
you are just turning the word into a synonym for totalitarianism. >

>Tahir: Once again I would have to add that they could only get that support 
>if they create a pan-class movement, and I don't see that anything other 
>than nationalism can do that.

Bologna and other historians have tried to show that fascism and Nazism 
didn't have much appeal for proletarians. how true that is i don't know but 
calling fascism a pan-class movement seems to be stretching things a bit.

peter

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com



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