Fascism

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 09:15 AM 6/17/98 +0100, Jim heartfield wrote:
>
>The way I see it the differentia specifica of fascism is not repression
>or absence of democracy, but the mobilisation of a reactionary mass to
>destroy the labour movement. It is quite different from using the army,
>which, in Germany was discounted as a possibility by reactionaries after
>the failure of the Kapp Putsch in 1920. It was only then that German
>elites were prepared to contemplate turning to the 'Bohemian Corporal'
>and his thugs.

Certainly, there is analytical validity int his approach.  However, I am
not sure if that is not puting the cart before the horse.  Mass
mobilization did not occur until Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis
initially got less than 10% of the popular votes, considerable under the
proportional representation, but not exactly mass mobilisation.  Only when
Hitler firmly controlled the state apparatus, he could procure, by hook,
crook, and coercion, the mass mobilisation you are talking about.  So I
would not discount the overt role of the state in defining fascism.

That is, however, a minor quibble.  Your point of including the class
struggle dynamics in a particular historical context in the definition of
fascism is well taken.

Regards,

Wojtek