>>> kelley <digloria at mindspring.com> 05/19/99 03:28PM >>>
so, ok. nationalism, the rise of the nation-state is fundamentally bound
up with racism. it follows, then, that you need a more nuanced analysis
than to simply say fascism and racism are constantly conjoined. no
kidding. it's very true that nazism was clearly racist/anti-semitic --a
clear cut example of racializing a group of people who, today, we don't
define or see as a race. [though it wasn't too long ago that it was
actually something ppl debated] in other words, it is an example of the
social construction of race. (no chaz i'm not saying that this means that
race and racism doesn't exist and have real consequences. you already know
this about my position, but like to suggest that i don't. sillyness)
Charles: No, it is you who keep attributing to me the idea that race IS a valid biological category; or else why do you keep telling me that it is socially constructed ?
What is the difference between racializing Jews and racializing Blacks, if all race is racializing groups that aren't really races ? What does it matter that "we" still consider Blacks a race today, but don't consider Jews a race ?
The unique character of fascistic racism is the degree of terrorism and genocidalism
((((((((((((((
[btw chaz, the vote that brought nazi's into power was hardly legitimate--see David Abraham _the collapse of the weimar republic_]
Chas: So what ? The illegitimacy of the Nazis' election doesn't contradict what I said back on Littleton:
All of the mass bases of fascists historically (Italy, Germany, U.S. kkk) have been tricked by the phony populist element of fascism. Remember, Mussolini was in the Socialist Party before he started the Fascist. He was trained in communicating with workers. Hitler was in a "Workers' " Party ( I just saw on the History Channel) and as we know Nazi is short for National SOCIALIST. In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler says some things that sound anti-capitalist. Phony and demogogic appeals to the just rebelliousness and alienation of workers was CRITICAL to the success of the Nazis. The Communists and Socialist Parties of Germany had 63 % of the vote between them in the election with Hitler. The only way the Nazis could win was with horrendously lying propaganda that they were pro-working class. Fascism was specifically tailored to get the capitalists out of the enormous capitalist crisis in Italy and Germany where the Left was close to taking over by majority vote, not violent overthrow. (end).
This doesn't contradict that the Nazis may have stuffed ballot boxes , intimidated voters, etc. ,too.
With respect to the U.S today, the vote that brought Reagan in was hardly legitimate. Even before computers, the bourgeois have perfected corruption of bourgeois democrcacy , including elections. With computers, they may be stealing elections regularly today, with high-tech ballot stuffing. And in general, related to the thread on the masses of Americans not giving a shit, that is a result of the ruling class doing everything it can to alienate most people from the politcal/electoral process.
Fascists could come to power in the U.S. in an illegitmate vote too. There is no such thing as premature anti-fascism.
((((((((((((((
finally, my grandfather was jewish. never learned that til after he died. why? cause he hid it from everyone out of fear. when people use racism, they really mean a specific thing: racism is about blacks. our own email pal lehman scratched his head over the possibility that there could be racism in the balkan regions. they're white, he said. this is just thrilling that someone exposed to the arguments about the social construction of race could be so blind. so maybe what we need when talking about fascism is a different term. i don't know. balibar offers one and ange has written about it before. finally, chaz: no, i'm not claiming some identity to legitimate what i say or authorize it as right. i'm simply explaining, chaz, why i have more than an intellectual investment in this debate.
Charles: This last comment should be to yourself, not me. You are the one, not me, with the theory or critique of "claiming identities to legitimate or authorize what one says".
My position is not the bourgeois concept of "neutrality" as objectivity. The objective approach is to be conscious and open about one's partisanship in theory/practice; and , of course, to be a partisan of the working class and oppressed national and racial groups.
Charles Brown