A basic problem here is that you and I have a semantic disagreement here. We don't have the same definition of fascism. My definition is narrower than yours. The way I would say it is that not all modern forms of tyranny are fascism. I confine "fascism" to the open terrorist rule of most chauvinist, militarist, sector of finance capital in the imperialist phase of capitalism.
Also, from what you say below, we may have a different definition of "racism". when you say " i do so, again, because i think we need to be careful not to reduce the form of "racism" it might take to specific kinds of racism built around *naturalized* bio/phys/genetic characteristics." I'm not sure what you mean, but you seem to be saying that some forms of what I call national chauvinism or other forms of invidious discrimination are all "racism". Must be that this is because in your analysis these other forms of anti-otherism are the same as racism for purposes of really understanding them , no ? Is this the crunch point that is the basis for our disagreement. Are you saying "sexism" is a form of "racism" ? Anyway, if so, I think there are differences between the forms of invidious discrimination such that the conventional distinctions should be retained. However, I agree that there are also overlaps in the different forms of discrimination and oppression.
Also ,U.S. racism is not confined to discrimination against Africans, as you say below. It also very much includes genocide against Indignenous Peoples, discrimination that is anti-Mexican (which is also anti-Indigenous) and other Spanish speaking peoples, anti-Chinese and other people of Asian ancestry, anti-Arabism, anti-Hawaiian...
Other interjections below
>>> kelley <digloria at mindspring.com> 05/20/99 10:20AM >>>
>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 ?
i'm afraid that i'm not saying and have never said that this is your position. i include a gesture in that direction whenever i type about race issues b/c some folks still haven't heard of the concept. there is an audience for these discussions. it is a way of deflecting the inevitable sniping from those looking for a place to latch on so they can hone the weapon of their choice. i know where you stand and am not painting you as saying anything different. indeed, in my initial response to doug, i typed:
"exactly where in either of my posts to charles did i say that ethnicities exist in nature? that's precisely what i was arguing against. i know charles doesn't agree with this either." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(trans: chas doesn't agree w/ naturalizing race)
when i brought up the issue recently it was also to point out that it is quite possible for a fascist regime to Other a group not 'typically' considered a race, that's the only reason i did so. i do so, again, because i think we need to be careful not to reduce the form of "racism" it might take to specific kinds of racism built around *naturalized* bio/phys/genetic characteristics. and i'm especially troubled by the tendency to reduce racism to the US history of this word, where race always seems to mean blacks and racism always seems to be about the oppression and superexploitation of blacks. i think this is dangerous. the racial composition of this country is shifting quickly with more and more people of mixed ethnic heritage. racialization will need to reconfigure itself under those circumstances
>The unique character of fascistic racism is the degree of terrorism and
genocidalism
well call me a dim bulb but how do you explain the existence of genocide and terrorism in non-capitalist countries. the slaughter of jews in the soviet union under stalin? the slaughter of over a million under pol pot/khmer rouge? the missing girl babies in china? indigenous people in the americas? Peru? etc
Charles: Without affirming all of your factual allegations, there are other forms of tyranny besides fascism. There are forms of tyranny in socialist countries, including hangovers from capitalism and feudalism. The transition to socialism is not instantaneous and without failures and serious errors.
Also, the state persists under socialism, by plan. The state does not whither away until there is no capitalism in the world. The state is , by definition, a repressive apparatus or dominance of force or TERROR. The plan is that this terror is for the repression of the bourgeoisie, but the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.
There is mainly capitalism in the Americas (except Cuba). Peru is capitalist. So those are capitalist/fascist by my definition.
((((((((((((((((((((((( Kelley: see, this is what i just don't get about the capitalism>>fascism as degenerate form of capitalism>>necessarily entails racism
Charles: I don't recognize my words or concepts in what you are replying to.
Kelley: not only is it simply wrong, historically (italy is a case in point.), it is dangerous because, by focusing simply on race=black/white, such a claim keeps from attending to potentially new forms of racialization/marking that might be going on.
((((((((((((((((
furthermore, your explanation for the question "why do fascist regimes emerge" should also entail an explanation for your claim that fascist regimes are necessarily violently racist and genocidal. do you have one? i only ever read you as simply asserting. i never read an explanation backing your claim.
Charles: I don't recall addressing this question. Anyway, fascist regimes emerged because of the crisis of capitalism in its imperialist phase as a way of fighting off the rising working class and socialist/communist movement, and specifically to destroy the Soviet Union. The bourgeois resorted to more violence and force than under its preferred form of rule, the democratic republic. In general , racism is to divide and divert the working class from its main enemy, the bourgeoisie.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
>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 ?
Kelley: of course it matters because it's an example that quickly demonstrates that race is a shifting category. just as its useful to show how there were ostensibly 6 races a century ago or that poor whites were once racialized and the target of eugenics. some of my students still call men and women two different races. dunno, maybe they've been reading men are from mars, women are from venus.
Charles' To be more accurate, you should say SOME racial/racist categories are shifting. Some have persisted for a very long time. What shifting of the categories that there is does not rebut my arguments. My argument is that race and racism are categories that serve the bourgeoisie, so that doesn't contradict their shifting , when the bourgeoisie can get away with it.
((((((((((((((((
finally, i related that story of my more than intellectual investment so that you would understand where i'm coming from, in terms of personal intellectual history in particular. you seem to think i pull stuff out of my hat.
Charles: I didn't even know you wear a hat. I don't recall saying or thinking particularly that you pull things out of your hat more than anyone else. I merely respond to what I understand as the content of your arguments. Maybe you feel like you pull things out of your hat.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
i hardly consider myself jewish. being jewish is about a lot more than blood. your assumption that this is what i meant is telling.
Charles: You'll have to demonstrate a little better that I assumed what you say I assumed here. I never said being Jewish is about blood, nor is it implied in what I said. So the following in your argument is likely to be with a straw person or is it a dialogue with yourself ?
Kelley: i can't be jewish, in my mind, because i never experienced the bigotry, was never socialized with a consciousness of the horrors of the holocaust as intimately assoc w/ my identity, never experienced discrimination or ethnic slurs, nor did i experience what is, for some, the solidaristic bonding associated with a shared identity. the only thing i ever exp'd was people asking me if i were jewish b/c of my last name and telling me i looked like a polish jew, but that never seemed to be negative mostly b/c, at the time, i didn't think so at all. the story was more about the fact that a relative of mine would be so scared that he'd hide his identity--not unlike the way in which some light skinned blacks tried to pass to take advantage of white skin privilege. that piece of info is relatively new for me and has only served to heighten my interest in this topic that was already crystallizing when i was a teenager, and that was an interest that was sparked mostly coz i had jewish friends and saw them ridiculed and stereotyped mercilessly by others.