>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.
perhaps you could point out where i say anything different. i agree with this. i was asking about genocide elsewhere, how you explain it.
fascism is not necessarily genocidal. furthermore, i would argue that, since you break capitalism into phases, then i suspect it a good idea to examine fascism as a shifting political form that corresponds to those phases-- in much the same way we can examine other pol regimes shifting w/ changes in capitalism (e.g., the neo-lib thread)
i tend to lean toward the argument that it is important to consider germany's closeness to its feudal past in order to explain the particularity of nazism. this is a contentious claim, of course, but i think it defensible when you move from the national to global level of analysis.
>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".
i think you're confusing me with ange. i've never said any such thing. i was using "race" (under erasure, with scare quotes), racialization (to refer to a *process*), and marking. i don't believe i ever used this term to apply to anything other than what you characterize as american racism below, typically against ethnic groups and blacks.
ange is arguing that racism operates primarily thru marking the body with a racialized identity. for example, a bit ago we discussed the ways in which poor whites in the US have been racialized. they were categorized as a distinct race and were the target of eugenicist sterilization campaigns, their bodies were distinctly marked. i gave examples of the ways in which, today, poor white bodies are racialized. they are described as rednecks, white trash, yahoos, crackers, hicks, etc and are so because of the what they, ostensibly, do to their bodies: hairstyles, clothes, comportment, facial expressions, the food they eat, weight, muscularity, smoking, neck size, etc. what is interesting about this form of marking is that it appears to be voluntary on the part of those labeled white trash. it's a lifestyle choice, it would seem, they are poor white trash b/c they want to be and they can stop being poor if they'd just conform to middle class values. class is thus merely an identity that can be put on or shed like a sweater on a sunny afternoon and it has nothing to do with the structural operations of the economy.
now this is all very interesting to me but....
like you, i'm not comfortable with calling that racism. i've haven't worked out exactly why. right now, i'll say that it's for the following reasons: 1] the term 'race' is based on no sound bio/phys/gen basis and i do not see how it can help to now start applying it to other phenom. 2] race is such a hot potato that i'm not sure it's wise to muck things up more by using it when we haven't managed to eradicate belief in #1 among most folks, let alone the flip side of basing it on cultural identity 3] relatedly, altogether too often a race-based analysis fails to interrogate capitalism. i'm not talking about you, but about the mainstream understandings of race and racism which tend to lack a structural analysis.
4]. i object to three on the same grounds that i object to claims that racism has always existed. the term and the practice & institutions of racism have to be understood as the product of capitalism. racism has not been around forever.
>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" ?
obviously not. however, it is clear that sexism is different depending on who it's directed at. cops busted into my home the other night, with guns drawn, violating my rights to protection from search and seizure in the most heinous way i've ever experienced. they paraded through my home & tore apart closets with guns and flashlights and gave me no good reason to do so. i was treated pretty shittily because i live in a low income neighborhood. [classism if you will] i am absolutely certain that i would have been treated not only differently but much worse were i black [or latina, hispanic, chicana, mexicana]. i also know for a fact that this would never, or only rarely, would have happened in a middle class neighborhood.
i think the crunch point is that i disagree that fascism is always conjoined with virulent racism. italian fascism wasn't focused on this in the least. i think that in our monitoring of contemporary forms of fascism we ought to be aware that fascism, even on the definition above, doesn't necessarily entail 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.
not sure what you're saying.
i tend to appreciate the schemas for marking differences between stereotyping, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, superexploitation.
>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...
the important point, for me, is to draw on the way in which feminists analyze gender oppression and inequality by asking to what extent to physical/behavioral differences become salient to: 1. access to and possession of resources 2. life options and opportunities, choices if you will 3. societal recognition and respect for cultural/communal practices & institutions 4. physical, emotional, mental well being and happiness
>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.
interesting but not at all a very good explanation. i think the global fascism post is a *much* better explanation. quite frankly, i refuse to valorize what has gone under the name of communism in the last century. rather, i think these failures are systemic and significantly bound up w/ some deficiencies in marxist analysis insofar as it has failed to adequately theorize the relative autonomy of the state and the relationship between market, polity, civil society/public sphere.
>Charles: I don't recognize my words or concepts in what you are replying to.
well i assume i am interlocuting with someone familiar with the debates over theories of fascism. when you say capitalism and fascism are fund. related, and fascism has to do w/anticommunism you are drawing a specific theory of fascism. i attributed a theoretical discourse to you which you are apparently not familiar with.
>Charles: I don't recall addressing this question. (as to why fascisms emerge)
i think that you probably should. is this not what marx did? he asked how and why capitalism emerged in order to examine how it operated in the present and in order to predict.
> 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.
the problem is that it still doesn't explain why the emergence of virulent forms of racism which you think mark fascism distinctly and you say are *necessarily* part of fascism
>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.
no kidding. see my post to rakesh. we don't differ in our analysis here in any way. i think though that you are very fond of finding differences when someone uses a language or comes from a discipline you are unfamiliar with.
>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 think you typically treat both kirsten and i as if we are stupid women who have no right to speak to you about certain issues. this is particularly the case with regard to this issue.
>Charles: You'll have to demonstrate a little better that I assumed what
you say I assumed here.
you insisted on characterizing me as relating the story in terms of identity. and decided to be mean-spirited in response. why, i don't know.
it certainly doesn't help on an extremely touchy issue. obviously, i'm white, you're black. that matters because it surely shapes your responses to me and mine to you on this particular topic you are quite different in 'tone' w/ re to other topics e.g, phil of social science and other threads.
clearly i respond differently and tend to use less humor and irony when we're talking about race issues.
>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 ?
and you are equally good at doing this to others. the littleton comment that started this exchange was unfair and created straw persons out of several people, each of whom had different kinds of arguments with you. you lumped all of us together and insisted that our arguments were racist and implied that we were aligned with racism. little tolerance for different kinds of anlayses of racism and how it manifests itself and a tendency to characterize anyone who doesn't agree with your analysis as flat out wrong. i dunno charles, you liked my discussions of pluralism a couple of months ago--engaged falibilistic pluralism, what's the deal now? yes, i know, it is hard to put into practice, especially when you care deeply about an issue and feel that people must get it right and that there is one right way to understand and explain an issue.
i would like to suggest though that neither one of us is creating strawperson here. i think we misunderstand each other more often than not because of disciplinary language differences and what you see as my failure to deploy the appropriate marxist terminology etc. we also tend to analyze things differently because of our professions and intellectual training. we make assumptions about one another's typings. i don't see this as creating straw persons to argue with at all; rather, i see it as something that needs to be struggled with, to be accompanied by healthy doses of respect, civility, and ribbing and humor when called for.