Fascism under socialism (was Cockburns anti-PLC)

[Chris Burford]

At 18:51 11/05/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > No I am not using a DSM4 type check list of fascism. I do not think such
> > operational diagnostic schema get to the inner processes that shape
> > phenomena. They are a check list of epiphenomena and deeply empricist in
> > philosophical nature.
> >
> > I regard fascism as an abuse of bourgeois democratic rights probably
> > accompanied by populist politics.
> >
> > It may sometimes suit finance capital but not always so.
> >
> > Bourgeois democratic rights can undoubtedly be abused by the left. That is
> > a particular danger in post socialist societies. I think there was social
> > fascism in Croatia and in Serbia. Putin, in alliance with the Russian
> > Communist Party may move in that direction too.
> >
> > (I am not using the term social fascist as a form of abuse against social
> > demoratic parties, who often need to be allies in the struggle to resist
> > fascist tendencies, to defend and extend human rights in a socially
> > coherent context, and not as abstract individualistic rights.)
> >
> > Do you not think that there can be abuses of socialist legality and human
> > rights violations under socialism?
>
>Yes I do think so. I've never thought of it as being fascist. I have a 
>more narrow
>view of what fascism is. Maybe my definition is different from most. I see 
>fascism
>as something  more connected to capitalism. It also has more features of 
>racism
>and xenaphobia.

Yes I see what you are saying: racism and xenophobia may be used as reasons 
arbitrarily to suppress the democratic rights of minorities, including 
political opponents. In many ways the anti-Jewish laws perhaps created the 
precedent for the Nazi's to intern socialists and communists in Germany 
immediately they came to power.

I agree such tendencies are less common under socialism (though there was 
anti-Semitism in Poland and in Hungary under socialism).

Nevertheless I would stick to my broader version on the essence of the 
matter that an arbitrary lawless socialist state can suppress democratic 
rights on demagogic pretexts. It is essentially socialist in words and 
fascist in deeds. (For anyone who did not see my previous post I am 
explicitly *not* in favour of using the term 'social fascist' for social 
democrats).

That seems to be more the essence of the matter, than what are the subject 
of those demagogic attacks.

Chris Burford

London