You introduced proto-fascism into the discussion I merely took up the image to draw some general conclusions.
In this I thought it easy enough to refer to your statement "Bush + Chaney = Hitler 2" by accepting it as a premise and then trying to distinguish between one by calling it military fascism and the other social fascism. I find it difficult to understand how you smell a party line in this as my only recollection of "social fascism" being previously used was in an ultra-leftists turn of the comintern when it was used to describe social democracy. In the context I have used it no such connection could reasonably been drawn.
I have been around too long to be drawn on straw man arguments, especially one that reaches back into the history of fascism to state some bland truisms. I in no way intended to make any definitive theoretical statements on this, I merely used the terms for a short hand for the use of reactionary unilateral force (one in the past and one in the present) in order only to draw general differences and similarities - again on the basis that you first introduced the term!
Moreover, you then repeat what I have been saying about Clinton, differing in the assessment of its historical import - I stating that it was a holding of the line, you stating that it is a strengthening - may I ask where is the difference except in the broad direction of the historical process. If Imperialism is an ever ongoing stage then I am wrong, if it is a stage in decline, as I have been arguing, then I am right - holding the line against a general decline can only manifest itself as a strengthening, the decline however is still present.
Clinton was, like Nixon, and exceptional world courtier and not above applying force where-ever it would strengthen the position he represented. At least on this we agree.
The only ancient debates here are the ones you are resorting to in order to avoid the very thing that I have tried so unsuccessfully to present.
I am saying that imperialism as a stage of capitalist development is over, that unless we gain a correct historical understanding of this then we cannot make real sense of the facts. Facts are not irrelevant, but by themselves they do not prove things one way or another. The first point of argument is conceptual, so unless you can concede that such an argument has in fact been presented then indeed things can only remain circular.
On the otherhand, you can concede that this at least has been presented without agreeing with it, and then perhaps something worthwhile may be debated. My problem is that you have not seemingly recognisied this in all the posts, rather you appear so fixed in your current concepts that you cannot even concede that such an argument is being put to you.
And before I am accused of seeking mere abstract argument for the sake of it, I might point out that the political repecussions of acknowledging that one stage of history has passed and a new one is emerging is critically important for political struggle (Lenin 1914 would be a standing example). This is why I have stated several times that Bush and Co's present strategy is not contigent, is not an accident and especially is not just one of many potential paths the US can take, whereas you seem to paint it as a short-sighted anomoly, a hiccup in policy. The two views are not compatible, but you have not addressed that issue, or the issue of concepts or historical necessities.
I would not normally take such a tone, but to be accused of towing some party-line is a bit of joke (especially to anyone who acrtually knows me), to be accused of rehashing old arguments is downright insulting as I have made a constant attempt to move things into new ground, and then the cheap rhetorical shot that you have been on the recieving end of imperialism and I have not is purile - Comrade I suggest thet niether of us have been on the recieving end, that is reserved for a vast number of the working class who sweat their labour and their blood and would only rarely get the chance to participate in an internet forum if at all. (I say this regardless of what country you reside and in no way imply that personally I have been any more than discomforted by the machinations of power, I don't know your personal history and it would not take much to show that perhaps you have had it far worse than I - the point is that it is irrelevant as I do not place myself even on the spec! rtrum of suffering having known too many people that have been through hell itself).
As for having the greeps about such terms as "historical necessity" well that seems to say a lot about your own theoretical education - I know the implication you seek to deploy in this and it is as distatseful as it is cheap. I would have thought that with the left in such a dismal state that any serious communist has a duty to respond to the strength of an opposing argument and deal with it squarely, instead of grubbing around for weak phrases, ill-formed illustrations, and out-of-context-remarks to create artificial foes for shadow boxing (an exercise which the left performs too often and always to its detremient).
Hakki if you care to re-read the previous posts and respond to the main argument I will be happy to reply in a much more comradelyt tone.
Greg Schofield Perth Australai
--- Message Received --- From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:25:29 +0200 Subject: RE: "Drawing the Enemy in Deep" A Speculation
|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield
Greg, I'm afraid this discussion will turn into a tiresome rerun of ancient debates unless you can present some evidence. We can talk about fascism being the final stage of whatever till we're 80 while the fascists walk all over us yet again. I sense a definite party line in your discourse - stuff like "social fascism" and "historical necessity" that gives me the creeps - and a denial of the objective situation, viz the hands-down success of US imperialism for 2 Clinton terms (being at the receiving end, I may of course have a different view from yours) and its doomed disarray under the present proto-fascist administration. The only example I can think of in US history that measures up to Clinton's deal-making imperialism is Tricky Dick's China card. The standard by which all imperialism is measured is of course the British one, achieved with an inept and weak army but endless cunning and manipulation. You cannot run an empire by command and coercion. Like the economy, it must be capable of a high degree of self-regulation, the fruits of empire being delivered automatically to your doorstep.
There is absolutely no evidence that Fascism is in any way a product or result of imperialism, as you contend. You have fascists crawling all over the former Warsaw Pact countries, in Turkey, and in India - all countries which until recently had command economies with a weak bourgeosie. The causes of Fascism, like cancer, are numerous. In many cases, you will find social trauma at the root of Fascism, analogous to Hitler's childhood trauma. The trauma of national unification in Germany and Italy, the trauma of struggle between bourgeosie and land-owning gentry/clergy, the trauma of WW I for the whole of Europe. You will also frequently come accross an inherited genocidal guilt. In the Americas, this usualy involves indigenous populations and slavery, and finds expression in various death squads, militias, and vigilantes from the KKK to the White Hand. In Europe, the victims of dispossession and genocide were the Jews, and this culminated in e.g. the Dreyfus affair that split France, the Horty dictatorship, and, of course the NSPD.
There's more, much more, because Fascism is a complex social dynamic with deep historical roots and a tendency to become endemic. You may have the socialists in power, but Le Pen will always be there.
BTW I wonder if Chip and Carrol are satisfied with what I've said about fascism? Or are you still certain that "it can never happen here"?
Hakki