Well, the short answer is yes, the contemporary theories about fascism tend to be closer to Trotsky than Dimitrov.
}
| }{{} |
| }}}}{ | <--- Opening can of worms...
| }{{{{ |
|---------|
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Jim Farmelant
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 4:34 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: The New Nazism
>
>
> Chip,
>
> You describe this analysis of fascism as new, but it looks to
> me a lot like Trotsky's analysis of fascism. He saw fascism
> as being rooted in petit bourgeois movements that arise
> in opposition to gains made by the workers movement.
> If the ruling class feels suffciently threatened by the workers
> movement, then sections of it may choose to allie themselves
> with the mass movement of the petit bourgeoise in order
> to crush the workers movement. Not such a new theory
> IMO, although I would certainly agree that it is probably
> quite a useful one. And yes, on Trotsky's analysis, it
> would be a mistake to analyze current political authoritarianism
> as being necessarily fascist. In Trotsky's analysis, there
> cannot be fascism without a strong workers movement which
> threatens the interests of the petit and grand bougeoisie.
> Such is apparently not the case today in the US.
>
> Jim Farmelant
>
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:55:41 -0500 "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree that there are echoes of fascism in all authoritarian and
> > repressive
> > measures instituted under capitalist political systems.
> Echoes. Bits
> > and
> > Pieces. Parts. Quasi- or Proto-
> >
> > And we all would be foolish to not object to authoritarian and
> > repressive
> > measures, not just in and of themselves, but becasue they can be
> > precursors
> > to fascist state poewr. But where does fascism come from? Is it a
> > top down
> > creation, or does it arise from a mass movement of the
> middle class,
> > or is
> > it a fusion of the two? I am arguing that for state fscism, there
> > must be
> > an autonomous middle class mass movement, a crisis, and a decision
> > by one
> > faction of ruling elites to build a coalition with the mass
> movement
> > to
> > stave off the crisis resulting in their being toppled. This thesis
> > is one
> > of many of the new theories about where fascism comes from. It is
> > key to my
> > objections to the overbroad use of the concept of fascism.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chuck Grimes
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:50 AM
> > > To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > > Subject: Re: The New Nazism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ``...Now if you want to step back from wretched rhetoric excess
> > and
> > > have a discussion about how terrible and alarming is the wave of
> > > government repression, I will probably agree with you completely,
> > even
> > > down to the echoes of fascism...'' Chip Berlet
> > >
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Okay (ignoring a great deal of insulting tripe). My argument goes
> > like
> > > this. The Nazis put into place legislative police state powers
> > > first, and then proceeded to carry out their program as the rule
> > of
> > > law and governance. I maintain it is the establishment of broad
> > police
> > > powers of governmental institutions and their sweeping legal
> > authority
> > > itself that puts the US at the threshold of Germany in the 1930s.
> >
> > The problem here is still one of logical fallacies. All sorts of
> > regimes
> > "put into place legislative police state powers."
> >
> > The far right in the US argues that since the Nazis passed gun laws
> > that the
> > curent US government is fascistic.
> >
> > The logical fallacy here is the claim that congruence in one aspect
> > implies
> > congruence in all aspects. It doesn't.
> >
> > So then the question goes back to "What is the essence of fascism?"
> >
> > >
> > > There is no legal means to stop the US government from rounding up
> > > any, some, or all non-citizens and putting them in indefinite
> > > detention and or processing them through secret kangaroo courts
> > then
> > > executing them. Nothing, get it? Citizens are subject to unlimited
> > > surveillance, investigation, arrest, held incommunicado in
> > detention,
> > > and tried in secret, if they are identified (by pronouncement,
> > without
> > > evidence) as supporting or involved in some overly broad category
> > of
> > > unspecified crimes, termed terrorist activities. These powers are
> > > granted under the patriot act, to the US Attorney General,
> > officials
> > > of the Justice Department and federal law enforcement agencies to
> > use
> > > at their discretion. Many of these powers have been placed beyond
> > > judicial oversight or review.
> >
> > Nothing eneated by Congress or promulgated by the Executive branch
> > is
> > "placed beyond
> > judicial oversight or review." If it had been, I would agree with
> > you that
> > we had become a police state. I do not have much faith in the
> > Supreme Court,
> > but it still can review everything that has been done, and probably
> > will.
> >
> > And yes, thanks, I "get it." Political repression is terrible,
> > especially
> > when groups are scapegoated. Check out my web page on the subject
> > which is
> > one of the major sites linked by the National Lawyers Guild on the
> > subject.
> > I am working in a national coalition to fight political repression,
> > including giving speeches at meetings of students and anarchists.
> >
> > http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/Security_for_Activists.htm
> >
> >
> > > Even if an effective, well constructed series of court cases are
> > > generated, these would mostly likely end up before a Supreme Court
> > > that has already discredited itself. The court would mostly likely
> > > rule to support the very executive, the court itself installed by
> > > default.
> > >
> > > This isn't a question of being alarmist, engaging in loose
> > rhetoric,
> > > making fallacious arguments, doing poorly researched sociology or
> > > ignoring the oppressions of an unbridled capitalism. These are
> > laws
> > > and formal political realities.
> > >
> > > I am not claiming we live in a police state. I am saying
> > absolutely we
> > > live in a police state, period. It's already accomplished fact.
> >
> > If we lived in a police state, this discussion would have been
> > terminated.
> > The roundup of Arab and Muslim "suspects" is heinous, and must be
> > protested,
> > but we are not talking about actual martial law. And even if we
> > lived in a
> > police state, it might not be a fascist police state, and the
> > difference
> > matters when developing counter-strategies.
> >
> > > Now, the argument against this view of affairs is to say, well
> > yes,
> > > technically, since the 2001 patriot act, we live a police state,
> > but
> > > nobody in government is going to carry that out to extremes.
> >
> > <<SNIP>>
> >
> > No, there is another argument. That the US has seen this level of
> > political
> > repression before, and it was neither a police state nor fascism,
> > but that
> > prudent people should indeed be raising an alarm about protecting
> > civil
> > liberties, but that hyperbole is not constructive when what we are
> > facing is
> > bad enough.
> >
> > But would you at least concede that we are not living under "The New
> > Nazism?"
> >
> > -Chip
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.