I have a few comments which I have added below.
--- Message Received --- From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:40:35 -0500 Subject: RE: Bonapartism, Fascism & our new order
CHIP: In many ways this is simply fetishization of antiquated terms used by Marx. How is Chris' description of Bonapartism different from what is now called right-wing populism by contemporary sociologists, political scientists and historians? Especially the idea of popular cross-class anti-regime rhetoric during a crisis of legitimacy such as described by Habermas?
A lot of the criticism of what I am saying seems to be essentially complaints that I don't use the exact language used by Marx.
Well, so what?
<snip>
Greg: Then this logic can be extended to also include fascism as yet another historical facet of Bonapartism, fascism, popularism etc., I am fine with this if you wish to use popularist, for any of them, for in general it is true.
Of course old forms do hang around long after the forces which brought them into existence have subsided. Neo-fascism being a prime example, but you would not have to look too far to find any other sought of "popularist" movement (even anti-colonialism spawned its fair share). Some of these will persist, others will never re-occur in any form.
So where do we find our rudder to steer through this morass and make some sense of the direction of developments?
Again in the case of fascism I would point to Dimtirov if only he gave the definition of fascism which was a particular historical conjunction of class forces lead by the section interests of finance capital (ie nationalist, expansionist and bellicose). It is not that fascism cannot occur without this confluence of forces, but only with it can it come into world dominance as a significant force.
Hence I worry not all about re-emergant fascism as it was - conditions have changed the old form is ill-fitted to current contradictions. For the rest I do not have an answer, repressive rightwing popularism is becoming a dominant force and in this it clothes itself in the robes of its ancestor movements (national chauvanism, warlike imperialistic ambition and fascist social outlook) but it is not reduced to anyone of these each of which had its own peculiar history when it was dominant.
So where do we go from here. Is this at least a point of accordance?
For me I would wish to travail the whole Marxist heritage and find what may be of intellectual use in understanding the strange times we find ourselves - hence Bonapartism and fascism stand out as jumping off points.
As for structuralist analysis steming from scholastic circles, it may have its place but is bereft of being able to pose the right questions in the first place - sociological definitions interest me not at all. I am not accusing you of moving down such a path, as you mentioned these only in passing, but classification is not a way forward. I can be accused of prejudice in this, but at least it is a thorough-going prejudice.
Marx may be an antique (old and valuable) but not I think antiquated by any means, and certainly does not stink of intellectual decay as much as many live and kicking socialologists do.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on receive. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________