[lbo-talk] biz ethics/slavery/groups/constitutional

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Tue Aug 24 13:21:52 PDT 2004


From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>

This seems an odd exchange. I don't for the life of me see the logic behind Charles's original argument.

^^^ Charles: Somehow, I'm not surprised :>)

^^^^ That is, I think one can argue that Bush may be the lesser evil (more efficient imperialism) but I don't see how _either_ Bush _or_ Kerry is remotely a fascist threat.

^^^^^^

CB: Oh, come now. Kerry is not a fascist threat ?

^^^^^

The U.S. ruling class does not need anything like fascism, though they may need (and are getting) one of the periodical tightening ups on good old bourgeois-democratic repression.

^^^^ Charles: As it turns out, the German ruling class didn't really "need" anything like fascism in 1932 either. In fact, in the long run, the Nazis' actions resulted the socialist giant spreading all across eastern Europe and into "one-third" of Germany. If the U.S. had not acted quickly, there would have been socialism throughout continental Europe, most importantly in all Germany and France, advanced capitalist countries. Fascism almost blew the whole thing for the capitalists. On the other hand, it did inflict a sort of mortal blow on the SU.

^^^^^^^

As I've argued many times before, the throwing of the label "fascist" around simply obscures how repressive (capitalist) democracy is.

^^^^^ CB: But I am not just throwing it around. I am using it very carefully and skillfully. I have about the most precise usage of "fascism" I've seen around here. My use of it enlightens, doesn't obscure.

^^^^^

The U.S. Constitution is too precious a document _to the capitalist class_ for it to be lightly discarded.

^^^^ CB: The U.S. Constitution accomodated worse than fascism: Slavery and genocide against the indigenous people, and more. Justin's thesis on the Fugitive Slave Law is backward. The U.S. system was worse than Nazi Germany. The procedures in the U.S. were very anti-democratic ante-bellum for a giant fraction of the People. Women couldn't even vote. Germany was one of the most advanced democracies in the world in the early 20th Century. They were a large social welfare state before the U.S. was. They had a large Social Democratic Party with many seats in the legislature. The number one issue in democracy is material wellbeing of the masses, not procedure or due process. Rawls' thesis is fundamentally flawed in the liberal direction. For the most advanced definition of democracy one must take a Marxist, not liberal, approach.

^^^^^^^

But as to Marvin's question - NO, our present conditions are not remotely like German conditions in 1932 -- and that is why ABB is so silly.

^^^^^^ CB: This is a very dangerous attitude to keep putting out. If Kerry is worse than Bush, then we are more than remotely close to German conditions in 1932.

Referring to some of Doug's comments, Germany didn't have a _threatening_ Communist neighbor. The SU was peaceloving and pursued peaceful coexistence with the capitalist nations. It posed no threat to Germany. One of the biggest lies that persists is that Germany or the U.S. were under a Soviet threat. The Soviet Union was like a big Nicaragua in 1932. Germany was as much under threat from the SU in 1932 as the US is from Mexico and Nicaragua...or from Iraq today (or yesterday)

And afterall, in 1932, the Nazis weren't the world historic monsters we know them to be now until after the invasion of the SU and the Holocaust. That wasn't until a few years later. They were more like the Italian Fascists in 1932.

Even after 1932 , most of the German population wasn't under severe repression. That was visited upon several particular minorities: Jews, trade unionists, Communists, gays, Gypsies, et al. The average good German was under about the same level of repression as your average good American today. Heidegger wasn't under repression. The average German was a member of the master race, remember ? Nazi Germany was a tyranny of the majority.

The U.S. has recently suffered its greatest military defeat since 1812. The Pentagon was hit. Not quite comparable to losing WWI, I'll grant. What if there's an even bigger attack on the U.S. ?

Look at the the rightwing tilt of the U.S. since Reagan. We know Kerry is worse than Bush (:>)) , so what does that portend ? If we keep moving in the same direction we have for the last 20 plus years, don't we have to reach fascism ? If we wait until it's Germany 1939, it's too late.

What exactly we can do , I don't know.

^^^^^

And I'll say this much for Charles's suggestion: if an equivalent to fascism ever comes to threaten the u.s., it will be dressed in liberal not old-fashioned reactionary clothing.

^^^^^^^

CB: We don't know that. It might come as straight up rightwing, KKK-type militias and the like, as storm trooopers , and Cheney or Trent Lott as Pres. This is a completely unsupported claim and counterintuitive.

If some new level of tyranny comes, it is definitely likely to be different than the Nazis. That's why saying the U.S. is not exactly like Germany in 1932 is not a determinative fact in deciding the level of danger of a new level of dictatorship here. There's a new concrete situation, and Carrol and other cannot say definitively that there is not potential tyranny. Bourgeois democratic republics have _all_ had a tyrannical side that could come to the fore: Bonapartism in France, Slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S., monarchy in England.

Carrol take the U.S. Trotskyist-line critique of the CPUSA practices over these many years to an absurd extreme. History does not support a generalized rejection of Popular front strategy and tactics. The anti-pop front line regarding the last 70 years has not been affirmed or proven by experience. The anti-pop front advocates cannot point to any great achievements in practice. Failure of the CPUSA strategy does not prove that Troskyist critiques of same were correct, because US Trotskyists alternative practices are failures too.

^^^^^^

So if someone told me that they knew for sure that either Kerry or Bush was a covert fascist, I'd pick Kerry. But the game is silly. No fascist threat in 2004.

^^^^^^

CB: No extreme fascist threat in Germany in 1932 either. The Nazis didn't become the world infamous NAZIS until several years later. By that time, it was too late.

People are not silly for being scared of Bush for nothing. The enormous fear of Bush on the Left is _not_ silly. So, if Kerry is worse than Bush, we should be more scared.

Downplaying the danger of Bush in order to fight the Pop front line is politically irresponsible and a failure to uphold the legacy of our German comrades who would want us to be "prematurely" anti-fascist, not to mention the legacy of U.S. Communists repressed in McCarthyism, and Black liberationists repressed in Jim Crow, Indigenous liberationists repressed continually for 500 years.

And, so, in conclusion, that's why I am critical of biz ethics :>)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list