I read him as saying that fascism "has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie...and even certain sections...of the proletariat." Further, he says that fascism is successful because it plays on anti-capitalist sentiments. I read Dimitrov as saying that at certain points in the the development of cpaitalism, some capitalists have needs and some p.b. and w.c. people have needs and form a multi-class alliance or a fascist party. Like all multi-party alliances the capitalists have the upperhand, but this does not mean that people on the bottom have no role.
Point of clarification: Is the view you are supporting suggesting that fascist movements that rise to dominant status have no connection to sections of the capitalist class?
Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net
Chip Berlet wrote:
>Marxist discussions of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s actually included
>a number of complex analyses that considered the cross-class
>contradictions and autonomous populist base of fascism.
>This is discussed by Dave Renton in:
>
>"Towards a Marxist Theory of Fascism"
>http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/old/old3.html
>
>See, for example, these quotes from Renton:
>
>==="If fascism is a movement shaped at one and the same time by mass
>support and by reactionary goals; then there is an antagonism at the
>heart of the movement. This contradiction explains the 'Bonapartist'
>aspect of fascism. In so far as fascism is a mass movement, it promises
>to rule against the interests of capitalism. In so far as fascism is a
>reactionary movement, it does rule against the interests of the class
>that provided the bulk of the fascist party's members"
>
>"Towards a Marxist Theory of Fascism"
>http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/old/old3.html
>
>
>==="The moment when fascist parties have been at their most vulnerable
>was at the start of the second stage, just as they became mass
>movements. They were then most dependent on popular support. They made
>then the most dramatic promises to their followers, with the least
>expectation of fulfilling them. At this point, we may speak of a
>'fascist contradiction'. For although the fascist programme offered
>nothing to anyone but the existing rulers, the fascist party was an
>organisation of plebeians. Fascism could not be simply a capitalist
>movement. There were not enough rich businessmen to wage a successful
>war against the workers, alone.
>The national and local leadership of both fascist of the classical
>parties was composed of shopkeepers, civil servants, the owners of small
>businessmen, merchants and traders, the 'petty bourgeoisie'. While these
>men dominated the local branches, the mass membership of the party
>included large numbers of unemployed workers. Indeed, it was the mass
>base of fascism, its popular support, which provided the movement with
>its destructive energy. Fascism took the anger of ordinary people, not
>the rich, and turned this force against democracy itself."
>
>"The political economy of fascism"
>http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm
_________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/