From: Jon Johanning
Sorry if I appeared to be getting ad hominem, but I just wanted to point out that folks who try to suggest some sort of resemblance between Weimar Germany and the U.S. in the early 21st century (the more you push them, the less of a resemblance they are usually willing to claim) don't seem to me to have a very vivid mental picture of what Weimar Germany is really like -- the great differences between that society and political system and ours. The resemblances claimed are usually pretty superficial.
^^^^^^ CB: Myself , I don't rely on resemblances with the Weimar Republic as a critical fact in anticipating whether the U.S. might shift to greater fascism. BUT similarities and differences depend on what larger context one is discussing. For example, the Weimar Republic was and the U.S. is imperialist , finance and state-monopoly capitalist, with gigantic military machines. These are not superficial similarities in judging whether the U.S. has potential for fascism. In part, it depends on what one's theory of history, society and fascism is.
The other thing I haven't heard a reply from you on was that Italy was a fascist country too. So, when I say "fascist" , I don't have to show that it is like Nazi Germany of 1938.
Essentially, at the time of the Weimar Republic, the U.S. _was_ fascist in that it had Jim Crow and Indian Reservations. That certainly was equivalent tyranny to Fascist Italy
^^^^^
(BTW, if the KPD and SPD had as much support as the Nazis -- actually, when the Nazis started out they had much more popular support, since the Nazis were only a handful -- what is your explanation for the fact that they were eclipsed in a few short years by the Nazis, and ultimately crushed by them?)
^^^^ CB: My understanding is that in the 1932 election, it was approximately one-third of the vote for all three. Is that accurate ?
My explanation is that the Nazis cheated :>) They used fascist methods. Fascism was a new thing, to some extent, so the CP and SD were not anticipating the level of thuggery. I'm not sure.
^^^^^^^^
> Whatever fascism is the current situation in the U.S. is not enough
> different from previous historical bourgeois tyrannies, whether
> fascism or
> Bonapartism or Jim Crow to say there is no threat of "fascism".
What I want to assert is that this is a very sloppy way of using the term "fascism," which in the interests of clear speaking and thinking should be used to refer only to the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and movements which are very similar to them. Such movements (neo-Nazis, etc.) do exist today in the U.S., but only miniscule ones of scattered loonies, and I don't see any likelihood that they will grow the way the German Nazis did.
^^^^^^
CB: Well, of course I am emphatically disagreeing and rejecting your characterization of "sloppy". From what I can tell my usage is the most precise in this discussion. I haven't seen a definition of "fascist" from you or any of the other discussants. I have given a definition. So, prima facie, my usage is more, not less, precise than yours. To be not sloppy, you have to give a definition of the term, and you haven't done that.
Your comment is begging the question. What you state is your position on exactly what is in dispute. That is known as begging the question.
Furthermore, historical fascism would have failed if it had only been a bunch of fringe loonies. Fascism is the open terrorist rule of the most reactionary, chauvinist, etc. sector of finance capital, not of fringe loon groups. The Nazis were the agents of German big biz's rightwing.
> The Left has a responsibility to carry out anti-fascist agitation in a
> "secular" way in the economists' sense ( I just learned a new word).
> That is
> we should do it continuously. Always pointing to trends and changes
> that are
> in a fascistic direction, such as the stealing of the Presidential
> election.
> It is not the Left's task to tone down the anti-fascist rhetoric
> because
> some ultra-leftists have from time to time called out "fascist pigs"
> when it
> wasn't technically correct, tone down in embarrassment because it
> offends
> parlor radical sensibilities or whatever.
>
> Reds are continuous and vocal vigilantes against all fascist
> tendencies,
> from the KKK to the Reaganite presidencies.
Of course there are should certainly be continually active in defending and improving the democratic aspects of our society, but misapplying terms like "fascism" doesn't seem to me to be a very effective way of doing it. This is particularly a vice of ML parties, whose vocabularies and conceptual apparatus seem to have been set in concrete around 1930.
^^^^ CB: Again, this is what is in dispute. My position is I know the proper application of the term "fascist". MLs have had a scientific and precise usage of "fascist" since the 1930's.
It is the non-ML's who have a loose usage of "fascist" , and who are irresponsible and opportunist in failing to correctly name the U.S.tendencies. The sloppiness is with those who refuse to use the term "fascist" , in general.
In other words, the problem is the opposite of what you say. The liberals are asleep at the switch.
^^^^^^
To me, the way to understand what is happening in 2004 U.S. society best is to put our efforts into studying the here and now, not poking around in the past for presumed "resemblances." My political guru at the moment is Thomas Frank (_What's the Matter With Kansas?_), who has produced what I think is the most insightful analysis of what we have to deal with that I have seen in a long time. What he describes is quite dangerous and difficult to cope with enough, but no reasonable definition of "fascism" I know of describes it. Using that term in a sloppy way just confuses and misdirects us, I think.
^^^^ CB: Past is prologue. You can't understand the present except in historical context. "Presentism", trying to understand the here and now in terms of only the here and now, is one of the most grievous faults of the American intellectual character. The capitalist promote exactly what you are saying - historical amnesia - because it is much easier to rule people who have no historical memory.
So, what we should be about is bringing lots of history to bear on the present situation.
What's that pop warning ? Those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it.