[lbo-talk] anti-fascist agitation

[Jon Johanning]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 10:24 AM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:

> Anyone who believes that fascism cannot happen here is fooling himself
> (or herself).  It can happen anywhere, especially here - see for 
> example
> Richard Rubenstein, _The cunning of history: the holocaust and the
> American future_.  The argument there is that every nation has a
> potential of becoming fascist, all it takes is the government willing 
> to
> go that road and a small band of zealots willing to follow.

You and others keep repeating the cliche "It can happen here!" -- as 
though I were claiming that very bad things cannot happen in the great 
USA. For the record (I wish I didn't have to say this -- it should be 
obvious), I *do* believe that very bad things can happen in these 
United States, and they *have* happened. They are happening now, under 
the Bush administration that a lot of LBO'ers seem very sanguine about 
seeing continue, and they will happen in the future. I even jogged 
Charles' memory on the interning of Japanese-Americans, which he forgot 
to put into his list of American very bad things.

What I maintain is that the term "fascism" should be restricted in its 
usage. It should have a more specific meaning than just "very bad 
things done by a government," which is what a lot of lefties seem to 
think it means. Otherwise, we run the risk of not seeing what is 
actually happening.

Some people, I guess, think it is tactically effective to throw the 
term around almost indiscriminately. I don't believe that, because I 
believe that thinking people appreciate the accurate use of 
terminology. But perhaps it's more important to wow the non-thinking 
people with highly loaded terms like "fascism."

Furthermore, the difference in constitutional systems between the U.S. 
and Weimar Germany is not just a "legal technicality," I think. The 
Weimar constitution was clearly set up to deal with a country that had 
been formally unified only a few decades before, so that it was riddled 
with suspicions and antagonisms between segments of the electorate. So 
it was designed to go straight to authoritarian rule as soon as there 
was a crisis which produced a strain on whatever power arrangements the 
laundry list of parties managed to cobble together. The world 
depression at the beginning of the 30s was the final straw that tipped 
the system into the authoritarian mode, which was ready-made for 
Hitler's manipulations.

The U.S. constitutional system, which many radical leftists deplore as 
a "perpetual government of unity," was set up to discourage this kind 
of political splintering (what the 18th century leaders called 
"factions") as much as possible, and while it does frustrate would-be 
third-party enthusiasts no end, it does tend to work against the kind 
of process that played out in Germany.

Rather than the image of a small trickle gradually building into a 
roaring stream which people who fear Weimar Germany replaying in 21st 
century U.S., what we have is a situation in which the radical 
Christian (mostly) right has acquired a great influence in the GOP, but 
not total control (as this week's convention is showing). I think that 
the fact that the electorate is divided almost exactly in half on the 
presidential race, just as it was 4 years ago, suggests that this is 
about as far as the far right can get -- it has already shot its wad, 
very differently from the process by which the Nazis gradually built up 
strength.

As for whether the U.S. capitalist class is getting ready to unleash a 
fascist movement, I think Ulhas is basically right:

> I don't know what the US business would gain by fascism that it 
> wouldn't
> able to obtain by usual liberal democratic process. Fascism is usually 
> a
> very high risk political option.

I also think Chip is also essentially right:

> The flawed definition of fascism put out by the Comintern led to the
> decision by German communists to pursue a narrow united front rather
> than a broad popular front, which in turn split a left/liberal 
> alliance.
> This was disasterous, no matter how often Charles Brown invokes the
> lousy Comintern definition or attempts to rewrite history.
>
> At the same time, voters in middle class conservative parties grew
> frustrated with the regime in power, and in large numbers cast votes 
> for
> Hitler and his party in an attempt to shake things up. This backfired,
> and allow power to be handed to Hitler by the elites who feared a
> left/worker revolt.
>
> Finally, early on some left/worker activists joined with the national
> socialists to smash the regime in power, in part because they embraced 
> a
> conspiracy view of history that also scapegoated Jews.

Of course, the Marxist-Leninist line, expounded by Charles, is that the 
KPD were only "tragic heros" who made no mistakes, but were only 
victims of circumstances. And of course he accuses me of 
"anti-communism." "Anti-Marxist-Leninism," yes -- I certainly don't buy 
the ML line on this or any other subject. I do think that Marx himself 
does have some very penetrating things to say on capitalism, which 
could be very illuminating about our present situation if they were 
applied the right way. I don't think the typical ML way of handling 
Marx is the right way to do it. But that's another whole subject for 
argument.


Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
__________________________________
When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit,
'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet;
Nor ever ever shall, until that I die,
For the longer I live the more fool am I.
-- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)