--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm open to the idea that there may be fundamental
> differences in the
> strategies one might employ to fight creeping
> fascism rather than US
> style authoritarianism but I've never seen anyone
> explain the how and/or
> why of those differences.
> Without articulating those differences, and
> explaining them in a
> convincing manner, the idea that there is an actual
> threat in
> mislabeling US authoritarianism as fascism rings
> hollow.
[WS:] Perhaps the most importnat difference is that under the US system one can legally organize an autonomous political party that represents labor interests - but that is not possible under fascism. In fact, the rise of Euro fascism was a direct reaction of the property owning classes to the rise of organized labour and its political parties.
That fundamental difference also implies different strategies. While fighting Euro-fascism required basically a military response from non-fascist states (anything short of it was bound to fail, as demonstrated by the Spanish Civil War), fighting US laissez faire plutocracy can be effectively accomplished by organizing an autonomous labor party - just the way it was done at the turn of the century in Europe.
The fact that such a party has not yet been organized in the US is a result of two factors. One is a fatal strategic mistake of the Gompers-style trade unionism, which opted for the wage cartel model that benefited only unionized workers instead of organizing political representation of all workers, as Euro labor movement did. AFIK, this issue has been extensively discussed on this forum in connection with Robert Fitch's book "Solidarity for Sale."
The second factor was the social and political fragmentation of the US society, especially racial, ethnic and gender conflicts, coupled with federal land use policies that offered an "exit" option in the form of land settlements (initially) and suburbanization (later) for the working class, instead of stabndingh the ground to the capital and organizing.
However, the fact that such a party has not been organized in the US does not necessarily mean that it cannot be organized. I am not sure if the US unions can be very instrumental in this task - I think they are too deeply embedded in the Gomperist model - but there is enough progressive forces in this country to start working in this direction.
The trick, however, is to work at the local and state level and forget the federal government and its electoral farce for a while. I think it is quite possible to organize a labor/progressive party in several states (NY, MA, PA, MD?, CA? OH? ?) capable of gaining enough seats in state legislatures to challenege the demo-repug duopoly on the singularly most important issue - proportional representation. Once the PR is adopted in several states, other states may follow, and that will open the door to political representation of minority interests. This, in turn will open the door to politics for the left, which at the moment is excluded from politics altogether.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ