On Fascism

Post #29,074 by mmoffitt 2/20/02 12:31:31 PM Reply	On Fascism Below is a clipping from something Leon Trotsky wrote. I've read some Trotsky, but hadn't seen this before. The last paragraph presented here makes me wonder if a fascist state is the natural outcome of the American Experiment. Trotsky seems to suggest that possibility here. Personally, I recognize that I may have been using the word "fascist" too freely. How to classify the current state of affairs? "Plutocracy with increasing fascist support" or simply "neo-fascist", neo- in the sense that unlike historical fascist regimes, the leaders do not come up from the bottom, but are instead born into the monied class? Although there are exceptions to the "born in the monied class" rule - Bill Clinton, for instance. Dunno for sure. I did find this interesting and hope that some one else does too. bcnu, Mikem =================================================== FASCISM -- WHAT IS IT? Extracts from a letter to an English comrade, November 15 1931; printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932 * * * What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior to the advent of fascism in Italy)? The former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923-30, is called a fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that it is incorrect. The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement. Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera. The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement. The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism.... It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed....
Post #29,077 by Brandioch 2/20/02 12:59:25 PM Reply	Once again, I'll disagree with him. Suppose Hitler had settled for Europe and made peace with England and Russia? Which resulted in the Reich ruriving for 50 more years or so. The new leaders would be picked from the current elite (historical evidence would suggest this is so). So, what had started as a Fascist state would, just because of the social status of the new leaders, become something else. I find that a bit odd. I'd also say that our current state is in flux. We're still, pretty much, a democratic republic. But we're adopting more and more totalitarian aspects. I guess we could become a totallitarian plutocracy. Something similar to Russian Communism (the government owns the businesses) but approached from the opposite side (the people who own the businesses own the government). But it looks more like Fascism to me. I guess the question will be decided based upon what laws are passed. Will we further regulate business so another Enron is not possible? Will we further invade people's private lives to "protect" them? Will we regulate government so that influence cannot be bought?
Post #29,081 by boxley 2/20/02 1:14:31 PM Reply	interesting but disagree facism (whoever holds the feces^H^H^Haces) sheaves of grain ala the old Roman Empire, is simply the rule of man by man as opposed to the rule of law by man. The degeneration of the monarchaic systems led to concentration of power to the moneyed class which was diluted by the concept created by the industrial revolution that a common man can advance to the moneyed class by hardwork, invention and chicanery. Migrations of people from the rural to the industrial caused by the collapse of the noblesse oblige system of peerdom created a dynamic marketplace for labor. Usually to the detriment of the workers. This infux expanded the criminal class, the beggar class which further strained the pockets of the monied. A form of government that would balance the needs of these groups became needed. This balance was maintained by force in most cases and not at all fair. Rule of Law which in America we claim to follow, lays out our constitution which the government MUST abide by or risk its existence. The constitution has been frayed pulled and torn both left and right but still stands, and will stand as long as we the american people have faith, a willingness to work towards change and a willingness to suffer in its cause. MLK is a good example, Abby Hoffman another, G.Gordon Liddy is a great example because what he was doing was extra constitutional and he knew it and was willing to pay the cost, unlike the rat bastard Deane. The rule of law has been beaten up by BillC and now George II is doing it. Have faith, practice your shooting skills and pick your fights juidiciously. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,142 by Ashton 2/20/02 9:51:50 PM Reply	Another way to view the present trends It may be different next.. that is; historically, some event is triggered by a buildup of pressure. Usually a string of 'unjust' actions which make daily life more and more unbearable. A spark catalyzes some spasm action - mobs with torches, etc. Russia - the massacre near the Winter Palace IIRC, was merely the last straw. Already existing were underground revolutionaries, ready to exploit the deed. Germany - the Draconian WW-I terms made it impossible for the Weimar Republic to function.. increasing hopelessness. Hitler's relatively mild incarceration terms following the Beerhall Putsch - indicated a certain tolerance (?) for the general frustrations all felt. Etc. But organization has never been so complete, communication never so instantaneous as in recent decades. The power of the (US) state is such that - mobs with torches (or guns) are hardly even a factor. Corporate has already achieved massive control of government via all the means now familiar. What is new is - the overtness of their 'purchase' and the massive new web of 'strings' in the form of reelection funds for - most of the legislators. No 'revolution' seems remotely plausible. Or necessary to complete the transition to: a mere illusion of 'participatory democracy'. I believe that the Corporate "24/7" mentality; the new mergers extinguishing all but a few massive chains - from food to media to ___ have produced a degree of homogenization not seen in the world before. Corporations owe no allegiance to originating Country (nor give more than lip-service to any idea that they do). The hegemony of arbitrary 'Corporate Rules' has created the necessity now, for both parents to work to achieve a living standard which 25 years ago needed only one worker - and may well have come about through design IMhO. Much easier to control those who possess no free time, thus no energy either. However it came about: clearly circuses & games, celebrity newsfotainment and other shallow diversions - are the main pastimes after 'work'. Fewer and fewer children are supervised after school - preschoolers are 'raised' by often inept and disinterested surrogates. All these factors make 'revolution' - the Constitutionally prescribed! remedy for a bogus government - highly unlikely to occur. Just possibly.. a few more massive Faux Pas of the Enron ilk, may derail the consolidation of power within the 3-5% (?). That is a matter of sheer chance. The trend of the gap between the very very rich and the rest is evident - it is widening. So without happy accident, I see us morphing towards Dystopia, mesmerized via all the new toys, things to buy - as keep the majority in thrall (on credit! no less) indefinitely. Academic whether to call the next result Fascism. But with leaders like Dubya - of evidently limited imagination; cohorts like Ashcroft - of evidently Fundamentalist bent - I think all we can count on is.. more inane slogans and little cerebral self-help towards the restoration of ~ some semblance of 'self-government'... Let us prey.. Ashton
Post #29,436 by mhuber 2/22/02 5:12:34 PM Reply	The problem is that revolution is always inevitable No state has the power to prevent revolution. Historicaly, over-powered states tend to fall the fastest. State power can't prevent the shit from hitting the fan. All it can do is hold it back so the quantity is larger. Compare the fates of the last Communist leaders of Romania and East Germany. That's what makes elections important. They provide a mechanism for relatively cheap (as opposed to the expenses involved in civil wars and coups) controlled revolutions. They absorb the revolutionary energy. The Constitution provides something like slippery geology - the earthquakes are rarely large. But when elections become meaningless exercises, the geology gets brittle - the earthquakes get harsh. Without the regular release of a meaningful election, the revolutionary energy builds to dangerous levels. Worse yet, the more that is involved in the power structure, the more that gets broken in an uncontrolled revolution. In the wave of anti-monarchy revolutions two hundred years ago, the over-involved religions took serious hits. Catholicism has yet to fully recover. Protestantism, which wasn't quite so tied to the old power structures, was less damaged. And politicaly marginal religions (Quakers, for example) were unaffected. Everything tightly involved in the power structure goes up against the wall. Consider the consequences for the economy when the major economic players go there - look at Russia. Doesn't matter whether the state owns the means of production or the means of production own the state. When they are a single unit and that unit breaks, it just ain't pretty. Unfortunately, I see the pressure building. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #29,451 by Ashton 2/22/02 8:42:00 PM Reply	Ummm yes, especially to that last. I kinda like the Tectonic Plate theory too :-) seems an apt metaphor for the measure of mob energy in ergs/cm\ufffd of wetware. As you say, the loss of the mercantile sector, no doubt abetted by other interested parties, whom we have rolled-over with nary a 'by your leave' - that wreckage won't care which part ruled, the Suits or the Unwashed (?) Don't forget the nukes though. I deem that we'd be pretty Sore Looosers: of $ or any other form of Power. We'd use those nukes - or threaten with obvious next intent - rather than become #2 to any other brand of homo-sap. Our hubris knows no bounds and we have a great gift for euphemizing our every Imperialist action. As HAL said, I feel it... I feel it... Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!