Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:16:31 +0100 From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: M-I: Fascism and social fascism I have only been able to skim the archives after an absence, but my main impression is despite the sharpness of some of the contradictions, the trend towards ever more serious, committed and honest contributions. I don't share Robert Malecki's glee about the way the conflicts have developed on the LeninList, even though I mistrusted the timing of how it was set up, and of course as I am not a Leninist, expected any application from me to join would in turn be treated with mistrust, and was not appropriate. Nevertheless the LeninList feels like closely adjacent space. It is not difficult to argue that Lenin was the most influential Marxist of the 20th century. His record, and the tradition he contributed to so powerfully, and which evolved subsequently, in one way or other is bound to be a recurring theme of any wider forum, such as marxism-international. It is normal for lists to have a struggle for influence if not of domination. The question is how that is handled and whether it clarifies the important issues and produces something bigger than each contributor could manage on their own. In my experience it is almost always better to try to go to the underlying contradictions, and regard particular posters as representing a stand which needs to be clarified. One theoretical question - of enormous practical political importance - that comes to my mind on skimming the polemic, is the difference and the overlap between fascism and social fascism. Jim Hillier appears to have drawn a line in the sand, and regard the word fascist applied to Cuba as a term of abuse and out of order. But it does not appear to be the main point being argued by his protagonist, which is that Cuba is revisionist. That it is also fascist, from this point of view, is almost a corollary. Some pressure could be applied to ask what does it mean to say such a country is fascist? Clearly the context and the origins are different from the rise of fascism in countries like Italy and Germany. At what point do arbitrary, unlawful and repressive errors by a would be socialist state become overt fascism? The ANC and SWAPO undoubtedly tortured some prisoners. In an open marxist forum had the internet been operational at the time, someone or other would have called them fascist. I am not saying that the ANC and SWAPO must be taken to be socialist organisations but that a criticism of fascism, may be wrong, may be right, may be short sighted or maybe well worked out, but complications could occur if the statement of the idea is ruled out in principle. I am reminded of the news a few months ago that Paul Cockshott had been suspended from the LeninList because he had allegedly called the IRA fascist. To his credit, Jim Hillier defended that decision on marxism-international, and although if I recall correctly, his first reaction was that I was interested in it only for liberal reasons, the exchange, widened into a debate in which major differences of principle remained, but was also very instructive. In the course of that I felt Jim argued and pointed to evidence that I found convincing that the Republican actions had a strong democratic basis to them. However I can also believe that there were at the very least excesses which were arbitrary and undemocratic. More important Paul Cockshott had a wider argument that the historical development of nationalism in Ireland took a particular form that made it impossible to resolve in the context of a national liberation movement. It may be wrong, and the moderators of any list are entitled to say it should not be expressed, but I would be surprised if there was total unanimity that such a view is unmarxist by definition. I wonder therefore whether Jim is coming from a position where he thinks that there is a basic set of standards among real revolutionaries that you do not insult well established revolutionary movements as fascist. Or whether he is critising the style of polemic rather than its content in principle. Or whether there is bound to be a contradiction among a group of people committed to Leninism, between those who follow a strong anti-revisionist line, and those who uphold the "socialist camp", with all its imperfections, and who regard its exploration of the market as unfortunate but not a line of demarcation between revisionism and Leninism. There are of course others who regard Lenin's late article, "On Co-operation" as pointing to the existence of a mixed economy over a significant period of time. Whatever various individuals do, and however well or unwisely they argue their case, I think some of these fundamental political questions, including the issue of fascist possibilities under socialism, cannot in principle be excluded from the wider marxism-space. Chris Burford --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005