From: Jonupstny-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:31:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Bourgeois politics and fascism


In a message dated 96-02-15 09:11:17 EST, you write:

>
>Pat Buchanan said yesterday to 250 reporters, "New Hampshire, like every 
>other part of American, feels that sense of economic security, economic 
>stress. They are suffering, too, from wages that seem to go down as the 
>Dow Jones hits 5000."
>
>Some l*st members interpret such rhetoric as "fascist"(Louis P)

   I agree that the specific rhetoric cited is not"fascism."  Workerist
demagogic anti-capitalist rhetoric has always been a hallmark of fascism
however. I think most would agree on that.

   There has been some good discussion here on Buchanan. I generally agree
with Louis P's take on him.He is too much of a bourgeois insider to be a
Hitler. There are people out there, however, like the anti-abortion
terrorists and some militia's who will organize under his umbrella. I would
like to know more about his relationship with them. In the latest issue of
The Militant, the SWP USA's paper, there is an assertion that Buchanan is
organizing a "cadre." No evidence is cited in the article that Buchanan has
such an ongoing organization.

   I know Louis will say this is evidence that the SWP looks at everything
thru 30's eyeglasses, and in this case I am inclined to agree with him. I
really am curious though about how Buchanan does relate organizationally to
other rightist groups. Has anyone seen empirical data on this?

   This is no abstract question for me. For the first time,  a real
discussion erupted on the job over the elections. In our lunchroom, there is
a "head table" where a group of electricians sit every day. One of them, who
has learned to be wary about my political interventions, started to discuss
his support for Buchanan in a low voice with the others. This guy is a former
local president of the IBEW  in the shop.

   I jumped on him and we were off. All the big stuff came up, immigration,
abortion, racism, jobs etc. His trump card was of course that I had no
candidate. This right now is true. The LPA won't run anyone this year and I
don't know if the SWP will. To me, this lack of a challenge to bourgeois
politics in the electoral arena by marxists is one of our greatest weaknesses
right now.

  Despite that, it was a terrific discussion. It is clear to me that white
working class people are choosing to ignore or downplay Buchanan's social
agenda. No other candidate is speaking so directly to economic fears and
dislocations. What a shameful indictment of the labor leadership's craven
endorsement of Clinton!

   I am enjoying the give and take on this l*st. I do wish however that the
civility meter would rise a bit. The word "s..t" doesn't clarify much for me.
I know Carlos has every right to feel strongly about Shining Path. The thing
is, I worked as a bus driver once, in a battle to organize a union shop side
by side with Maoist's who supported Pol Pot. They were personally very fine,
idealistic people who had happened to be attracted to 
one of the pro-Mao groups of the seventies. We had many a go-round about
Cambodia.

  We also won the battle for the union. If I had refused to work with them
over their mistaken views, this might not have happened. We need a sense of
proportion, considering we are not on the scene in Peru or Cambodia. My
Maoist friends group disbanded in due course as the history moved on. That
bus drivers union is still there, the last I knew.

   Oh, and Louis P, you have earned your right to be sour on Trotskyists, but
I will personally put in a plea for some "small-minded" consistency. I think
this l*st is very important for the future of socialism.  I know some
people's views are fixed in stone, but I am hopeful that this kind of
discussion will lead to some movement forward in the long run.

Best, Jon Flanders




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------