Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 12:41:52 -0800
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: buchanan, labor party


BUCHANAN

   According to an article in the local paper:

   "A national co-chairman of Buchanan's campaign
attended a banquet last month that honored people
convicted of killing abortion doctors and bombing
clinics.
   "Michael Farris, one of Buchanan's four campaign
co-chairmen, attended the White Rose Banquet in
Arlington, Va. The banquet was held Jan. 21 as a
tribute to 'Prisoners of Christ'."

   Being against abortion is reactionary, but
supporting the killing of abortion providers is
part of the fascist approach to politics.

   Then Louis posed some important questions regarding
the estimation of Buchanan as a fascist:

>What is your evaluation of George Wallace? Was George Wallace a fascist? 
>What about Joe McCarthy? What about Oliver North when he ran for Congress 
>in Virginia? What about the Democratic Party for an entire historical 
>epoch in the south when politicians routinely drew upon open support from 
>the Ku Klux Klan.

   I don't believe George Wallace was a fascist. Oliver North
might be. Wallace belongs to an earlier period. All he did
was to defend the status quo. I don't know enough about
North.
   The fascist character of Buchanan's career is not only a
question of his own demagogy and associations, though these
are decisive, but also has something to do with the period
we are in.
   As I said, we don't face fascism in the immediate future,
but the political contradictions we are experiencing now
are propitious for the formation of nascent fascist currents.
We are in a period of transition from more-or-less stable
bourgeois-democratic rule to a period of intensified class
struggles and turmoil within the bourgeois electoral and
party-political set-up. Perot's campaign was a symptom of
this.
   Joe McCarthy was a fascist. And here again, it had something
to do with the political climate in the early 1950s. Of course,
the bourgeoisie didn't need fascism in 1952, and they don't need
it now in 1996 either. But the situation in 1952, with the
witch-hunt in full swing, was ripe for the emergence of leaders
who incarnated the germ of fascism within the anti-working class
political movement being carried out by the Democrats and
Republicans. McCarthy managed to establish a certain independence
from the bourgeois political system, even though he was an
elected Senator. He carried the witch-hunt way beyond what
was appropriate for the interests of the bourgeoisie at the
time, and was sacked for it.
   Capitalism breeds fascism at moments of crisis in the
democratic form of bourgeois class rule. Whether the buds
of fascism ever bloom depends on the evolution of the crisis,
which in the last analysis depends on the class relationship
of forces.

   Louis then asks:
   
>Is the Ku Klux Klan fascist?
>Are the militias fascist? Sally Ryan has been studying this phenomenon in 
>depth for months and questions this assertion. What evidence do you have 
>to the contrary?

   The KKK has been in existence since 1865, and during most of
that period has not been fascist. Its existence as a terrorist
organization to enforce Jim Crow and to oppose civil rights
for Blacks reflects not fascism, but the incomplete development
of democracy in the U.S. However, at times of crisis, the KKK can
provide a source of recruits for fascist movements. The various
KKK organizations form part of the ultraright milieu out of which
fascist cadres are recruited and a fascist movement will be built.
Ditto for the militias, which are new. The fact that the militias
have appeared and spread so rapidly in the recent past is another
symptom of the crisis of bourgeois-democratic rule. (And the
militias are only one form. You have the Christian identity
movement, the white power groups, skinheads, anti-abortion
activists, private land use groups, etc.)
   There is not yet a definitive fascist party or mass movement
in the U.S. today. But the elements that go into forming such a
movement are proliferating. Buchanan's campaign is part of this.
This could not be happening if there were not a profound crisis
of confidence in the present bourgeois regime. Masses of workers
and middle-class people are increasingly alienated from the
Democrats and Republicans. As yet the working class does not pose
a political alternative. So most of the political initiatives
occur within the framework of bourgeois nationalist perspectives. 

   Louis points to the contrasts that exist between Germany in the
1920s and the US (or Europe) today. These points are well-taken,
since they show how far we have yet to go before we face the
threat of a well-organized mass fascist movement. But it is 
necessary to recognize what exists today as a threat which will
grow in the future. We are in a period of transition.

   Rakesh then posted a related argument:
   
>but Jim, what makes Buchanan more dangerous than Alexander, Forbes, Dole
>and Clinton?  Perhaps Buchanan supports a different form of capitalism than
>the global technocratic capitalism promulgated by the others; an inferior
>"mercantalist", "America first" strategy for world market domination
>compared to the technocratic "national competitiveness" policies supported
>by the more respectable candidates: 

   I think we would be mistaken to think that Buchanan is only
campaigning to change the trade policy of the U.S. government,
or to push domestic politics to the right. His protectionist
demagogy is designed to appeal to workers and the middle class.
He orients them to seek salvation in a "strong America." Buchanan
is positioning himself to organize a mass chauvinist movement
similar to that organized by Hitler. He is preparing the ground
for a break from "establishment" politics, and the formation
of a movement that relies on terror to smash labor and democratic
rights. That's why he talks the way he does on this and the other
issues.
   But if (by some fluke) he gets elected he would be forced,
by the position he finds himself in, to abandon the fascist
perspective, and govern within the constraints of bourgeois
democracy.

   Rakesh then adds:

>On the whole, however, Buchanan certainly is a brown shirt, but he is
>probably the least effective  imperialist of the bunch.  For this reason,
>he will lose.  Though Buchanan may think he is Teddy Roosevelt, he speaks
>maniacally and carries no stick.  
>In short, if Buchanan is characterized as uniquely fascist, then doesn't
>that lead us to support imperialist politicians as 'lesser evils'?  

   Buchanan appears weak at this point because most of the
other bourgeois politicians and candidates have rejected
him or denounced him. It's true, however, that they haven't
hit him too hard because they don't want to alienate his
constituency from themselves. They sense that his orientation
is not good for the bourgeoisie right now. Too disruptive.
But Buchanan doesn't care. He's got his eyes on the turbulent
future. He thinks his day will come.
   The suggestion of the possibility that we might need to
support other bourgeois candidates as "lesser evils" assumes
that the danger consists in Buchanan getting elected. No.
The danger to labor and to democratic rights is the growth
of fascism. But as I indicated above, this danger is not
an immediate one. But, given the contradictions of the
present crisis of capitalism, the threat of fascism will
grow, not recede.
   If Buchanan were elected president in 1996, he would be
no more dangerous than Clinton in the same post. And that's
dangerous enough, but not the same kind of danger.
   The most dangerous thing is for labor and progressive
activists to think that salvation lies in this or that
bourgeois politician. The working class is the bearer of
culture and the hope for the future. It is my firm conviction
that the workers will radicalize, organize politically and
stave off the threat of fascism as they struggle towards
power.

THE LABOR PARTY

   Then Jon Flanders posts the following argument:

> How would you see a labor party emerging? Do you think that Sweeney is going
>to wake up some day, slap his forehead, and say "Gosh, why didn't I think of
>that? Let's do it!"
>
> The split you are talking about is starting to happen now, with the LPA. Of
>course it only involves a few officials. How could it be otherwise? Do you
>think there will be a labor party without a split?
>
> And the union leaders that there are, are trying desperately to have it both
>ways, to avoid alienating the Sweeney's and Trumkas. The fact remains however,
>that there is going to be a convention this year, and a lot of things will
>probably happen there that the labor officials won't like. Do you think that
>the Republican leadership likes what they see going on in their primaries?
>
> There are no guarantees that this thing is going to take off, but I think
>that generally speaking, the political situation is very favorable. When I
>read in the Militant that we are well along the road to fascism and war, I
>have a hard time understanding why the SWP has a problem with the conditions.
>The only rationale that comes to mind might be that the somehow things are so
>bad that we are going to skip any messing around with a labor party and
>proceed directly to the sudden emergence of a mass communist party. Is this
>what you think?

   I look forward with interest to see what will emerge from
the Labor Party Advocates convention in June in Cleveland.
   I don't think the political situation is favorable now
for the launching of a labor party. If it were favorable,
there would be more impetus within the labor movement for it.
   I don't think a labor party can be successfully organized
without the participation of major elements of the elected
officials, and they won't do it until they're forced to.
I think it's clear that right now they don't feel much
pressure to do it.
   What seems to be happening is that some progressive and
radical groups within the labor movement have gotten
impatient and want to launch a labor party now. But if
they do, it will most likely fizzle. There's just not
enough political ferment to make it work.
   When we analyze the capitalist crisis we are experiencing
now, we should avoid making any unwarranted conclusions
about the degree of political class consciousness reached
by the workers. They have a ways to go yet. We should keep
our eyes open for objective signs of a change in the mood,
combativity and political activity of workers.
   As far as the last question is concerned, I think it is
quite likely that a labor party will emerge when the time
is right for it. That may be within a few years, but it's
not useful to try to put a timetable on it.

Jim Miller
Seattle 


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

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