Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:05:03 -0800 (PST)
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: fascism


FASCISM AND DEMOCRACY

   Hugh Rodwell writes:

>In free market capitalism, with direct private ownership and many capitals
>in competition, the classical bourgeois republic is the obvious solution to
>the political problem. Today, with a market highly controlled and regulated
>by the monopolies and their political representatives, with very few
>capitals in competition, with production socialized to an incredible degree
>(no wonder Lenin referred to imperialism as capitalism pregnant with
>socialism!) - with all these conditions, the relevance of classical
>bourgeois democracy to the needs of the mode of production is withering
>away.

   This loses sight of why bourgeois democracy was needed
in the past and why it is still preferable to the capitalist
class today: it is the best and cheapest means of keeping
the lower orders in check. Were it not for the recurring
crises of capitalism, and the class struggles these provoke,
there would be no need for democracy under the regime of
capital. The "mode of production" in itself has no need
of democracy. It is only the capitalist class, in its
efforts to provide a secure social foundation for the
exploitation of the workers, that requires the blessings
of political democracy.
   The problem is that when the crisis reaches a certain
point the democratic charade appears agonizingly false and
hypocritical to masses of people. This is because the usual
parliamentary rigamarole provides no answers to their
pressing material problems. Fascist and socialist movements
then tend to emerge.
   The bourgeoisie does not want this. It would prefer to
manage peacefully, raking in their ill-gotten gains with
no fuss and no muss. But the situation evolves beyond their
control. They are then faced with some hard choices. In
order to protect their class rule, they call upon the aid
of the hardened anti-worker thugs to rule.
   We haven't gotten anywhere near that stage in the class
struggle yet. But right now, the crisis, together with the
anti-labor offensive of the bosses and the resistance of
the workers, is provoking the emergence of fascist, or
pre-fascist, formations in the US and other countries.

   Then Hugh recounts the experiences of the 1920s and 1930s
in Europe, the vast middle-class shift to the right in the
absence of effective proletarian leadership, etc., then
continues:

>How does this tie in with society today? The petty bourgeoisie is now
>almost completely proletarianized. Most professionals these days are either
>wage slaves or 'virtual' petty bourgeois, nominally owning a company but
>totally in thrall to big capital for orders. Just look at how the students
>would move in the event of a big social conflict. In Britain in 1926 during
>the General Strike, they were scabbing everywhere and enjoying themselves
>playing train drivers. In Britain in 1984-85 during the miners' strike,
>they were setting up miners support committees and joining pickets - and
>enjoying themselves, except  when they got in the way of a truncheon or a
>police boot.

   The fact that the petty bourgeoisie today is more salaried
and less self-employed than in the past makes little difference
as far as their social position is concerned. Either way they
are negatively impacted by the restructuring of production, etc.
They still feel that they are losing the social basis for their
existence. They feel that they work hard for their money, and
are psychologically overwhelmed when they find that their
services are "no longer needed."
   The small business entrepreneurs, contractors, small employers,
etc., are finding the business climate very tough, now as in the
previous period. But the business cycle is still on the upturn.
Wait until the next recession! There will be hell to pay from
these people, who, in some sense, view themselves as the "bedrock
of America," the most worthy people, the most deserving, etc.
   If there is no strong proletarian pole of attraction set up
to attract these panic-stricken petty bourgeois, then many of
them will find solace in the battalions of the extreme right.
Again, I caution that we are still in the early stages of this
process of political evolution.
   Hugh's point about the progressive character of modern student
movements is well-taken. This has a lot to do with the more
plebian character of higher education in the post WW II period.
And it also reflects the overall historical strengthening of
the social position and social consciousness of the working
class in the past 40 years. I have mentioned this theme before.
The working class--in spite of what individual workers might
say about politics--is a stronger social force, a stronger
political presence in bourgeois society, as a result of the
progressive struggles of the post WW II period, although this
force does not show itself on the surface of politics.
   Were it not for this underlying political strength of the
working class, there would not be such protracted and painful
debates over abortion, affirmative action, welfare "reform,"
etc. The Clinton administration would simply do what the
capitalists want: get rid of these established gains of the
masses. But they are aware that they could get their fingers
burned if they do that. And why? Because the workers are capable
of fighting. They have not been broken. The capitalists fear
provoking an explosion. The potential is there. 

LABOR PARTY

   Philip Locker writes:

>Labor Party Adovocates (LPA) is the closest thing we have to a LP.  It is
>based in the labor movement and is real, in the sense it exists in the real
>world (has $$$, political power).  All socalists need to get involved in
>LPA.  We must be the strongest and most militant activists.  We need to push
>for a fighting party, i.e. one that runs candates, takes parts in movements,
>etc.  We must resist the unions beuracracys attempts to make LPA a pressure
>group on the democrats.

   Philip has very good intentions, and high hopes. But the
LPA has very dim prospects at this point if it expects to
launch a labor party. The union bureaucracy will not support
the launching of a labor party now, so they won't try to make
it a pressure group on the Democrats. If a "labor party" is
formed by the LPA in 1996, the bureaucracy will ignore it.
   The small groups that participate in such a formation
will find themselves bickering in a small room. It's just
not time yet for such a new beginning.
   In order for a real labor party to take off, it needs
some wind in its sails. This can only be provided by a
revitalized labor movement. Workers will have to become
political in a new way. I think this will happen in the
coming years, but we're not there yet. Don't worry: we won't
miss it when it happens.
   Philip, like a lot of impatient young people today, is
inclined to mistake the first month of pregnancy for the
ninth. But the most important thing is not this mistake.
The main thing is that he recognizes the pregnancy at all.

Jim Miller
Seattle


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