Fascism and Bonapartism

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm writing a lil' essay on fascism and I'm torn on Bonapartism and fascism. On the one hand it seems the most tenable position to me, in that fascism acted contrary to capitalist rationality in many ways, and empirically it makes more sense than "capitalism in decay" or fascism used as a way to defeat intensified class struggle... Yet, I also subscribe the structural view of the state where the capitalist class doesn't directly control the state so does it make sense to argue that the capitalist class abdicated power from this perspective?

If anyone has an opinion on fascism from a Marxist perspective, feel free to share, or specifically about fascism as a specific type of right-wing Bonapartism, please.

Thanks.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What exactly do you mean that the capitalist class does not directly control the state? In the sense that a lone capitalist cannot just ring up a president or prime minister and demand that they take this or that action or do you mean that capitalists have no influence as a class on state actions?

[Rafiq]

Fascism was certainly rational upon inception. It is not so much that capitalism is in decay, but that if the political apparatus proves incapable of perpetuating the conditions of production, it is replaced. It was not capitalism which was decaying but Liberalism. WWII was not *simply* an inter imperialist war, it was a fight for control over a proto world state apparatus - an ideological war, if you will.
Certainly Fascism is a means of hindering class struggle, the pathology is clear. Class struggle is displaced all-together ideologically in that the sentiments remain, their "form" if you will, but their content in such a way as to not threaten capitalism. Fascism may not have been a conspiracy by conscious capitalists, but it rose to prominence precisely because it was able to sustain capitalism. With or without the direct consent of the actual capitalist class. The conditions of Fascisms ascendance was precisely a (subconscious) defense of the old world.

[Prof. Oblivion]

The state is swayed by political, not economic, action. Economic action is transformed into political action through the nature of the class system. That's why you aren't necessarily going to find a directly economic explanation for everything the state does.

[Tim Cornelis]

What exactly do you mean that the capitalist class does not directly control the state? In the sense that a lone capitalist cannot just ring up a president or prime minister and demand that they take this or that action or do you mean that capitalists have no influence as a class on state actions?

It comes down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miliband–Poulantzas_debate

I agree with Poulantzas:

"The relation between the bourgeois class and the state is an objective relation. This means that if the function of the state in a determinate social formation and the interests of the dominant class coincide, it is by reason of the system itself: the direct participation of members of the ruling class in the state apparatus is not the cause but the effect…"

Fascism came to power at the invitation of the conservative elite, which would hint at an instrumental view of state power, and I'm wondering whether this empirical fact can be reconciled coherently with a structural account of the bourgeois state.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hm, do you have the full debate by any chance? I tend to view the state as the location where competing factions of the capitalist class vie for control and dominance over one another, aside from the more obvious functions of the state vs. the rest of us. Once in control of the state, the victorious faction can then mold policy in it's favor in the form of subsidies, projects, regulation of competitors, trade deals, etc.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I am not sure if I understand this issue that well, but I would argue that a capitalist state will reflect the interests of capital, but that the actions of the state manifest themsevles based on the circumstances that the capitalist class sees itself in at the moment.

As far as I know, all of the historical fascist parties came into power with capitalist support because capitalists in places such a Germany and Italy found the fascists to be a powerful weapon against communists or other leftists. In the circumstances of interwar Europe, many capitalists apparently felt that traditional conservatism was not cutting it anymore and something more radical was needed. Hence the alliance with the fascists.

Today, capitalists really don't need fascists as neoliberalism seems to be working fine as the ideological support for capitalism, at least for now. Capitalists do seem to have freedom as to which political movements they wish to support and how they wish to go about maintaining capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Fascism came to power at the invitation of the conservative elite, which would hint at an instrumental view of state power, and I'm wondering whether this empirical fact can be reconciled coherently with a structural account of the bourgeois state.

The problem with the argument is that it implies state neutrality - i.e. that the state's loyalty is owed to the highest bidder, whose evolution occurs independently of class interests, but whose allegiance is owed to the dominant class. Of course, this may present itself as a useful explanation in order to counter-act what would otherwise be an infantile understanding of the state being directly controlled on a conscious level by classes. This, however, is not enough. The interests of the bourgeoisie do not only manifest themselves on an 'economic' level but on a political and ideological level. What is being forgotten is that the bourgeoisie historically were not simply an economic subject - but a real existing class with definite and identifiable political aspirations. The state thus exists for solely one reason - not as the summation of means of power or authority perfecting itself while coinciding with the rise of class hegemons, the state's existence is solely owed to its ability to reproduce the conditions of production. Because the bourgeoisie are not composed of a homogeneous conscious interest (The mere existence of war, of competition and so on), the state necessarily perpetuates the conditions of their hegemony with or without their direct consent. The state is therefore in a way more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie itself in that it is the sole embodiment of an identifiable bourgeois-class interest. The perpetuation of the rule of the capitalist class relies on a mediating force which will be able to guarantee a degree of neutrality, which would be able to "see above" the immediate economic interests of capitalists in order to sustain the conditions through which their economic interests can be fulfilled. A good example: Anti-trust laws. This is why capitalism necessitates a state by merit of existence - the laws of capitalist competition naturally generate the necessity of a neutral force capable of regulating the unpredictable and explosive potentials of the market.

Ideologically, Fascism's "anti-capitalism" was solely directed at the archetype of the selfish capitalist unwilling to sacrifice his own interests for the good of the 'nation'. The capitalist unwilling to sacrifice his own interests, which were perceived as harmful to the overall health of capitalism, in other words. The 1930's was a good example of a time in which there was a fundamental dissonance between the interests of 'wild capitalists', and the system from which sustained them - after all, capitalism in crises is not owed to some external force but to the neutral and immediate endeavors of the bourgeoisie.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What do you make of instances where the state is not neutral? No-bid military contracts for instance. Is that just an aberration?

[Rafiq]

What do you make of instances where the state is not neutral? No-bid military contracts for instance. Is that just an aberration?

No-bid military contracts, the bribery of American congress, the easing and bypassing of anti-trust laws and so on - these are all inevitable consequences of the process of capital accumulation. Eventually, the state's neutrality, or even present existence (i.e. the Liberal apparatus) becomes a hindrance and obstacle for capital's hunger, as well as the overall well-being of capitalism, which is why it is said that capitalism digs its own grave.