The Next Fascism

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just some ideas I had after an afternoon of reading about fascism - cleaned up, and somewhat expanded upon with the help of "amusing foibles". Comments/questions/rewrites/etc. STRONGLY encouraged.


**************************

Hey - just some musings - written mostly by myself, but made more readable, and expanded on by Ala. Just curious to hear people's thoughts so we can build on it:


Fascism is traditionally a product of very specific historical conditions and class relationships. In particular, it has grown out of a crisis in capitalism, at a point when the system has not developed to the degree where the petit-bourgeoisie (Including small farmers, etc.) has been eliminated as a force. At these times, when the proletariat lacks the consciousness for a successful revolution and the leadership of the proletariat is incapable of responding to crisis, the petit-bourgeoisie is faced with a choice between an unconfident, incapable, working class, and preservation of the existing order. Naturally, it sides with the big-bourgeoisie in protection of its capital and drags the reactionary sectors of the working class with it.
In modern western post-industrial nations, the petit-bourgeois no longer exists as a force of any particular note. Marx theorized that proletarianization of the petit-bourgeoisie would crystalize class struggle - in the process, creating a stark choice between socialism or barbarism. However, two of the conditions which allow for fascism to arise in the instance of crisis persist - those of proletariat lacking consciousness, and of a revolutionary leadership that will cave in the face of any decisive conflict. Fascism, though, cannot arise without the petit-bourgeoisie's co-operation with capital. Fufilling a similar, but distinct, role, a new reactionary class has arisen to replace the petit-bourgeoisie. This class is the class of upper-bureaucrats and managers within the institutions of monopoly-capital.
The centralization of the means of production in fewer hands, and the increase in the gap of relative wealth, has affected, naturally, other relationships and institutions within society. In particular, multinational corporations and other concentrations of power have begun to vastly surpass the state in the direct power they weild. The static state has begun to cede control to dynamic, mobile capital - globalized, and unrestrained by borders. Within these new hubs, the bureaucrats and upper managers have developed a situation in which they have control of productive forces, in which they direct the labour of others, and live indirectly off the surplus labour generated by the working class. This bureaucratic class bares striking resemblance to the upper-tiers of state-capitalist bureaucrats, like those that evolved out of Marxist-Leninist-lead revolutions in pre-capitalist societies (That is, where they have accomplished the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, and industrialized, etc. through the means of bureaucratic-monopoly capitalism). This class does not benefit directly from surplus value as owners do, but rather relies on maintaining and manipulating the creation of surplus value to ensure their affluence.
Should, in the advent of a crisis, the proletariat again fail to create socialism, the nature of the response will be necessarily different than that of 'traditional' fascism. The tight, centralized, autocratic corporate structures, wielding influence across borders, must necessarily accelerate current trends when threatened with potentially revolutionary situations. That is, establish a sort of multinational police state in which localized institutions of repression would be made subservient to the non-localized power of capital. Even in current circumstances, when specific manifestations of capital are threatened, elements of this ideology are put into practice. We may look, for example, to the myriad instances in which states are compelled by the power of capital to mobilize violent forces despite their own apparent interests. That is, situations have begun to exist where the coercive power that might be potentially exercised by private institutions outweighs the immediate interests of states. The systematization and globalization of these conditions waits only for a crisis in which the working class is unable to destroy the means of their implementation.
As the bureacratic class relies on the contridiction between bourgeoisie-ownership and proletarian labour, they will act to co-ordinate the mobilization of forces to crush proletarian revolution, and systemize this means of control. While this means maintaining their subservience to the bourgeoisie and forfieting individual democratic participation in structures, they will, like the petit-bourgeoisie in previous situations, side with the status-quo against an unorganized and ineffectual proletariat.


**************************

Ok, GO!

[redstar2000]

In modern western post-industrial nations, the petit-bourgeois no longer exists as a force of any particular note.

I don't think that's true. There are still a very large number of "small businessmen"(in service and retail trade), "rich peasants", etc. in the U.S.

Also, what would have been a large business in Marx's time could well be considered the modern version of a petty-bourgeois outfit...a family-owned business with a few hundred employees and annual sales of a few million dollars -- big in Marx's time, small in ours.

The on-going concentration of capital means that the petty bourgeois controls less of society's total capital than it did in Marx's time. But in raw numbers of individuals and as a proportion of the population...there may actually be more of them now than in Marx's time.

The potential "mass base" of fascism is still around. If capitalism undergoes a major economic crisis, that section of the population could find fascism an appealing alternative.


Fulfilling a similar, but distinct, role, a new reactionary class has arisen to replace the petit-bourgeoisie. This class is the class of upper-bureaucrats and managers within the institutions of monopoly-capital.

The question that always arises when the thesis of a "managerial class" is advanced is: do these people have class interests that are distinct from that of the capitalist class as a whole?

At the highest levels, these people are capitalists in their own right. The modern corporation offers "stock options" to its top managers in order to "motivate them" to "act like owners".

My impression is that such "incentives" extend pretty far down into the layers of middle management...though not nearly as generous, of course.

Some anarchists have theorized that the USSR, etc. was run by a "managerial class" without benefit of formal ownership of capital. But even if that is a correct analysis, it's obviously an unstable condition...eventually the managers conclude that if they are going to act as "owners" of capital, they might as well reap the additional benefits of being owners of capital.


In particular, multinational corporations and other concentrations of power have begun to vastly surpass the state in the direct power they wield.

I think this is also disputable. The multi-national corporation does have enormous wealth at its disposal and can certainly make its influence felt in the councils of state.

But in the end, it has no army and no weaponry to speak of. It can hire mercenaries to intimidate a small and weak state in the "third world", but it cannot withstand a serious attack from a powerful and developed capitalist state. (Such attacks are very rare, of course.)


The tight, centralized, autocratic corporate structures, wielding influence across borders, must necessarily accelerate current trends when threatened with potentially revolutionary situations. That is, establish a sort of multinational police state in which localized institutions of repression would be made subservient to the non-localized power of capital.

I suppose something like this cannot be ruled out on a small scale...and again in a backward country where the state is very weak anyway. I'm sure it happens right now, in fact.

But imagine a scenario on a large scale where such a move might be attempted.

An severe economic crisis has forced the U.S. government to default on its bonds -- provoking outrage among its European and Asian creditors (including a number of huge multi-national banks).

Can these multi-nationals "buy off" the U.S. army, use it to disperse the old government in Washington, and impose a regime that will continue to pay interest on those bonds even if the U.S. population is starving?

I don't think it would happen.


That is, situations have begun to exist where the coercive power that might be potentially exercised by private institutions outweighs the immediate interests of states.

There are certainly examples of this -- the invasion of Iraq as a "take-over bid" by the oil multi-nationals, for example. But as it has been a spectacular failure thus far (I understand that Iraq produces much less oil now than it did in the last days of Saddam Hussein), is it likely to be repeated?

Here is another discussion on the possible shape of fascism...

Next: Christian Fascism? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103420300&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[VukBZ2005]

1
I like what your essay has to say for the most part. This is why the
developing theory of Proletarianism calls on the working class needs
to have a "mental revolution" to eliminate all capitalist ways of thinking
from their mind - because if you have a "mental revolution" - then you
are class-conscious and are prepared to decimate the old order of
Capitalism and the State to establish a classless, stateless society that
would benifit everyone.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't think that's true. There are still a very large number of "small businessmen"(in service and retail trade), "rich peasants", etc. in the U.S.

Is that true? I'd be curious to actually see the numbers. I was under the impression, though I may be quite mistaken, that small farmers were an increasingly rare phenomena, and that the American population was increasingly in the employ of a few large companies (I found data that suggested something like 2/3ds of the work force in the service of the top 7% of employers, or something). Again - this could very likely be an example of theorizing, without bothering to check for actual relationship to the real world, on my part. I'd love to see some stats get pulled up.

(The brilliant "Decline Of The American Empire" - a Quebecois film which I highly recomend - starts off with the declaration "History Is A Numbers Game")


Also, what would have been a large business in Marx's time could well be considered the modern version of a petty-bourgeois outfit...a family-owned business with a few hundred employees and annual sales of a few million dollars -- big in Marx's time, small in ours.

But the distinction is not so much a question of scale exclusively, but also of type, isn't it? I mean, the petit-bourgeois owner is involved directly in production - s/he is both worker and owner - as differentiated from the owner who lives off others labour. Clarification from somebody who has read more o' Marx than me?


The question that always arises when the thesis of a "managerial class" is advanced is: do these people have class interests that are distinct from that of the capitalist class as a whole?

At the highest levels, these people are capitalists in their own right. The modern corporation offers "stock options" to its top managers in order to "motivate them" to "act like owners".

My impression is that such "incentives" extend pretty far down into the layers of middle management...though not nearly as generous, of course.

Something to mull over . . . but I think the upper/upper-middle bureaucrats still have an interest that is somewhat different (hence corruption and robbing investors blind, haha), in that they are still subservient to the desires of ownership at large (even while a part of it? *shrug*) and have an interest in 'democratic' political structures.


eventually the managers conclude that if they are going to act as "owners" of capital, they might as well reap the additional benefits of being owners of capital.

Hmmm. That's got to create a lot of instability, haha.


But in the end, it has no army and no weaponry to speak of. It can hire mercenaries to intimidate a small and weak state in the "third world", but it cannot withstand a serious attack from a powerful and developed capitalist state. (Such attacks are very rare, of course.)

But I think the army of advanced states will make themserves subservient to international corporate interests because of their economic clout, and the force that could be excerted against those states by the mobilization of other states. Hrmmm . . . I don't think I'm being clear. Basicly, I think I'm trying to say that economic clout and the dismantling of democratic structure to the benefit of capital could create conditions where companies can use their clout to threaten state A with state B.

You suggest this is unlikely - that Washington couldn't be unseated like that. Fair enough. If the American economy keeps taking hits, we may yet see, haha. But I wouldn't dismiss out of hand, the posibility of military coup against the United States. Certainly, not under current circumstances - the American government is incredibly stable, and the military seems incredibly loyal . . . but give 'em a few more Iraqs . . .


There are certainly examples of this -- the invasion of Iraq as a "take-over bid" by the oil multi-nationals, for example. But as it has been a spectacular failure thus far (I understand that Iraq produces much less oil now than it did in the last days of Saddam Hussein), is it likely to be repeated?

True.

Of course, did the stupidity of something this Vietnam-esque seem posible in the first place?


"mental revolution"

The terminology reminds me of a crazed spiritualist-primitivist/Gaia-type who approached me and started blathering about a metaphysical revolution . . .

. . . but you're right. There seriously has to be a building of class consciousness, and an awareness of circumstances.

Yup.