news: fascism not the threat it once was

[Dzerzhinsky]

There seems to be an almost sort of paranoia that suurounds the whole radical left movements, and that is a burning hatred and fear of fascism. People seem to think that any sort of neo-fascist movement today is dangerous and bent to take over the world. Please, nearly all fascist groups with any sort of dangerous idealogy with any sort of power or numbers or anything, as any real power in parts of the world. Government legislation alone prevents these groups from acting on any sort level that makes a difference, an example being the intense infiltration of the German Secret Service into Germany's largest Neo-Nazi party.

With that said, more attention should be drawn to the fight against world Capitalism, a much more vicious and prevalent enemy. Then from there we can work to the lesser evils. Who's with me?

[Severian]

The problem with that: fascism doesn't refer just to the small, openly fascist or neo-Nazi groups. Which I agree are unlikely to become mass movements.

There are sizable parties and political trends which don't describe themselves as fascist - but which are a lot more like the movements which brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

The National Front in France, the British National Party, the less organized political trend represented by Patrick Buchanan in the U.S....

Even when these parties are banned or infiltrated by the authorities, it does nothing to slow the growth of fascist movements. The repression is never seriously intended; the parties pop up under another name. The police informants participate in and wink at fascist violence - and are protected by the agencies that employ them. Etc.

And capitalism isn't counterposed to fascism. Fascism is a way of saving capitalism when it gets into trouble. When needed, it'll be backed and financed by most of the upper class.

For background, another thread: What is fascism? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43120&hl=fascism)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You left out Italy.. where there are alot of big fascist or neo-fascist parties.

Silvio Berlusconi was president for fucks sakes... then you have parties like Social Action, National Alliance, and the Alternativa Sociale.

[Dzerzhinsky]

The National Front in France, the British National Party, the less organized political trend represented by Patrick Buchanan in the U.S....

Those aren't fascist groups, they're democratic Nationalist groups. These groups aren't even comprable to the Fascisti or the NSDAP of old, they're much smaller than they ever were, they don't use street violence.

You seem to think that Fascism implies any sort of group that does not totally reject authoritarianism, or basically 'any group that doesn't coincide with the party line'.

This sort of thinking is why the 'revolutionary left' movement is a failure, always being terrified by ghost enemies, ignoring real problems.

[Just Dave]

How is the BNP not a fascist group? You don't actually belive that democratic nationalist piss do you? Explain the racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. How do you explain Rights for Whites? Explain the countless links from anti semitic material to BNP leaders. BNP are about as fascist as they come.

[An archist]

I don't know about other countries, but the Flemisch nationalist party is pretty fascist, tehy even have their own little 'police force'; Voorpost, wich protects any public actions of the party or any other large, extreme right-wing event.
Now Voorpost is really just a gang of right wing thugs

[Pirate Utopian]

Belgium Gestapo of sorts huh?

[The Grey Blur]

Sounds more like a Belgian SA than SS

Two hyper-pedantic posts in one day...

[Zero]

I'll keep that in mind when I read about the escalating racial attacks in russia (http://www.therussiajournal.com/?p=87) that keep appearing.

Don't ever let down your guard.

[Vanguard1917]

Is there a fascist movement in the West today? No, there isn't.

There's certainly a great deal of obsession about a 'Nazi threat'. In the same way as there's a great deal of obsession in contemporary Western society about a long list of imaginary 'threats' - from Islamic terrorism to bird flu, from environmental crisis to population growth.

But a fascist movement in real life society? No. Fascist politics do not capture the political imagination of any significant section of Western society at the moment.


How is the BNP not a fascist group?

The BNP is a single-issue party. Its supports rests solely on anti-immigration fears created by mainstream society. It does not rest on any fascist movement in real life society.

Fascism is a reaction to the rise of the working class movement against capitalism. In the absence of this movement today, why would fascism enter the equation?


There are sizable parties and political trends which don't describe themselves as fascist - but which are a lot more like the movements which brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

In what way are they similar?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:03 PM

The National Front in France, the British National Party, the less organized political trend represented by Patrick Buchanan in the U.S....

Those aren't fascist groups, they're democratic Nationalist groups. These groups aren't even comprable to the Fascisti or the NSDAP of old, they're much smaller than they ever were,
On the contrary, those groups both started out small. It's interesting to go back and review their history.

I'm certainly not asserting that the situation today is the same as 1932 Germany - the crisis hasn't become nearly that sharp yet. But the incipient facist movements are preparing for that day.

Italy is another good example - though I think Berlusconi is a less extreme and less anticapitalist variety of populist demagogue - comparable to Perot. The Northern League is a good example, and the National Alliance is both sizable and explicitly "post-fascist"! (Mussolini's granddaughter is a leader.)

I also coulda mentioned Austria - where the Freedom Party won a plurality of votes for crying out loud. Or Russia, as Zero says. Or others.


they don't use street violence.

Really?

Some thug attacks by LePen's supporters (http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5920/5920_13.html)

And more dangerously: the activities of the National Front's "marshal squad" and municipal police forces it controls (http://www.themilitant.com/1997/6145/6145_13.html)

In the U.S. the thing is more diffuse, an earlier stage of development maybe. Buchanan represents the electoral side and some of the more extreme groups emphasize the street violence....which Buchanan's rhetoric does implicitly encourage. ("Culture war", "take back America, house by house, street by street", "saddle up and ride to the sound of the guns")

The antiabortion clinic blockades were also a significant development in terms of ultraright street action (sometimes but not always "nonviolent"); plus the paramilitary groups like the "Michigan Militia", and of course the anti-immigrant vigilantes called "Minutemen"....Buchanan seeks to be the electoral and ideological expression of all these groups and tendencies.

The thing isn't fully developed, so there's not as nearly as much street violence, certainly, as at the height of the 20s and 30s fascist movements. But they're clearly trying to build the kind of movements that'll be fully prepared to use Brownshirt methods on a large scale when the time comes.

****

Really, it's profoundly strange that at precisely this moment, when there are so many sizable proto-fascist movements, that anyone would start denying it's a problem! (Similar to people like Negri who at this moment of heightened inter-imperialist rivalry start developing Kautskyan theories of a peaceful reconciliation and unification of all imperialisms.) An ostrich-like denial of problems that may seem unbeatable, maybe?

On that: the proto-facists get a head start on revolutionary workers' organizations because they partly come out of bourgeois politics, and have one foot in it. But history shows they can't take power, or smash the working class, until we've had our chance and missed it....however long that takes to develop.

Some of the conditions needed for their victory: A working class demoralized, and a middle class enraged, by repeatedly missed revolutionary opportunities. And most of the ruling class isn't desperate enough to support fascist movements as the only way out of the crisis.


You seem to think that Fascism implies any sort of group that does not totally reject authoritarianism, or basically 'any group that doesn't coincide with the party line'.

No. See the thread on "What is Fascism?" I linked in my last post. Also my upcoming response to Vanguard1917.


This sort of thinking is why the 'revolutionary left' movement is a failure, always being terrified by ghost enemies, ignoring real problems.

I don't know what, if anything, the "'revolutionary left' movement" is; sounds like a contradiction in terms since "the left" has always been about Popular Frontism and class collaboration. I didn't choose the name of this site.

But communism and the working class movement are certainly not failures. The working class has come a long way and gained a lot since 1848; everything we have is won in struggle.

A lot of leftists may be demoralized and feel like failures, sometimes because of some real setbacks for the working class - and more often, because of the collapse of some antiworkingclass apparatchik regimes and the weakening and rightward drift of some reformist parties.

That's their problem - and that sense of failure doesn't give 'em any more clarity of vision than they ever had before. Maybe less.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:56 PM
But a fascist movement in real life society? No. Fascist politics do not capture the political imagination of any significant section of Western society at the moment.
I gotta ask what you mean by fascism, then.


The BNP is a single-issue party.

Obviously false, as a glance at their propaganda shows. (http://www.bnp.org.uk/)

Also impossible and absurd; no major electoral party is or can be "single-issue". Inevitably, in seeking political power, or even a share of it, the party has to address all kinds of political questions.

Consider the Greens or RESPECT, which unlike the BNP would probably like to be single-issue.


Its supports rests solely on anti-immigration fears created by mainstream society.

Fascist movements always draw strength from the resentments and fears stoked by mainstream bourgeois politics. Under current conditions, from the rightward drift of all bourgeois politics - and not just on immigration.


Fascism is a reaction to the rise of the working class movement against capitalism. In the absence of this movement today, why would fascism enter the equation?

False. As I commented earlier, fascism reaches its greatest strength after the defeat of major working-class upsurges which miss opportunities to take power.

It begins to grow under conditions of prolonged capitalist crisis, when the middle class begins to fear instability and uncertainty, feels itself pressed by the capitalist class above and the workers below. It does grow more in response to working-class struggle - but that element is not exactly absent today, from France to the U.S. This ain't the 80s.

In some ways, the incipient fascist movements even benefit from the weaknesses of the working-class movement today. Their anticapitalist demagogy - "socialism of fools" - fills a certain vacuum you've commented on elsewhere.

The vacuum created by the default of the main organized tendencies in the working-class movement. In the absence of a clear class-struggle alternative, the fascists' demagogy is often the only radical, uncompromising voice which is heard in seeming opposition to the rulers' crimes.

Incipient fascist movements even recruit some workers under these conditions.



There are sizable parties and political trends which don't describe themselves as fascist - but which are a lot more like the movements which brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

In what way are they similar?

Some features of Buchananism (http://www.themilitant.com/1999/6335/633546.html)

His national socialist demagogy (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/608/608_1.html)

Even parts of the bourgeois press have noticed this. (http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/Europe/Lee1.html)

[Dzerzhinsky]

How is the BNP not a fascist group? You don't actually belive that democratic nationalist piss do you? Explain the racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. How do you explain Rights for Whites? Explain the countless links from anti semitic material to BNP leaders. BNP are about as fascist as they come.

I'll keep that in mind when I read about the escalating racial attacks in russia that keep appearing.

Don't ever let down your guard.

National Alliance,


Wait wait wait, let me get this straight... if you're a racist... you're automatically a fascist? Now that doesn't make sense.


The BNP is a single-issue party. Its supports rests solely on anti-immigration fears created by mainstream society. It does not rest on any fascist movement in real life society.

Fascism is a reaction to the rise of the working class movement against capitalism. In the absence of this movement today, why would fascism enter the equation?

Hardly, The BNP is singled out for for it's anti-immigration simply because it's un-PC.


On the contrary, those groups both started out small. It's interesting to go back and review their history.

I'm certainly not asserting that the situation today is the same as 1932 Germany - the crisis hasn't become nearly that sharp yet. But the incipient facist movements are preparing for that day.

This is true, but no group today has the mass appeal of that either group did in the 20s and 30s, and if they're 'preparing for the day', they'll still lose, as they're horribly outnumbered.


False. As I commented earlier, fascism reaches its greatest strength after the defeat of major working-class upsurges which miss opportunities to take power.

It begins to grow under conditions of prolonged capitalist crisis, when the middle class begins to fear instability and uncertainty, feels itself pressed by the capitalist class above and the workers below. It does grow more in response to working-class struggle - but that element is not exactly absent today, from France to the U.S. This ain't the 80s.

In some ways, the incipient fascist movements even benefit from the weaknesses of the working-class movement today. Their anticapitalist demagogy - "socialism of fools" - fills a certain vacuum you've commented on elsewhere.

The vacuum created by the default of the main organized tendencies in the working-class movement. In the absence of a clear class-struggle alternative, the fascists' demagogy is often the only radical, uncompromising voice which is heard in seeming opposition to the rulers' crimes.

Incipient fascist movements even recruit some workers under these conditions.

The Fascist parties of old were started by workers, and comprised of workers, for the workers, realizing the failures of Communism, throwing your argument out the window.

Why do you keep linking to that rag, the militant? All the articles are nearly 10 years old and irrelevant.


No. See the thread on "What is Fascism?" I linked in my last post. Also my upcoming response to Vanguard1917.

That thread is wrong.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:56 PM
Fascism is a reaction to the rise of the working class movement against capitalism. In the absence of this movement today, why would fascism enter the equation?
That sounds like a really damn good reason for us to be wary of fascism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:08 PM
Wait wait wait, let me get this straight... if you're a racist... you're automatically a fascist? Now that doesn't make sense.
.....
Hardly, The BNP is singled out for for it's anti-immigration simply because it's un-PC.
......
The Fascist parties of old were started by workers, and comprised of workers, for the workers, realizing the failures of Communism, throwing your argument out the window.
So how do you define fascism? And are you for it or against it?

It's flatly false that "The Fascist parties of old were started by workers, and comprised of workers, for the workers, realizing the failures of Communism, " as you claim.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was founded as a front group by the Thule Society, a group of upper-class nationalists seeking to turn workers away from Marxism and internationalism, which they correctly saw as a threat to their upper-class interests. They got a locksmith named Drexler to front for them.

Meanwhile, Hitler was assigned by army intelligence to go around checking out right-wing nationalist groups they might want to support. That's how he ran into the Nazi Party.

The later facts are well-known: the Nazis drew their support mostly from middle-class elements (who were hard hit by the economic crisis, too.) People who'd formerly supported the mainstream capitalist parties joined 'em en mass.

Many of the moderate and conservative parties almost ceased to exist, a couple hung on as minor parties. Because their former supporters had joined the Nazis. Meanwhile, the support for the Social Democratic and Communist Parties remained strong - to the degree it shifted, it was from the Social Democrats to the Communist Party.

And of course when the crunch came, the Nazis were financed by Krupp and other capitalists.

I don't know as much detail on the history of Italian fascim, but there also it was used by the upper class to mobilize the middle class against the working class.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:18 PM
[QUOTE=Vanguard1917,Sep 14 2006, 08:56 PM]
False. As I commented earlier, fascism reaches its greatest strength after the defeat of major working-class upsurges which miss opportunities to take power.

It begins to grow under conditions of prolonged capitalist crisis, when the middle class begins to fear instability and uncertainty, feels itself pressed by the capitalist class above and the workers below. It does grow more in response to working-class struggle - but that element is not exactly absent today, from France to the U.S. This ain't the 80s.

In some ways, the incipient fascist movements even benefit from the weaknesses of the working-class movement today. Their anticapitalist demagogy - "socialism of fools" - fills a certain vacuum you've commented on elsewhere.

The vacuum created by the default of the main organized tendencies in the working-class movement. In the absence of a clear class-struggle alternative, the fascists' demagogy is often the only radical, uncompromising voice which is heard in seeming opposition to the rulers' crimes.

Incipient fascist movements even recruit some workers under these conditions.



It would seem the problem you are defining is caused by workers who abandon socialism. After all, no matter what, the middle class, and certainly the rich represent a minority of a population as a whole.

Its true that fascism arises in times of political instability, particularly within capitalism. But the reason for the instability is in part due to an increasing rejection of capitalism by the population. Other solutions are being searched for.

The claim that workers turn to the "socialism of fools" has to be seen as a partisan comment. The more objective observation would seem to be that fascism grows alongside the growth and spread of socialism by proposing a different manner of the socialist solution; still anticapitalist, still "proworker" but interested in uniting all the people, rather than excluding a few (as other socialism proposes). The "vaccum" created by the abdication of the major workers parties is mostly the result of their inability to argue against fascism. The fasicsts, after all, share the same complaints of the other socialists; anti-capitalism; hostility to outsourcing; demanding that people control the resources of their country; ect ect. There are differences of course, but those are differences of practices, not objectives.
Its why I believe that, not only is the Left is unable to offer an adequate defense against fascism, they are unintentionally complicit with its rise by also arguing against the Right, capitalism and a different sort of vision for the future.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:00 AM

So how do you define fascism? And are you for it or against it?

It's flatly false that "The Fascist parties of old were started by workers, and comprised of workers, for the workers, realizing the failures of Communism, " as you claim.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was founded as a front group by the Thule Society, a group of upper-class nationalists seeking to turn workers away from Marxism and internationalism, which they correctly saw as a threat to their upper-class interests. They got a locksmith named Drexler to front for them.

Meanwhile, Hitler was assigned by army intelligence to go around checking out right-wing nationalist groups they might want to support. That's how he ran into the Nazi Party.

The later facts are well-known: the Nazis drew their support mostly from middle-class elements (who were hard hit by the economic crisis, too.) People who'd formerly supported the mainstream capitalist parties joined 'em en mass.

Many of the moderate and conservative parties almost ceased to exist, a couple hung on as minor parties. Because their former supporters had joined the Nazis. Meanwhile, the support for the Social Democratic and Communist Parties remained strong - to the degree it shifted, it was from the Social Democrats to the Communist Party.

And of course when the crunch came, the Nazis were financed by Krupp and other capitalists.

I don't know as much detail on the history of Italian fascim, but there also it was used by the upper class to mobilize the middle class against the working class.

It is absolutely true that the origin of the nazis was with the working class. All of its leadership, with the probable exception of Goering, were all drawn from the lower classes; they were not elites (this origin is part of the reason why the Social Democrats eventually had difficulty in dealing with the nazis. They COULD NOT paint the browns as just the old elites).

The old conservative parties were banned as well after 1933. At that point, only Communists were allowed to join the party. Nor is it true that the nazi base was the old conservative party. Their membership and base constantly shifted, and there were Germans who constatntly switched between the communists and nazis.

The Krupps et. al. gave money to all the parties (excluding the Communists). But not until the bitter end did the nazis receive the majority of the largesse from Krupp et. al.

The Italian fascists were swept to power quite easily- the workers simply abandoned the communists and joined the blackshirts. This was due to the fact that Mussolini basically promised the workers the same things as the communists promised, and Mussolini had been a member of the socialist party prior to WW I.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:13 AM


It is absolutely true that the origin of the nazis was with the working class.

This is blatantly false. The origins of the NSDAP are demonstrably petit-bourgeois and bourgeois (primarily the former).

Hitler's father was a minor customs official. Dietrich Eckhart was the son of a notary. Gottfried Feder was the son of civil servants and himself the founder of a construction company. Rudolf Hess came from an importer/exporter family. Goering came from a military family, and was himself a soldier. Adolf Eichmann was a businessman's son. Goebbels father was an accountant.

etc.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:08 PM

How is the BNP not a fascist group? You don't actually belive that democratic nationalist piss do you? Explain the racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. How do you explain Rights for Whites? Explain the countless links from anti semitic material to BNP leaders. BNP are about as fascist as they come.

I'll keep that in mind when I read about the escalating racial attacks in russia that keep appearing.

Don't ever let down your guard.

National Alliance,


Wait wait wait, let me get this straight... if you're a racist... you're automatically a fascist? Now that doesn't make sense.
Feels like I am answering a dead man's question, but whatever.

Generally I would say most racists in some ways advocate fascism. When was the last time you heard of a libertarian racialist? They are inherently authoritarian and fascist, for they feel the need to enforce their own race or ethnicities superiority over others, thus the fascist tendency.

[Vanguard1917]

Obviously false, as a glance at their propaganda shows.

Also impossible and absurd; no major electoral party is or can be "single-issue". Inevitably, in seeking political power, or even a share of it, the party has to address all kinds of political questions.

Consider the Greens or RESPECT, which unlike the BNP would probably like to be single-issue.

Well, the BNP's (limited) support comes from its stance against immigration. That's why it's a single-issue party.

And it's interesting that you bring up a party like Respect. Respect would like to be a party for socialism, trade unionism, equality, etc. but, in reality, its support is based around one issue (opposition to the 'war on terror').


Fascist movements always draw strength from the resentments and fears stoked by mainstream bourgeois politics. Under current conditions, from the rightward drift of all bourgeois politics - and not just on immigration.

Is there really this 'rightward drift' though?

Take anti-immigration policies, for example. One of the Militant articles you linked calls fascist movements 'street action movements in their trajectories.' Well, there's no significant movement in British society today against immigration. There are no marches on the streets worth worrying about and, inspite of what the liberal opponents of the white working class will have us believe, there's no real hostility towards immigrants by 'native Britons'. The reality is that British society is today more tolerant towards immigrants than it has ever been in the last 60 years.

Anti-immigration laws today are kept in place largely by a detached political elite - detached in the sense that they don't take their cue from any real rightwing movement in society. The Conservatives tried to play the 'immigration card' at the last elections - 'Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?' - only for it back-fire against them (presumably because the majority of the voting British public are not thinking what they're thinking). Once upon a time the Conservatives would have won over the vast majority of the middle class with such slogans.


The vacuum created by the default of the main organized tendencies in the working-class movement. In the absence of a clear class-struggle alternative, the fascists' demagogy is often the only radical, uncompromising voice which is heard in seeming opposition to the rulers' crimes.

The Nazis in Germany came to power after the political polarisation of German society, between left and right. There is no political polarisation going on in the West at the moment. On the contrary, if anything, there is a rush to the 'political centre'. The old rightwing parties have complied with this reality as have the old leftwing parties. Can we honestly say that a genuine left-right confrontation exists in contemporary Western politics?

[colonelguppy]

Fascism is a reaction to the rise of the working class movement against capitalism. In the absence of this movement today, why would fascism enter the equation?

thats not really true. historically, fascism has been a reaction against hard times in nations (wars, economic downturns), and the labor movement was nothing more than a political rival for fascists who were trying to exploit the political climate.

in reality, no fascist really cares about the market system, and often exploited it for their own gain. market capitalism and fascism are almost incompatible, as fascism requires complete obedience and reliance of the state form its people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Explain how market capitalism can't coexist with the state forcing complete obedience upon the people?

I think Pinochet's Chile is a great example of fascism + market capitalism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:11 AM
Is there really this 'rightward drift' though?
It's often been pointed out that Nixon did a lot of things which would be considered super-liberal today. So yes, bourgeois politics has been moving to the right for some time. Not in a straight line, there have been leftward swerves. But if you track the overall trend since the late 70s, it's been to the right.

It's a little odd I have to point this out to you of all people. You emphasize that the working class is in retreat; at one time you went further than that. What would keep the ruling class from moving to the right, then?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 23 2006, 01:36 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 23 2006, 01:36 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 10:11 AM
Is there really this 'rightward drift' though?
What would keep the ruling class from moving to the right, then? [/b]
It doesn't have to move to the 'right' (in the traditional meaning of the word) because its rule is not being challenged by the working class.

Does the ruling class require a rightwing movement in the absence of a leftwing movement?

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:11 AM
The Nazis in Germany came to power after the political polarisation of German society, between left and right. There is no political polarisation going on in the West at the moment. On the contrary, if anything, there is a rush to the 'political centre'. The old rightwing parties have complied with this reality as have the old leftwing parties. Can we honestly say that a genuine left-right confrontation exists in contemporary Western politics?

One of the Militant articles you linked calls fascist movements 'street action movements in their trajectories.'
Well, I agree that, at least in the usa, there is no left-right polarization in the sense that it existed in Italy or Germany in the twenties and thirties. Left currents here at weak right now and have been so for decades.

That, however, has not stopped the bourgeoisie from continuously supporting far-right elements that could be potentially transformed into a fascist-type force, i.e. a "street action movement in trajectories". Those elements have historically included, for example, the large anti-abortion movement, which, up until the early nineties, would attempt to physically blockade women's health clinics, trash them, and so on. Currently, and more seriously, the Minutemen anti-immigrant groups are growing in influence. Some are armed and "patrol" the usa-Mexico border, others harass immigrant workers at day-labor sites, and so forth, all to terrorize immigrant peoples here.

The ruling class supports these far-right elements, to keep open the alternative of moving towards fascism. Should traditional strategies for maintaining and intensifying the extraction of profit from the working class begin to fail, the bourgeoisie wants further options. It is true that, right now, any such failures are not arising, in a direct and immediate sense, out of the struggles of workers and oppressed peoples in the usa -- such failures are arising more out of contextual, global conditions, such as the success of the Iraqi resistance. A resurgence of fascism would not be a response to a direct, immediate, internal threat to profitability or the capitalist system itself, as it was in Germany or Italy. The people’s struggle here – in terms of organized movements – does not constitute that current threat.

So why does the ruling class keep fascism on its agenda? I think there are two reasons:
1. The historical victories of the working class are, for the most part, being ineffectively defended by the organized progressive movements, such as the labor unions. But things like the eight-hour workday, workers compensation, unemployment insurance – however weak they are right now in the usa – still have tremendous popular support. Those victories were, over the decades – basically since the thirties – “normalized” among the people. The ruling class is (legitimately) concerned that any sharp attempt to remove these hard-won protections and concessions would lead to a tremendous upsurge of resistance. Such attempts are increasingly necessary to maintain profitability, therefore potential fascist forces are kept in reserve as a shock-force to implement those kind of assaults. (Here, we perhaps see a way in which it is true that fascism is a response to polarization: it is a response to a [i]historical period of polarization, one which still has positive aftereffects today, and not to a current polarization.)
2. The ruling class has successfully, over the years, used the bourgeois democratic system to neutralize mass movements and gradually erode the historical achievements of those movements. What we see today is no different: antiwar coalitions throwing their support behind Democratic Party candidate John Kerry in 2004, for example. However, the kind of gradualist, incremental, “devolutionary” rollbacks that the bourgeoisie has been able to effect through the democratic system may be insufficient for their purposes. The urgency of today’s crisis for the ruling elites may demand on their part a much more sudden, more compressed, and more concentrated intensification of the attacks on the people. Such attacks would be characterized by immediacy and a sharp rupture or break or upheaval; they would not, in this view, be slow, measured, gradualist, or incremental. People in the usa have shown, particularly over the past 25 years or so, that they can adapt, in time, to increasingly repressive conditions. However, I’m talking about a situation here where there would be no extended time-frame in which people could adapt. That could, again, lead to a tremendous upsurge of resistance; hence, potential fascist forces are kept in reserve.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+Sep 22 2006, 07:51 PM--> (Vanguard1917 @ Sep 22 2006, 07:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:36 AM

[email protected] 21 2006, 10:11 AM
Is there really this 'rightward drift' though?
What would keep the ruling class from moving to the right, then?
It doesn't have to move to the 'right' (in the traditional meaning of the word) because its rule is not being challenged by the working class.

Does the ruling class require a rightwing movement in the absence of a leftwing movement? [/b]
Yes, because the rate of profit tends to fall. And their economic system is experiencing a long-term structural crisis - since the 74-75 world recession.

As SPK points out: "But things like the eight-hour workday, workers compensation, unemployment insurance – however weak they are right now in the usa – still have tremendous popular support. Those victories were, over the decades – basically since the thirties – “normalized” among the people. The ruling class is (legitimately) concerned that any sharp attempt to remove these hard-won protections and concessions would lead to a tremendous upsurge of resistance. Such attempts are increasingly necessary to maintain profitability,"

That's even more true in Europe - that the ruling class is trying to roll back many major gains of the working class, and meets resistance in its attempts to do so. The European ruling classes are at a competitive disadvantage because their antiworker offensive hasn't gone nearly as far as Washington's.

And the offensive against economic gains has been paralleled by moves against other social and political gains - ongoing attempts to roll back legal abortion, moves against affirmative action in the USA, moves against basic democratic rights, etc.

Their incremental steps haven't taken back nearly enough to restablize the system. At some point, they'll get greedy, try to take too much, and meet major resistance.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, because the rate of profit tends to fall. And their economic system is experiencing a long-term structural crisis - since the 74-75 world recession.

But the working class isn't fighting back. Working class militancy is at historic lows throughout the Western world. If the working class is not fighting the system, the capitalists do not need to defend themselves against the working class, in the political sense.

What do you think?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:32 PM

Yes, because the rate of profit tends to fall. And their economic system is experiencing a long-term structural crisis - since the 74-75 world recession.

But the working class isn't fighting back. Working class militancy is at historic lows throughout the Western world.
That's simply untrue. It hit a "historic low" in the 80s and has since increased. For example, the U.S., on May 1, experienced its biggest political strike ever.

And of course, ultrarightist vigilante-like groups like the Minuteman are organizing to go after immigrant workers. At least one of their leaders also threatened to "go after the unions" if they continue supporting immigrants' rights.