Terry McDonough: > Is fascism an option in response to this crisis? One side of the ideology is > already in place (Faith, Family, Flag) but it has become so closely linked to > support for the liberal market that it seems barred from addressing the > current crisis. Also we have the war without the full program. Thoughts?<
Fascism (authoritarian fascism) doesn't seem to be a response to the current crisis, at least within the US. Though it creates a weak-labor environment, fascism usually involves a response to what's perceived as an excessively strong labor movement. Fascism would involve denying democratic representation to a big segment of the capitalist class. Why do that if the working class is already so weak? Why not rely on standard democracy with an atomized electorate? (The same goes for other anti-establishmentarian movements.) (I guess you could say, however, that fascists _always_ see the labor movement as too strong, along with all those commies under the bed. But they have to twist a lot of capitalist arms to convince other establishment factions to go along. The dominant faction of the German capitalists had to be convinced that it was worthwhile to let Hitler rule.) Anyway, the growth process in the US is not nation-state-centric anymore, so my "fascist" scenario is irrelevant. It would have to be global fascism. We've had authoritarian capitalist regimes in most of the poorer countries for years, but it's hard to see "global fascism" without a world state. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
