Seeing the video of the teabagger/Rand Paul follower stepping on the liberal
woman's head (she was a MoveOn.com counter-demonstrator) reminds of an old
distinction. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsrD9NxRC74 for the
video.)
I agree with Louis P's view that (classical) fascism is not likely in the US
in the near future.[*] However, _fascistic_ behaviors, attitudes, and even
personalities can and do play a big role even when fascism doesn't appear on
the scene as a full-scale social movement and dictatorship. Sorry to go back
so far, but in 1968 the Chicago cops exhibited fascistic behaviors and
attitudes. Going further back, we can remember McCarthyism and the "public
burning" of the Rosenbergs. The KKK has been around for a very long time, as
have the John Birchers. There are even leftists (or "self-styled leftists"
if you will) with fascistic tendencies when it comes to personality,
behavior, and attitudes. (I'm not a fan of the Weather Underground or
Baader-Meinhof.)
As for "the effort to cut Medicare and Social Security --- keep wages down
through international competition --- and keep the right wing in power by
mobilizing the 'angry whites' and demobilizing the dangerous people that
Obama got out to vote in 2008," I think that their efforts to mess with
Social Security will fail, as with Bush #2's effort, since there are
countervailing powers. The same is likely (though less so) with efforts to
cut Medicare. The problem is that it's quite possible that the elected
teabaggers will be corrupted by power, just as Newt Gingrich's troops were.
As usual with conservative movements in the US, they'll split between the
"libs" (free-marketeers) and "trads" ("traditional" values sorts,
anti-abortion, etc.) and start fighting with each other. Of course, that
doesn't say that the future will be rosy.
In any event, we should remember that Obama appointed a "balance the budget"
commission, one of whose leaders immediately called for messing with Social
Security. BHO also doesn't seem to have done anything to stop the keeping of
wages down by international competition. This is a trend (i.e., the
increasingly bipartisan neoliberal movement) which developed during the
1970s and was put into practice by Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, and #2 along
with Volcker and Greenspan. Obama hasn't made an effort to reverse the
trend. Maybe he _can't_ do so, but I remember Clinton was more outspoken on
this question -- the rising prevalence of poorly-paid jobs, the shrinking
middle class -- than BHO is.
I am sure that the right-wingers of all sorts would like to demobilize "the
dangerous people that Obama got out to vote in 2008." But they weren't very
mobilized in the first place, because it was almost entirely limited to the
electoral arena and either organized from above or involved in a strange
"cult of personality" around BHO. Worse, BHO seems to have contributed to
their demobilization. At least I hear on the news that a lot of his
followers are extremely disappointed (largely because their expectations
were too high, IMHO).
Finally, last year I went to a MoveOn.com demonstration in favor of the
"public option." It was interesting to me that not all of the teabagger-type
counter-demonstrators were "angry whites." Some of them were
African-Americans. (I don't think Juan Williams was there, however.) In
general, they seemed to be the same kind of people I used to see hanging
around the edges of anti-war demonstrations during the early 1970s, not
fitting in with any of the movements, with loud voices and contentions
opinions that contradicted those of other people on the fringe. These were
right-wingers, unlike at the anti-war demonstrations, but there was
a resemblance. It's not just isolated individuals: back in the 1970s, there
were groups like the Sparts; now we see the organized disciples of Ayn Rand.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/27/10 9:03 PM, Michael Meeropol wrote:
>> I have only one important complaint about Charles Ferguson's largely
>> convincing discussion.
>>
>> There is a danger of fascism in the US.
>>
>
> No there isn't.
>
> Fascism is used to smash an out-of-control working class. (Picture the
> French strikers raised to the 3rd power.)
>
> In the USA, workers are totally demobilized. There has not been a single
> attack on working people by the Tea Party, the Christian
> fundamentalists, et al.
>
> Voting for Democrats because of a "a fascist threat" is something I have
> heard since 1964 from the CPUSA and its friends. And every time a
> Democrat is elected, we get the same shit as we get from the Republicans
> except maybe not quite as bad.
>
> It is dreary beyond belief to hear these arguments now that we are
> living under Bush's 3rd term.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[*] of course, we should remember that there are non-fascist movements that
can be really, really, bad. Even though Pinochet was "fascistic" (in
behavior, etc.), his movement wasn't "fascist." Even if his movement can be
thought of in those terms, a military _coup_ is not currently in the cards.
The military in general loves the US government and its elite, even if there
are policy differences.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
