granted these points about classical facism. . .but what about Sheldon Wolin's theorization of "the specter of Inverted Totalitarianism?"
Wolin is making the same points as George carlin. . .we have fascism with a walmart smiley face. . .only he makes the points with great scholarly depth . . . Has anyone read his "Democracy Inc." http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/0691135665 Best, Brian -----Original Message----- From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 11:09 am Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Fascism Anyone? Mike Meeropol wrote: All this talk about Obama is pretty much beside the point. But Mike, you then go on to talk about him, to suggest that we "make ommon cause" with him and his ilk. So the talk can't be "beside the oint." > Ever since the beginning of the Bush Presidency there has been a growing undercurrent that looks dangerously like a precursor of fascism --- Obviously it would have an American twist to it, be much more based on religion than the Mussolini-Hitler versions, but its key element will make McCarthyism look like an ACLU convention... The undercurrent was there during the Clinton years. Remember Timothy cVeigh and all those militias? Sure, that's different from the eabaggers, but it's mostly because the latter is more mainstream which also means more moderate). (There are a bunch of other istorical precursors such as the Dixiecrats and the Goldwaterites. ere these "fascist"?) Why is it the dystopian future that leftist see on the horizon is lways "fascist"? As far as I can tell from history, fascism is a esponse to a strong working class, complete with socialist and/or ommunist parties having some power and influence. We don't see that owadays. As I've said, there's an alternative possibility: Scroogean apitalism, which is the kind of capitalism that Marx analyzed; in hat story, everyone's proletarianized with insecure jobs, forced to ow-tow to the malevolent Invisible Hand. In that story, the apitalists get everything they want and it's a disaster, including or them. Mike, your analysis doesn't really reflect the global nature of apitalism, including the way in which Scroogean capitalism has been ushed all over the world -- often using force or financial blackmail - by the unholy trinity based in the US, i.e., the US Treasury, the MF, and the World Bank (the "Washington Consensus"). This Consensus asn't simply a GOP thing. It's also a product of the DP, Clinton, ubin, Summers, etc. In fact, it was the latter that brought the onsensus back to run US finance, creating the Bubble and the Bust. > The Tea Party (with their racist, anti-immigrant, emphasis) can provide the shock troops. The Wall Streeters and big industry folks who have decided that they can have capitalism without the American welfare state (a major change from 1945-1980) will provide the money and a Republican administration with a Republican Congress will officially repeal the New Deal. It looks to me as if a Democratic Party administration is ump-starting that process. But talking about Obama's role as an nabler of Scroogean capitalism would be beside the point? In addition, isn't the Tea Party movement in many ways a reaction to hat Scroogean capitalism that not only Bush #2 but Clinton pushed? There are a lot of other elements, e.g., male resentment of women's conomic advances in some fields, bitterness of the #2/Obama bail-out f the big financial powers, etc.) In any event, isn't it possible that such a repeal would ignite a more oherent popular disgust toward the two-party oligopoly than we see ight now? Is it always an irreversibly slippery slope? > If I am right, whatever we think of Obama, the miniscule American Left has got to make common cause, even with the DLC types in the Democratic Party. How would we have any influence at all over what they do? wouldn't we ust be acting like cheer-leaders? (I'm a bit too over-weight for that ld cheer-leading dress!) > Remember -- the Left was in its heyday (both in the 1930s and in the 1960s) when LIBERALISM was in the drivers seat. If that period ever returns we can start making strong attacks on the liberals. Remember the 1930s when the German Communist Party decided their chief enemies were the "social fascists" of the Social Democratic Party. We all know how that turned out. I don't think anyone on pen-l sees the US Democratic Part as the chief nemy (the modern "social fascists"). More importantly, I don't see ny reason to see any reason to equate principled criticisms of the eactionary policies of both the DP and GOP with the idiotic "third eriod" of the Comintern. In any event, if fascism is on the horizon, isn't the left so miniscule" that it doesn't matter what we do? - im Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own ay and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. ______________________________________________ en-l mailing list [email protected] ttps://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
