Gramsci and Trotsky were analyzing fascism at the time it occurred, in 20s and 30s Germany and Italy. What they said indicates that they linked the essence of fascism with exactly that, "the activity which the bourgeois class carries out to halt the proletarian class on its path." My point is that what we have now is not fascism, incipient or otherwise. There is no struggle between bourgeois and prolatariat that threatens the hegemony of capital. Another terminology and another analysis is called for and many thoughtful people are doing just that, without invoking fascism.
> [Original Message] > From: yahya mete madra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 11/20/2005 1:15:51 PM > Subject: [PEN-L] the banality of fascism > > Dear All, > > First of all greetings to everyone. I have joined back the list after > 5 years of hiatus. > > On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Both Gramsci and Trotsky relate fascism directly and primarily, not to > > a > > shoppers' list of symptoms, but to [Gramsci] "the activity which the > > bourgeois > > class carries out to halt the proletarian class on its path." > > I am willing to go along with this definition but, may I ask, who is > "the proletarian class" today? Or, why is "the bourgeois class" going > along with this fascist project? There is practically not much of a > resistance to capitalism in the USA. In Europe? Yeah, maybe, but they > are too concerned with their crumbling welfare state and keeping their > borders shut. Is it still the trauma of Seattle (the anarchists, the > anti-war movement, etc)? Or, is it the rising leftist consciousness in > Latin America? Or, maybe it is Islam, the signifier of "just society" > for many who live in the Global South. > > I don't know which one is the true "the proletarian class" that "the > bourgeois class" wishes to stop. None of them But, as you may have > guessed I also think that this dual class structure is too > simplistic—and to the extent of what I've read of their writings, both > Gramsci and Trotsky has much more to say on Fascism than this > simplistic slogan. > > What I really think is that transnational ruling classes (see for very > nice agit-prop art project: http://www.theyrule.net) doing their best, > in a manner as coordinated (G8, IMF, WB, etc.) as possible given their > internal conflicts, to manage, to maintain, and to reproduce the > circuit of capital. The circuit of capital is coming off its seams > everyday, every moment, as I write, and Bush and company are trying to > stitch it together perpetually. In doing so, they always prefer more > power to less, more control to less, and so on. Fascism emerges, i > think just like that, in the most banal, unintended way. It is just > another, ultimately impotent (to bring out its psychic economy), > solution to the perpetual crises of capitalism. > > Many have written on the libidinal/psychic economies that sustain > fascism, Slavoj Zizek being the most prolific of all. But, in general > I think the emerging Marxian/Lacanian literature is a very useful place > to look for sound analyses of fascism for both Marxian and > non-Marxian/radical political economists. > > Warmest, > > Yahya M. Madra
