Charles Brown writes:>The point here is that those who claim that there can't be fascism because the proletariat is not contending for power , that is, is weak relative to its relative power in the 1930's, impliedly say that the bourgeoisie are going to be fair in the current situation and not use the extreme measures of fascism because the proletariat is relatively weak, as if the bourgeoisie would only use fascist measures when the proletariat is strong. <
I don't get this business about "fairness." It seems to me that the bourgeoisie is going to be "fair" only when working-class power is enough to force them to be "fair," as with social democracy in W. Europe back in the 1960s. Even then, capital mobility will get around this power. >As you say, capitalism will always use unfair measures, whether the proletariat is strong or weak. So, capitalism will use fascist measures even when the proletariat is not challenging for power as today. The difference between today and the 1930's in the working class being more weak and vulnerable today than then is not a reason to rely on the bourgeoisie being fair and not using fascism, because, as you say, the bourgeoisie are always unfair.< It seems that "fascist" is simply a moral term above. Why not simply say "bad"? In the Marxian tradition, on the other hand, fascism refers not to bad morality but to a _type of capitalism_ that arises when the power of the working class actually threatens the _status quo_ (rather than rationalizing it, as under social democracy) so that the standard parliamentary democracy actually gets in the way of preserving capitalism (rather than legitimizing it, as in more normal times). There are other types of capitalist political dictatorship besides fascism. I imagine that Bush's authoritarian tendencies arise partly because he wants to cover up (and get away with) various types of corruption his administration has engaged in. This protects him and his cronies primarily from other sections of the bourgeoisie, not from the proletariat, since the latter has little political muscle at this point. >The world proletariat suffered a historic defeat in the 1990 era, marked especially by the fall of the SU.< the USSR had represented a counterbalance to the US and world capitalism, allowing some working-class victories (and "third world" victories). But the USSR itself represented a Russian working-class defeat (back in the 1920s if not before). >The bourgeoisie jumps right in and starts kicking the dead horse, not counting on it not coming back to life. The bourgeoisie are indeed so unfair as to kick the proletariat when they are down, trying to delay the time of revival of the Spectre of Communism and Ghost of the Proletariat Past.< you think the Bushwackers worry about communism in the US? about proletarian power? I doubt it. Rather, it's just a matter of various capitalist interest groups seeking profit at all cost. Wal-Mart is evil in many ways, but I think it's a misuse of the word "fascist" to call Wal-Mart by that name. JD
