I shall respond more fully to Nestor's letter in another post. For now I would like to clarify something which, it appears to me, has contributed to at least a part of this disagreement between Nestor and myself. The word which I used to describe what seemed to me to be Nestor's implication re fascism in Russia was *scewed* not *screwed*, with the original intention of it being *skewed* -- i.e. somewhat misconstrued. My appologies for not checking my spelling ;-) In sol, Greg. Louis Proyect wrote: > I found the response of Gregory Schwartz very instructive > and interesting, though I protest the adjective "screwed" > as he used it. > > As I said on the mail I sent and Gregory > criticized, if something depicts my vision of Russian > facts is that all my opinions are both "worried and uninformed". > These conditions may, we shall all agree, bring about > "screwed" conclusions. I am not _that_ sure, however, that > the particular line that Gregory has thus qualified > deserves the criticism. > > After recalling one of the basic features of fascism > (the one which, IMO, gives it its social content though _of > course_ says nothing on its actual appearence), its > indisoluble link with a (menaced) ruling imperialist > bourgeoisie, I say: > > > > I doubt that there can be a regime more "fascist" in > > > this sense than that of Yeltsin, I have a feeling that > > > his is a Platonic Republic of the true Fascists, the > > > great imperialist bourgeoisies: so perfect that any > > > change will have to be for worse. > > > > I carefully wrote "_in this sense_", in the sense that the > regime served the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisies > -in this case, by melting down, or ensuring the meltdown > of, the Soviet Union and the Soviet state. The > puntualization was meant to stress that the phrase was > written in the understanding that this was an essential but > not sufficient condition to define a regime as Fascist. > > But IMO regimes in the Third World that can look > "democratic" are -or can be- nearer to Fascism if they > serve the imperialist powers than regimes that confront > them albeit many times under "fascist" robes. I recall > now the Argentine regime that overthrew Peron, the so-called > "Revolucion Libertadora" of 1955 and the cohort of > "democrats" who -from right to left- launched a massive > attack on Argentine workers in the name of the struggle > against our local "fascism". This "democratic" regime was > the first "gorilla" regime in Latin America, and you would > be astonished to realize how many Left wing gorillas there > were (and still are). BTW, it was in the Buenos Aires of > 1955 that the political usage of the word began (I hope > gorillas will some day forgive us humans for such an usage > of their name). > > In the Third World the dictatorship of the > imperialist bourgeoisies may sometimes be exerted through > formally and even actually quasi-democratic regimes. If > these regimes cannot be discerned as what they are, because > of their respect for some individual rights (or should we > say for the rights of some individuals?), then much the > better. But _in the structural_ (as opposed to formal) > sense, they are fascist, or if you prefer corporate > regimes. > > When I say that the Yeltsin regime is a Russian form of > fascism I do not > > > ...lose sight of what is the central element of fascism > > (i.e. increased labour discipline and greater productivity > > to affect sucessful valorisation and to sustain the the > > expanded reproduction of capital in the face of crisis). > > What I am saying is that this is an important element, a > central element of fascism _in imperialist countries_. > > Fascism in a colony may well combine superexploitation of a > section of the working class with widespread devaluation of > industrial capital, in order to "sustain the expanded > reproduction of capital" in the metropolis "in face of > crisis", through _thwarting the expanded reproduction of > capital in the colony_. I do not diminish the differences > between regimes that are politically fascist and regimes > that are not. In this sense, the Yeltsin regime may not > qualify to Fascist (I do not know; however, there are some > members of this list, V. Bilenkin for example, who > think that the Yeltsin government has, at least, fascist > tendencies). But _in the sense I used the word_, I feel > that the usage is not "screwed". > > Gregory himself explains that Yeltsin's regime > > > has brough further disintegration of stability, a > > slackening of labour discipline (through the reinforcement > > of workers' negative control over the production process > > by the workers, see Burawoy, 1993, NLR), a collapse in > > manufacturing and agriculture, and greater reliance on > > imports and foreign debt, > > and this was a task he accomplished in depth, or so it > seems. But unstabilizing the decaying SU, reducing > industrial output, and collapsing local manufacturing and > agriculture, since they imply "greater reliance on imports > and foreign debt" are a great service rendered to the > social classes that, "le cas echeant", back and upholster > Fascist regimes in imperialist countries. I insist once > again: things in the Third World use to be the negative > image of things in the First World. To say this is more or less > the same as saying that the First World and the Third > World constitute a _dialectical_ unity. So that Gregory has > still to explain why does he think that calling Yeltsin > "fascist _in this sense_" is wrong. > > There are some other points where I would argue with > Gregory, namely the Mandelian conception according to which > > > ... it is in fact much less precarious > > for the local ruling classes to pursue accumulation by > > remaining parasitic on the existing methods of production > > and relations of production while becoming component to > > metropolitan accumulation process, and only thus the > > component to the expanded reproduction of capital on a > > global scale. > > This is clearly true, but the way Gregory (and Mandel) pose > it seems to forget that when a local ruling class chooses to > remain parasitic and become component to metropolitan > accumulation processes (a good way to depict the behaviour > of the ruling classes in the Third World countries), > accumulation _within_ the frontier of the country is > obstructed (and even forbidden, if need be, by political > means), and a "national question" immediately arises. A > "national question" where other classes must develop the > tasks that "normal history" reserved to the bourgeoisie and > carry them to victory. If we recall Isaac Deutscher's (and > better still, Carr's) mention of the dual character of the > October revolution, socialist and colonial, the scenario I > depicted after the fall of the Soviet regime may be > "logically" possible, though I agree with Gregory that the > chances that such a ruling group carries on these tasks are > almost nil. Though it may seem screwed (I am using the word > this time myself), a Russian "national question" might, > although most probably won't, imply a progressive struggle. > > Well, I hope that's it. Will not re-read this mail. It's > been too long for someone who is just guessing, like the > blind lookout in Mel Brook's _Men in tights_. "Zapatero a > tus zapatos" is a Spanish saying, so I will try to stick to > what I ignore less: my own country. > > Regards to all, > > Nestor. > > > > > This is only my understanding of what's going on/what > > awaits Russia, though I am not much interested in > > forcasting. I would be happy to leave this to the > > bourgeois economists.In solidarity, > > > > Greg. > > > > -- > > Gregory Schwartz > > Dept. of Political Science > > York University > > 4700 Keele St. > > Toronto, Ontario > > M3J 1P3 > > Canada > > > > > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) > > Louis Proyect > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Gregory Schwartz Dept. of Political Science York University 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada Tel: (416) 736-5265 Fax: (416) 736-5686 Web: http://www.yorku.ca/dept/polisci
