|
To WSN--WARNING!
WARNING! The following consists of three postings, which altogether
make for a very long e-mail. It is based on a discussion/debate I had with
someone else on the PSN network about the nature of capitalism and fascism. I
usually DO NOT post writings from one network to another, since readers on the
second list may not know the history of the discussion on the first network! But
in this case, the discussion seems to fit in with the points raised on WSN by
Peter Grimes, Louis Proyect and others. So I decided to forward that
debate/discussion on to WSN. If you already saw this on PSN or ahs-talk,
please just delete it. I don't mean to clutter your mailboxes.
Also, out of
respect for the person I was debating with, I have chosen to not mention his
name, since I don't have his permission to use his name. I don't think it is
right/fair to involve him in this and then have lots of people bothering him
with e-mails from a list he doesn't belong to. That happens on the internet
sometimes when people post things from one list to another. I include his
critique of my comments because he raises important points that many people
raise. It is the points he (and I) raise that are important, not the
personalities of who we are. So here goes. First my comments. Then his critique.
Then my response.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
B says many true things in his post, but
misses an important point. I think the core of the difference, which is a major
disagreement among those who call themselves "Marxist" as well, is found in his
statement:
"The capitalist class always
prefers to rule in non-fascist ways, so long as that is
possible."
Most would certainly agree with that, but
the question is whether the capitalist class always gets what it
"prefers." In other words, there is a model of capitalist oppression, that
overlaps with some of the work of Domhoff (and Nader) that does not see that
there are processes built into capitalism that cause various types of crises
every so often -- especially the "crisis of overproduction/falling rate of
profit" which propels imperialism forward in a search for higher rates of profit
and also propels the move towards forcing down the wages "at home" (including
"social wages" like medical care, etc.) which in turn intensifies rebellion
from the working class (and also intensifies conflicts within the capitalist
class.) It is not a matter of "preference" anymore than it is a matter of
"preference" that a Monopoly board game can end with six winners,
unless the players decide to change the rules so much that it is no longer
Monopoly.
While some take this "crisis" view to a
mechanical extreme and leave out the subtleties of the contingent zigs and zags
of history, culture, religion and human agency in general, there are others
(like Domhoff and Nader) who overestimate the "free choice" of the capitalist
class as a class, and who therefore seem to imply that the working class can
have a "good life" if only the worst ("greediest, most reactionary, most narrow
minded, so-called ultra-Right") members of the capitalist class (and their
politician allies) would stop their bad behavior or be pushed aside by the
more humane capitalists and their politician allies. In my opinion, the
various formulations of "market socialism" promoted by Roemer and others also
basically embraces this theoretical outlook, again in contrast to an outlook
that sees crisis as built into the very processes of capitalist
evolution/devolution.
To his credit, B does leave the door open to
the possibility of capitalist crisis in his statement, and
therefore does not dogmatically, mechanically embrace the notion that it
really comes down to "good guys" and "bad guys." And in so doing, he does
ground the discussion, in the end, in an empirical evaluation/estimate of the
world, rather than in a "flat-out metaphysical speculation" that such crises can
never happen.
So it is in the realm of
evaluating/estimating the concrete realities (as best as we can know them) that
the debate should take place, which is where it should take place, rather than
have it degenerate into the kinds of personalistic dogmatic bias that pose as
"openmindedness" by those who assert (with such strong,
dogmatic confidence!) that we can never know anything while they proceed
with their lives based on many assumptions that suit themselves. (a paraphrase
of Engels)
So what is the evidence? I would take some
issue with B on his assertion that fascism is a response to "socialism".
It certainly can be, and often is. But not necessarily. I'll get back to this
later. But B is right about one important point. There is no mass,
internationalist communist/Marxist movement. The Third International destroyed
the Nazis and built a better life for many people, but it was riddled with
contradictions, with errors and misestimates that should not be surprising,
given the enormous task and the enormous inexperience of that movement.
Nationalism, including especially Russian nationalism, was probably one of
the biggest mistakes that led to the downfall. The attempt by the People's
Republic of China to build an internationalist movement similarly degenerated
into cheerleading for China as a nation, and Cuba remains a small defensive
"holding action", essentially a social-democratic welfare state that tries
to treat its working class well but has abandoned revolutionary Marxism as it
tries to withstand the forces of imperialism (also called, in softened
terms: "global capitalism.") So B is correct. There is no serious
anti-capitalist threat to capitalism anywhere. The revolutionary forces are weak
and fragmented, often still by nationalism, and the (often pro-imperialist)
liberal "socialists" never posed a threat to capitalism as a system, and in any
case, are also on the defensive, even considering the interesting and important
new protest movements against
"imperialism/globalization."
Marxism is not mainly denounced in the U.S.
as a "formidable Evil Empire" anymore, but rather as an irrelevant,
weak, side trip that some "metaphysical theoreticians" took for a short
period in human history. That makes it difficult, perhaps more difficult in some
ways, to defend Marxism now, than even during the height of the Cold War.
On the other hand, even the capitalist mouthpieces nervously look over their
shoulder every so often, hearing the dogged footsteps of the working class
struggling to develop a systematic theory, a world view of how to organize the
world based on human potential and not corporate profits and how to build a
systematic movement to carry that out---and every so often they write yet
another heavy tome and another sensationalistic, wildly
exaggerated EXPOSE of the alleged, "crimes of
Marxism" as if to dig up the graves of Marx and Lenin just to make sure that the
bodies are still in there and maybe try to pump a few more bullets into the
coffin just to be positively sure. So, is Marxism dead forever? To
quote that eminent British imperialist theoretician, James Bond, "Never Say
Never!" Surely in Europe in 1903 one could have made some of the same
pessmistic appraisals of the future of humankind, or especially in 1912.
Yet the Soviet Revolution was only a few years away, although I would
agree that any serious Marxist revolution is quite a bit further away that ten
years or so! But any serious Marxist movement has to unflinchingly examine the
misestimate/errors of past Marxist movements even as it avoids scuttling the
Marxist project and embracing the various forms of capitalism (some of
which pose as "liberal Marxism" but which embrace capitalism),
capitalism, which has a documented history of human misery and
death.
Second, related
point
To return to one other point: fascism is
often a response to socialist/Marxist movements, especially revolutionary ones.
But capitalism does have crises even when the Marxist movement is weak.
Capitalism had a major crisis in the U.S. in the early 1930's. There was a small
radical-anticapitalist movement which was not a revolutionary threat. That
movement essentially made a deal with the liberal wing of the capitalist class,
and while they did engage in heroic struggles such as labor union organizing,
tenant organizing, etc. to somewhat soften the move by the capitalists to
utterly drive down wages, for the most part, that movement made an implicit
(maybe explicit?) deal with the Roosevelt-Rockefeller wing of the
capitalist class to divert the working class away from revolutionary organizing.
The result was a kind of "semi-fascism" where the society was militarized, the
standard of living of the working class did not rise much during the 1930's
despite the constant prattling about how the New Deal was creating prosperity
(sounds like the 1990's somewhat), and the working class was led to basically
obey the system that was squeezing profits from them and keeping them in
poverty.
But in many places, there has been full
scale fascist repression, mass murder, civil war, ethnic violence, even
without a serious Marxist threat. Some would argue that those eruptions are not
tied to the processes of capitalism but are rather just "epiphenominal", or
idiosyncratic or just based on various rooted, so-called "psychological"
tendencies that all humans have. But a deeper investigation will usually reveal
how a capitalist drive for increased profits is at the root of these conflicts.
Sometimes it can just be a local war, but often it is tied to something bigger.
Sometimes it appears indirect, where the victims are proxies, stand-ins, even
unknowing representatives of bigger capitalist powers that are responding to the
systemic capitalist pressures on their standards of living. But the point is
this: capitalism will react with intense violence not just against a
revolutionary anti-capitalist movement, but also against reform movements that
threaten their profits (Brazilian indigenous people for example) and also even
against other capitalists. And despite those who believe that U.S.
capitalism/imperialism is "TRIUMPHANT", the processes of capitalist devolution
continue and the possiblity for violent conflict among world powers is still
inherent in the system, although I would agree with B that direct massive
World War is not going to happen soon.
But the processes towards fascism, at least
in the U.S., are unfolding. It is far more than just the gun clubs and the
Religious Right (which did mobilize more for this Presidential election) and the
Ku Klux Klan/neo-Nazis. Their growth/maintenence is a reflection of this
process, of a culture of scapegoating that intensifies as the crisis
intensifies, and they can provide important foot soldiers for a fascist
movement. But the processes go much deeper than that.
The massive incarceration -- close to two
million -- is not just idiosyncratic. The system doesn't know what to do with so
many people left out of the standard economy.
The increasing militarization of public
schooling, both by the mainstream liberals and their standardization/school
reform/uniforms/explicit militarization, AND by their conservative opponents,
whose version of "anti-centralism" is an authoritarianism where THEY are in
charge!
The increasing biologization/medicalization
of social problems, where the victims are either deemed genetically hopeless, or
possibly salvageable with appropriate amounts of tranquilizers. Many readers of
this have no idea how widespread is the legal drugging of youth, including
middle income white youth.
The increased competition/conflict
internationally, as new anti-U.S. alignment begin to slowly coalesce. No world
war soon, but the cracks and conflicts are deepening. Combined with the
overwhelming, incalculable misery in the so-called "Third World",
especially Africa, which is impossible to accurately describe in an e-mail!
Instability leading to conflict, leading to new alliances, coalitions, bigger
wars.
Incredibly degrading culture--steel mills
turning into casinos. Government encouraged gambling/mysticism. Continued
growth of near cultist religious fundamentalism (have you looked at cable
television programming lately?). Increased degradation of women even as Madeline
Albright can help decide to bomb Serbia.
Increased pressure on the standard of living
of the median family in the U.S., despite nonsensical prattle about
prosperity. Dismantling of welfare. Massive growth of part-time/temporary labor.
And all this based on the "vapor money" of
an inflated stock market and massive credit. When that slows down, the safety
nets won't be there. But they have been putting in
place more so-called "anti-terrorism" laws. And trying to hire
lots more cops.
And all of this confounded especially with a
contradictory approach towards racist oppression, where the living conditions of
the majority of black working class people deteriorates, especially rapidly for
the lowest income parts of the black working class, and while the main section
of the capitalist class still needs to recruit some black people to help keep
the system in line. But the main aspect of this is the continued, intensified
oppression of the majority of black people in the U.S., as well as many Latinos
and increasingly other immigrant groups.
Dutt wrote that fascism is "organized
chaos." The chaos of capitalism causes widespread misery and the attempts by
some capitalists to restore "order" intensifies the misery. Whatever else one
might think of Dutt, that short definition does a pretty good job, for me, of
explaining a lot of the underlying dynamic of crisis and fascism.
====================
So while I guess B and I agree (along with
many others) that:
A) a full blown Nazi regime will take not
hold in the U.S. in next 5 years
and
B) World War is not around the
corner
and
C) there is not a serious, mass,
internationalist revolutionary Marxist movement that can threaten capitalism
yet==
I would still assert that:
A) the processes of capitalism will lead to
crisis and conflict, intensified misery, intensifed rebellion and a fascist
response by some major segments of the capitalist class against
revolutionaries, reformists, and other capitalists, in their attempt to maintain
profits and maintain social control
and
B) On an international level , these
conflicts can and will lead to more economic, then political, then military
conflicts, even among big powers,
and
C) Just as it was "sort of inevitable" that
humans would eventually learn to use fire and wheels, so it is "sort of
inevitable" that some humans will continue to band together to make sense of why
there is so much misery and what the possibilities are for a different kind of
society, and they will continue to develop understandings of the social
structures, social processes, and ideas that limit these possibilities, and
they will continue to organize. Newton's physics were not Absolute Truth.
Much of quantum mechanics physics points out where Newton's physics don't apply.
But quantum mechanics needed Newtonian physics as a base from which to grow.
Marxist theories of society are not Absolute Truth. They are relative to the era
of class society, especially capitalism. But they continue to provide a solid
base, if not an Absolutely Correct Predictive Capability. And much of that solid
base, especially the broad outlines of capitalist structural crisis, the role of
alienation in human life, important aspects of the way that women are especially
exploited and oppressed, the brilliant relevant analysis of racism summed up in
his short phrase: "labor in white skin can never be free wherein the black it is
branded", and the understanding the great potential for humankind when we
finally eliminate class society--all these and more continue to define the
continuing importance of Marxism -- not just as a moralistic declaration of
human liberation, but as a way to understand the world in order to make
that human liberation a reality. So what we do counts, and it counts more
if we do it in an organized way.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And here are my comments in response to B's
critique:
Maybe some of my comments were not clear. If
B misunderstood them, I can only assume that others might have misunderstood
them as well, so I appreciate the criticism as a way to clarify my
points.
=====================
1) I used the word "heroic" to describe the
efforts of the Communist Party, U.S.A. during the 1920's and 1930's. I did not
"flip them off." I criticized their reformist line, but I truly admire
their courage and dedication and I (among others) have learned, and have a lot
to learn from their experiences (and their errors.) Similarly, I
regard the Vietnamese struggle against the U.S. as "heroic" but that will not
stop me from criticizing the fact that it was weaknesses in their political line
DURING THEIR HEROIC PERIOD that lay the basis for their now begging U.S.
imperialism to PLEASE exploit their
workers.
2) The Cuban government's success at
improving the lives of the Cuban working class has been a remarkable
achievement, as has their struggle to resist destruction by the United States. I
don't know why B would regard it as an insult to the Cubans if I referred to
their social system as "social democratic or liberal socialism" rather than
revolutionary socialism. I thought that was what B himself supported, since he
thinks that Marxist revolution is a silly, immature dream.
3) I don't approve of using the term
"fascism" every time someone gets a parking ticket. The term "fascism" often is
over-used to the point of trivializing it. B said that Lenin said that violence
is a part of every state. I agree. I would say that fascism IS always existing,
but sometimes in the background, of every capitalist state. It flares up, not
simply when there is a revolutionary movement, but when there is a fundamental
threat to a main section of the capitalist class. And I would argue that world
capitalism is in crisis, although for the past decade or so and for the next few
years, U.S. capitalism seems to have slowed its decline a bit because of
increased flexibility that came from the collapse of the Soviet bloc. But U.S.
capitalism is under assault. And U.S. capitalism is "tightening up." I did
not visit Germany as Nazism was developing. B is a talented writer who
paints pictures that have great impact. But I invite him to tour major
parts of Pakistan, or Colombia, or the Gaza Strip, or El Salvador or Ethiopia or
Nigeria or Afghanistan to see if fascist capitalism has vanished from the scene,
fascist capitalism, by the way, which is supported by countries such as the
U.S., which pretend to be anti-fascist. That has always been the political
Achilles' Heel of reformist liberals/socialists. They tend to think in
nationalist terms and don't pay enough attention to how capitalism/imperialism
is pushing fascist misery down the throats of people in other countries. It is
an interlocked world.
Side point: The only reason that
"authoritarianism" (fascism?) in Chile was able to "call it quits" was
because tens of thousands of revolutionaries and just plain working class
reformists were murdered. There was no longer any threat to the main capitalist
class in Chile or to the interests of their backers, corporate U.S.A. It
was not the lack of viciousness or a burst of generosity that ended
"authoritarianism" in Chile. It was because it was no longer needed. If it is
needed, it will return.
We don't have to go to the rural areas of El
Salvador to see fascism. I invite B to tour Gary, Indiana with me, any evening
after dark, to see the young men being illegally searched, sometimes
beaten, sometimes humiliated, sometimes arrested. Or East Los Angeles,
where workers are paid near starvation wages and live in fear of arrests,
beatings, and deportations. There is a danger in crying "Fascism!" everytime a
government pursues an objectionable policy. There is also a danger in not
grasping the scope, depths, and intensity of oppression that does exist right
now.
Alan Spector
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|