Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| What is Fascism? |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2024-12-15
| |||||||
| The question “What is Fascism” seems timely in America (late 2024) and is discussed in an article, here, Portside reprinted from here, Jacobin, “Knowing Fascism Requires Understanding Economic Forces”, by Taylor Dorrell. After reminding us of the Marx Brothers spoof on dictators, “Duck Soup”, Dorrell continues by poking fun at two historians who seem unable to find a “definition” for “fascism”. What appears comical in Benchley’s historical assessment and Duck Soup — that is, a refusal to grapple with what fascism truly is — persists today in some academic circles. In Fascism Comes to America: A Century of Obsession in Politics and Culture, Bruce Kuklick contends that “there is no elemental fascism or much empirical content.” Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins arrives at the same conclusion in his introduction to Did it Happen Here? Perspectives on Fascism and America, insisting that “the way forward is to put the fascism debate to rest.” Both analyze the decades-long debates surrounding fascism, its definition, and its relevance to the present, and both definitively conclude that the world will simply have to . . . figure it out for itself.(Dorrell).[1] Seeking a reasoned discussion in preference to learned pretended puzzlement, Dorrell next turns to a Communist explanation of “fascism”: In contrast, the communists approached fascism through a materialist lens, grounding their analysis in class and economic dynamics. After a period of playing fast and loose with trigger-happy denunciations of “social fascism,” by 1935 the Communist International defined fascism not as a psychological or exclusively cultural phenomenon but as a repressive form of dictatorship serving the interests of a segment of reactionary and imperialist economic elites. This framing linked fascism directly to the forces of economic exploitation and class power that are essential for understanding and fighting against fascism today.(Dorrell). For myself, I would say that we should not be concerned with defining “fascism” but, rather, with understanding manifestations labeled as “fascism”—or manifestations such as Trump’s electoral victory and the results of that victory already signalled by his proposed cabinet and other appointments, mostly of billionaires and incompetent MAGA toadies. As to defining political labels such as “fascism” or “democracy”, I lean toward an idea I first read in something by Noam Chomsky, namely, that political forces (or movements) are often the result of a convergence of “interests”, and often not the result of a single overriding “interest”. Digression on USA’s Pro-Israel Policy; Fascism Discussed Below Thus, in what I recall as Chomsky’s example, the USA’s (both parties’) rock-solid pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, and thus anti-human-rights and anti-international-law stance, results from a convergence of at least five “interests” or “elements”: [1] pressure from “BIG-ZION” (pro-Israel lobbying by AIPAC and associated millionaires, today, maybe billionaires); [2] pressure from “MIC” (the military-industrial-complex, basically a “capitalist” pressure mechanism for enriching weopons manufacturers by encouraging war-preparation and war-fighting by USA, Israel, and anyone else who will buy American-made weopons); [3] ideological support by a nowadays diminishing number of pro-Israel Jewish voters and a nowadays increasing number of pro-Israel Evangelical Christian voters; [4] pressure from assorted major corporations and their wealthy owners which profit from USA’s economic and military dominance of international sources of raw materials and markets, especially “BIG-OIL”; and [5] the “neocon” phenomenon, a congeries of “think tanks” and professional “deep-state” politicians committed to endless war, especially in Israel’s interest, which, for instance, induced Bush Jr. (as it worked out, disasterously) to commit an unprovoked war of USA’s aggression against Iraq. “Neoconservatism” is discussed here Although U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not self-identified as neoconservatives, they worked closely alongside neoconservative officials in designing key aspects of the Bush administration’s foreign policy; especially in their support for Israel, promotion of American influence in the Arab world and launching the war on terror.[3] The Bush administration’s domestic and foreign policies were heavily influenced by major ideologues affiliated with neoconservatism, such as Bernard Lewis, Lulu Schwartz, Richard and Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and Robert Kagan.(Ibid.). I would say that the voting of pro-Israel folks is vastly less important than the dominating pressures and inducements (enormous support for re-election) of AIPAC, the MIC, and international corporations such as those within “BIG-OIL”. During 2024 we have seen the entire Congress, with a very few exceptions, self-righteously mouth slogans (such as “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle-East”—blithely ignoring Israel’s slide into “fascism”) and asserting, by way of justification of genocide, “Israel’s right to defend itself” (comfortably ignoring the extreme provocation of Israel’s 56-year occupation and 75-year oppression of Palestinians, especially in Gaza). That nearly entire Congress, routinely churning out senseless platitudes, has been cheerfully and undemocratically OKing continued genocide by Israel in Gaza, cheerfully ignoring the desires of a clear majority of American voters for a ceasefire in the Gaza genocidal war. In the USA, money talks and “democracy” walks. Or as we may now say, money “trumps” democracy. And Now, What of “Fascism”? To my mind, the political label “fascism” is properly used to characterize a political regime which is—at a minimum—dictatorial (ignoring the will of the people and suppressing counter-regime expressions of opinion) and supported by or supporting industrial or finance capitalism. We’ve already seen, in the USA, the fascist-style suppression of counter-regime opinion, first (in my lifetime) in the McCarthy period (1950s), when pro-communist or pro-socialist expression was suppressed, and then in the 2000s, especially after October 7, 2023, the suppression of pro-Palestine (or Israel-critical) expression. The First Amednment’s “freedom of speech” guarantee in the USA is certainly an illusory guarantee when social pressure is generated to ‘outlaw’ a particular opinion. As to fascism, this is what some communists came up with in 1935: In 1935, Dimitrov delivered a report to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, articulating a definition of fascism that resulted from years of debate among communists — including figures like Clara Zetkin and Antonio Gramsci. Fascism, Dimitrov declared, was “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”Dorrell. This definition mentions “reactionary” which means As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics;[1] the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present.[2] In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.Wikipedia. This characterization, “reactionary”, fits well with the Trump/MAGA electioneering, which aspires to a return to a “great” previous era. This previous era seems to be one in which white male Christians dominate non-white, non-Christian, and non-male people (is MAGA longing for the slavery era of the pre-civil-war South?). And the roll-back of abortion rights, and the attacks on trans people and gays, both seem like returns to what MAGA folks may see as a “better” (or “great”) past. Similarly the attacks actual and promised on immigrants seem a “return” to a “better” past when extreme xenophobia was more popular than today. The definition also mentions “openly terrorist”. Until Trump takes office, we cannot know for sure, but he promises to punish those who have opposed him. And the Jan 6 event smacked of terrorism. So there’s that. Another characterization of fascism: In 1926, Gramsci observed that fascism was not a “pre-democratic regime” which would one day mature into a liberal democracy but instead was “the expression of the most advanced stage of development of capitalist society.”Dorrell My take on this is that “capitalism” has not changed much (apart from various technological changes) in recent years, and the “capture” (see : “Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy” by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse) by BIG-MONEY of national and state legislatures, and of the federal and of many state courts, has been going on for a long time, and seems headed for completion, recently. What may be new, under Trump, is the extreme blatancy (“open and notorious”) appointment of billionaire “foxes” to guard the “henhouses” of (up til today) America’s citizen-protective institutions. The promised roll-back of regulations (on businesses), the “drill, drill, drill” promise to BIG-OIL, the promise of even more lowering of taxes on businesses and the morbidly rich—all these may be a sort of culmination of the triumph of BIG-MONEY over the USA, and thus qualify as “the expression of the most advanced stage of development of capitalist society” mentioned above. Conclusion I don’t know if I’ve shed any light on the question, “What is Fascism”, but I’d say that the 1930s communist definitions of fascism seem to be consistent with what the second Trump administration looks likely to deliver. ----------- [1] My own take on academics who cannot find words to characterize the USA, today or tommorrow, as “fascist”, or who cannot even define or describe “fascism”, is not that the academics are stupid or lazy, but that they are corrupted either by personal ideology—USA cannot be fascist—or by professional ideology—what the universities will allow or require to be said. The universities as we’ve seen in the dreadful crackdowns on pro-Palestine expressions, are now centers of censorship rather than the idealized centers of free teaching, free research, and free expression that may at one time have prevailed. The same holds for reporters and opinion writers on most “mainstream” newspapers and other publications, and on TV and other media: most of them are on corporate payrolls these days and what they may say is controlled and censored by their “capitalist” masters. More “triumph of capitalism” I guess. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |