"Fascism" again, was Re: Chile

Charles Brown CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Sep 9 15:01:55 MDT 1999

Seems to me in defining "fascism" , we should start with Mussolini and the Fascist
Party. It was a form of Bonapartism, as Louis points out. But the most specific
historical context is the bourgeois , which was at top a financial oligarchy as Lenin
analyzed in _Imperialism_, responding to the world on the eve or morning after the
socialist revolution. Mussolini invented the specific form, and the Nazis developed
the most horrific model.

Anyway, Dimitrov still gives the most succinct definition: the open terrorist rule of
the  most chauvinist, reactionary sector of finance capital. Open terrorist rule
contrasts with the veiled terrorist rule which is the nature of all states in class
exploiting societies. The bourgeois prefer to rule in the  bourgeois democratic
republic ( which is still a state and still rule by terror ultimately; See _The State
and Revolution_ ).

Fascism today , if the term is used, must be linked to the world financial oligarchy.
It rules with open terror in many of its neo-colonies. So, the definition has some use
there. But as Yoshie has mentioned, it is important to see the U.S. and imperialism as
the locus of the financial oligarchy ruling the colonies , in order not to feed into
the socalled humantarian intervention syndrome au courant.

Charles Brown

>>> Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> 09/09/99 03:43PM >>>
>No I don't care to. I never use the term myself just because its usual
>use is so damn sloppy that it has ceased to mean anything.

Carrol in his characteristically curmudgeonly fashion has pointed to the
need for a definition of fascism, which I will now supply. We had a
cyber-seminar on fascism on the old Marxism list, which was highly
successful. This is the Trotskyist approach to the question, which is part
of my lengthy treatment on the subject at:




More information about the Marxism mailing list