American Fascism ?

Charles Brown BrownBingb at aol.com
Mon May 26 10:17:35 MDT 2003


From: "Alex LoCascio" <alexlocascio at mail.com>
Subject: American Fascism? (was re: Samir Amin)

I think Noel Ignatiev summarized why the American system
is *not* fascist in a rather good pamphlet he wrote back
in his Sojourner Truth days, called "An Introduction to
the United States: An Autonomist Political History."


-clip-

^^^^^^^^^^

Hello Alex,

Detroit's loss is Germany's gain. Hope you are having a good stay there.

An important part of fascism's essential features is aggressive, conquering
warmaking. The U.S. today fully qualifies in this regard as fascist.

The question on "domestic" U.S. policy is "what is the direction of things ?"
 Since the "September 11" attack, the Patriot Act I , and rumored Act II,
state legislators in one state discussing treating anti-war protests as
punishable by life in prison, and other rumblings serious concerns exist about how far
things might go.

I would add that white supremacist institutions are not exactly in
contradiction to some USAmerican form of fascism. They would serve well as a core
principle of it. White supremacy has served bourgeois hegemony well until now, but
things change. The bourgeoisie may see the need for something new to augment it
in the face of the qualitatively new threat that Sept. 11 represents. Also,
if a depression breaks out, what will be their response ?  I doubt it will be a
new New Deal.  The Patriot Acts may be preparation for the repressive
response to the social unrest of a drastic economic downturn.  It need not be
technically identical to fascism of the 1920's and 30's, but a new form of open
terrorist dictatorship by finance capital.

There is no premature anti-fascism.

Charles

^^^^^^



^^^^^^




"Everything in the U.S. must be viewed through the prism of the white
supremacist contract on which bourgeois hegemony rests. Denial of rights
to, and violence against, people of color is not fascism but the ordinary
operation of bourgeois legality in the U.S. Indeed, this violence is premised

not on the denial of bourgeois rights to the rest of the population but on
the continuance of these rights.Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, resisting
through
the most savage violence even the slightest concession to people of color,
have
had as their aim not the destruction of unions, constitutional legality, etc.

but their maintenence and strengthening for whites only. (For example, in one

fifteen year period in the last century, there were over fifty strikes on the

southern railroads with the aim of driving the black workers out of the
industry
and strengthening the bargaining position of the white union in relation to
management.
Even today, in many localities, the Klan does not oppose but leads union
locals.

There do exist fascist groups, and they have some base, but if fascism is
understood as a movement, with some degree of autonomy directed against
"ordinary" bourgeois rule, then it must be said that, excepting for a short
period in the early 1930's, fascism has never been favored by the capitalist
class in its dominant sectors. (This is not to deny growing pressure toward
more right-wing, repressive policies within the existing institutional
framework.)
Why should the bourgeoisie favor fascism? Hasn't white supremacy served to
maintain its rule so far?"






More information about the Marxism mailing list