May 19, 2016

Misunderstandng fascism

There’s increasing talk of Trump as being a fascist. In fact he has far more in common with some of the big Latin American dictators of the past, whose only ideology was what was on their minds. But then fascism is one of those words often not well understood.

For example, writing for Vox, Dylan Matthews recently misleadingly noted:

In fact, most experts think that it's hard to identify a characteristically "fascist" economic policy. It was all secondary to other goals, notably preparation for war. "Of all the policy areas, the economic one is the one where classical historic fascist parties were most flexible," Paxton says. "They did what was expedient in the moment. They were defending war veterans and attacking big corporations but quickly dropped that when they discovered they needed the money. … It's hard to link those people to any one kind of economic idea. They would do anything to make their country militarily ready for war."

This is completely unhistorical view of the word. As we pointed out some years back:

In the first place, one needs to separate Hitler, Nazism and fascism. Conflating these leads the unwary to assume easily that all three are inevitably characterized by anti-Semitism, when in fact only the first two are. By avoiding this distinction we don't have to face the fact that America is closer to fascism than it has ever been in its history.

To understand why, one needs to look not at Hitler but at the founder of fascism, Mussolini. What Mussolini founded was the estato corporativo - the corporative state or corporatism. Writing in Economic Affairs in the mid 1970s, R.E. Pahl and J. T. Winkler described corporatism as a system under which government guides privately owned businesses towards order, unity, nationalism and success. They were quite clear as to what this system amounted to: "Let us not mince words. Corporatism is fascism with a human face. . . An acceptable face of fascism, indeed, a masked version of it, because so far the more repugnant political and social aspects of the German and Italian regimes are absent or only present in diluted forms."

Adrian Lyttelton, describing the rise of Italian fascism in The Seizure of Power, writes: "A good example of Mussolini's new views is provided by his inaugural speech to the National Exports Institute on 8 July 1926. . . Industry was ordered to form 'a common front' in dealing with foreigners, to avoid 'ruinous competition,' and to eliminate inefficient enterprises. . . The values of competition were to be replaced by those of organization: Italian industry would be reshaped and modernized by the cartel and trust. . .There was a new philosophy here of state intervention for the technical modernization of the economy serving the ultimate political objectives of military strength and self-sufficiency; it was a return to the authoritarian and interventionist war economy."

Lyttelton writes that "fascism can be viewed as a product of the transition from the market capitalism of the independent producer to the organized capitalism of the oligopoly." It was a point that Orwell had noted when he described fascism as being but an extension of capitalism. Lyttelton quoted Nationalist theorist Affredo Rocco: "The Fascist economy is. . . an organized economy. It is organized by the producers themselves, under the supreme direction and control of the State."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Not all that relevant to the US which invented the current form. Has to do with slavery and wage slavery in an industrial era. This system in the CSA was naturally imperialist, not just the civil war but its precursor war against Mexico. Andersonville and the Long March, reservations,eugenics,Bernaysian propaganda. Hitler got it from Wilson, designer of Versailles Treaty, the MIC and anticommunism. Hitler was indebted to US business support in violation of Versailles. Fascism in the US most directly derives from Operation Paperclip and the Dulles Brothers whose anticommunism preceded Hitler and borrowed from him.Mae Brussell was the expert on the actual handoff of the Nazi Axis empire to its US successor, the object still being to unify the globe under one master government restoring in the US version, feudalism for the supreme financial sector successfully defeatng nouveau riches of industrial production if productive capitalism, to the extent coexisting, is controlled by a financialized anti-producer state overseeing static slavery much like the CSA.