From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 15:39:59 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: "Fascism is corporatism"
In-Reply-To: <addcfd85030210047ae2@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960607174038.163C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 6:18 PM 6/6/96, Rich Graves wrote:
> >On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Bruce Baugh, who usually knows better, wrote:
> >
> >> Fascism has no intrinsic link to genocide. It is a theory of economics,
> >> basically, in which the state has ultimate authority over production and
> >> distribution without (as in socialism) actually _owning_ the means of
> ...
> >Yes, I'm afraid these ahistorical myths are widespread. What _do_ they teach
> >in these schools?
> >
> >Pick up anything by Renzo De Felice to gain a basic historical understanding
> >of what fascism was about, from someone who was sympathetic to them.
> 
> Rich, I don't think it nearly so clear as you are claiming. The definition
> of fascism, that is. Without resorting to the usual ploy of quoting
> Webster's (a ploy I usually am not impressed by), let me cite an

Actually, perhaps you *should* check Webster's... you forget that I'm a
Certified Political Scientist. The etymology of fascism is particularly on
point. Historically, it refers to the building of a military vanguard as an
outgrowth of risorgimento, Italy's process of becoming a independent,
unified [fucking] state rather than a bunch of weak city-states, which were
often dominated by French, Prussian, or Austria-Hungarian interests.

In an interesting turn from the theme of this list, Italians from the 1870's
through Mussolini saw a strong, centralized state as the best way to be free
from tyranny and government theft. I'm not much of an historian of Italy,
though, so I won't pursue this point. Besides, it came from a peculiar set
of historical circumstances that CLEARLY do not apply to the US today. 

> "anti-fascist" radio personality, Dave Emory, who I have been listening to
> nearly every week for several years.
> 
> Dave is undeniably anti-fascist, an unusual mixture of left-leaning views
> and National Rifle Association sympathies, and he often quotes Mussolini's
> famous "Fascism is corporatism" line. That is, a view more similar to Bruce

Sounds like my kind of guy. I tend not to be much impressed by radio
personalities, but I may look him up.

"What is fascism" could be batted about forever; I don't think it's much
worth talking about, especially out of historical context. Mussolini started
as a Machiavellian who had not read Machiavelli. Early fascism, and the
etymology of fascism, was a nationalistic, militaristic struggle for power.
Once they got in power, then they started developing an economic ideology.
That's how it works with just about every "political theory"... with the
exceptions of Marxism, libertarianism, and religious fundamentalism,
perhaps.

> Baugh's point that fascism is primarily an economic theory, about the
> organization and ownership of production systems, than about hatred of any
> particular ethnic group.

Of "particular" ethnic groups, probably no. Ezra Pound's antisemitism was
actually pretty unusual. But fascism's essence is rabid, disciplined
nationalism of the militaristic kind. Not really xenophobic and explicitly
genocidal like "National Socialism," which isn't descriptive but was just a
name/party that Hitler was able to hijack to put his extended rant Mein
Kampf into practice, but definitely conscious of the "national character" to
the exclusion of any other. 

> ("Fascism is corporatism" is of course not an overall indictment of all
> corporations. "Corporatism" is basically a view that government should
> identify key industries and corporations and then pick the winners and
> support them while suppressing their competitors. This oversimplifies what
> Mussolini, Emory, myself, etc. mean by "corporatism," but I hope this gives
> at least a glimpse.

That's one glimpse, but I think it's worthwile clarifying that corporatism
isn't about corporations. It's organizing societal groups into officially
recognized corps. Corporatism defines people by their profession, to the
exclusion of any other ties that bind (religion, family, hobbies, political
views, race -- cuz they're all assumed to be of the same "national
character" anyway) and all transactions among the various corps is mediated
by the government. An excellent example of corporatism is Mexico's PRI
(Institutional Revolutionary Party), which is essentially to say the Mexican
government, which is functionally divided into units such as the CTM
(Confederation of Mexican Workers, an umbrella for legally sanctioned trade
unions).

-rich