Fascism: are we there yet?

Dr Clinton Fernandes asks about Fascism: are we there yet? in the Summer 2006/2007 Edition (No.22) of Dissent (pp.22-26).

Clinton Fernandes discusses the history of fascism to show that the Howard government is simply trying to contain the power of trade unions and curtail civil liberties in order to strengthen capitalism rather than leading a counter-revolution against the Enlightenment.

Dr. Fernandes appears to be describing a disease by listing its symptoms without explaining the underlying cause. This is in contrast to Leon Trotsky's analysis of Fascism.

Dr. Fernandes describes the characteristics of Fascism to be:

Although there remains considerable disagreement over what Fascism is, there is general agreement that is a form of counter-revolution - a revolution against revolution. It includes economic corporatism, hostility to the labour movement, extreme populism, class-based resentment, ultra-nationalism and hostility to Enlightenment values. It is the last attempt to stave off revolution in the context of economic crisis and political upheaval. (p.26)

Emphasis Mine

Here Dr. Fernandes is describing Fascism through its extrinsic nature. He says that Fascism exists only in a dynamic sense. Take away what it is reacting to and it ceases to exist. This would mean that the success of a Fascist revolution would destroy itself. There has to be an intrinsic nature to Fascism because it is fairly durable: German, Italian, and Eastern European Fascism were destroyed by war; Spanish Fascism died with Franco.

As I wrote about previously in Proto-Fascism in the USA, Leon Trotsky emphasised the class nature of the rise of Fascism.

Dr. Fernandes alludes to this class nature though the lens of resentment:

It is instructive that fascists drew heavily for their membership on intermediate layers of the population such as small landowners and members of the lower middle classes. Intermediate layers felt a strong resentment towards the workers they employed as well as towards big businesses that were making their lives harder. They resented the banks that owned their mortgages, the big businesses that were taking away their market share, the unions whose strikes were interfering with their operations, and new movements such as feminism or environmentalism that threatened the social order. They were tehrefore attracted demagogic, charismatic politicians who employed anti-capitalist and anti-working class rhetoric. During the Great Depresion, thousands of middle-class conservatives feared the growing power of the left and saw fascism as the way out of economic crisis. (p.24)

Emphasis Mine

Dr. Fernandes is describing the characteristics of the Petit-Bourgeois. The intrinsic or objective nature of this class is that its member rely chiefly upon the active use of property¹ to generate their income (Bourgeois) but the quantity of such property is at the lower end (ergo Petit or small). The division of the Bourgeois class comes about when the variance in the quantity of property is marked.

From this instrinsic characteristic of the Petit-Bourgeios, the other extrinsic characteristics can be derived. The existence and maintenance of their property is vital to their survival physically and psychologically. Their property is the means by which they feed, clothe, and otherwise care for their family. Their property is their independence from wage-slavery and their independence from masters.

Thus, the demands of the workers for better conditions threatens the existence of the Petit-Bourgeois through greater demands on their property, and through the psychologically challenge of the inferiors against their superiors. The employers care for their workers because their workers depend on them. This attitude emphasises the true independence of the Bourgeois: they are able to care for the less able. For if the workers were better abled, they would be Bourgeois not workers. This is an axiom of Capitalism.

The existence and increasing flow of property to the big Bourgeois affronts the Petit-Bourgeois because their self-image of the acquirer of wealth through hard work is daily being undermined. They cannot see that the operation of Capitalism neccessitates the concentration of Capital (aka property) into the hands of a clique.

The Petit-Bourgeois are then avid subscribers to any conspiracy theory that explains why, despite all that hard work, their property is being sucked by big business and the banks. Their blind faith in the fairness of the Capitalist system hides from them the ugly truth of the rate of accumulation of Capital determines success not ability. It is those who generate the biggest profits in the shortest time that win the race.

The key trigger to the growth of Fascism is an economic crisis that threatens the Petit-Bourgeois. A combination of economic contraction with foreclosures by banks ignites the movement. That a worker's revolution precedes a Fascist one just means that workers are affected much earlier by an economic collapse than the Bourgeois are.

All the other attributes Dr. Fernandes ascribes to Fascism arise from its intrinsic naure. Racism (p.24) and Nationalism (p.25) are emphasised because they are key results of the Capitalist system. (More of the same to overcome the problem).

The opposition to Enlightenment values (p.25) arises because the Petit-Bourgeois see themselves as doers not thinkers. The abstract notions of free speech, freedom of religious practice, etc. do have any practical effect on their daily lives. They are more seen as restrictions on their activities and an effort to keep them oppressed.

Fascism is then the rebellion of the oppressed small business person against their tormentors. They try to create a new society but end up in the same prison of Capitalism. And, as always, it is the banks and big business who have the last laugh.

Footnotes

¹ The emphasis on the active use of property is meant to distinguish the Petit-Bourgeois from the Rentier class who derive their income chiefly through rents on their property. The Petit-Bourgeois do things with their property whereas the Rentiers let others do things with the Rentier's property.