|
a type of radical nationalism.
typically at the ideological level, fascism works around a continual re-definition of the national body-politic through the definition of an internal Other: in germany of the 1930s, the Other was the Left, homosexuals, the physically or mentally impaired, and, obviously, the jews.
the Other enables a sense of purification of the body politic, which in turn enables that body to become healthy and in turn embark upon its Historical Mission, which is generally expressed in military terms.
legally, you have a dictatorship which takes shape in the context of a state of emergency or exception: generally this legal situation dovetails with the ideological formation, makes it operational. the ideological form in turn enables the state of exception.
sound familiar?
at the level of state structure, there is considerable variation between types of fascism--the german example hinged around the fabrication of a "dual state" one formal, the other less formal--relations between the healthy body politics and the state were directed toward the informal institutions--the formal ones became instruments of repression--the spanish state structure was different, the italian, the argentine, the portugese--all different one from the other.
none of this has any relation to stalinism---even if both ended up being a kind of genocidal regime, the parallels between them at the level of ideology are so shallow as to make then analytically worthless, and the relations between the state and outside the state were also entirely different. there are multiple pathways to genocide--the american system is itself another (remember the extermination of the native americans?)---often you read that "analysis" on this level is linked to and justified by a concern about massacre or genocide--but if you think about it, these arguments don't even start: they basically serve a therapeutic function--genocide is a possibility that arises from Outside the "center" which is the viewpoint from which the analysis departs.
so if you want to talk about anything--really--using the term fascism, you end up being pushed back onto its characteristics as an ideological formation first of all--and that ideological formation looks a whole lot like the post 9/11/2001 worldview of the american political right. then you have to think in terms of the various usages of the state of emergency or exception--another post 9/11/2001 parallel.
does that mean the american system has **been** fascist since 9/12/2001: no. it means that it has slid dangerously close to it. that's all. parallel, not identity. why? the state of emergency has remained largely rhetorical. and then there was iraq, which crumbled the regime politically. now the bush people couldnt be fascist if they wanted to be: they dont have the consent.
conservatives might not like that, but it's of no consequence to me.
as far as the argument i made against you, above, loquitor, its easy peasy: if you work off the op as a "definition" of fascism, it comes down to illegal surveillance. i dont think that's a defining characteristic of fascism at all, so i think it a red herring.
insofar as captialism cannot possibly be fascist, i think that's idiotic.
actually existing capitalism has depended and will continue to depend on the functionality of the state, on its repressive arm--but generally, capitalism also requires the procedural legitimacy of the state to remain intact because its own procedural legitimacy to some extent derives from that of the state.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|