EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:37:37 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (91 lines)
Leon Surette writes:
>Bob Scheetz wrote: "probably the principal virtue of fascism its not being
>bourgeois."
>   I wonder where Bob got that idea. Everything I have read about Fascism
>and Nazism identifies both movements as entirely bourgeois--petit
bourgeois,
>to be sure, but certainly bourgeois.
>    The anti-bourgeois movement of the thirties was Communism or
Bolshevism.
 
 
setting aside the problem of false-consciousness
(lotsa petty boojwa joined the CP, also, of course),
it is classically true that historically
within the capitalistimperium,
when the bourgeois class of a client state
defaulted to the popular classes,
washington, as well as its own bourgeois rump,
was at great pains to patronize the contending fascist form
(typically hitler's as well as pinochet's
 friekorps death-squads got lavishly funded
by brit, us, ...bourgeoisie),
while maintaining a relentlessy hostile policy
toward the communist
...to the pt even of holding a 6 yr old boy political hostage, eh!
 
but clearly, the collapse of the world econ in the 30's signified
a (as it turned out temporary) generalized displacement of
the political ascendancy of the bourgeoisie;
in almost all of europe, but especially
in germany, spain, italy, austria and russia,
the sansculottes, under popular forms,
fascism/socialism, took power.
 
the political-econ trajectory of modern germany, eg,
had went  from whiggery to weimar to nazism.
...that's to say, nobles to burghers to proles.
each defeat ringing the devolution change of class succession, no?
 
but each class within itself
carries on a dialectic of governance:
as the bourgeois form is realized
thru an executive-parliamentary dialectic,
the proletariat has the incessant cadre-rank'n'file,
fuhrer/duce/chairman v party,
...or, if you will, fascism v sovietism.
the characteristic forms are police(military) and shop floor.
 
so national socialism and communism are class-cognate;
in germany spartacism, the progressive form,
was overpowered by nazism, the retrograde;
in russia, bolshevism (ie trotsky), by stalinism.
...
finally, just to remind, in this area
itz always talking  marginal effect, we are,  no?
every body politic always contains simultaneously
living elements of all its historical evolutionary stages
and, all organically cathected;
so, the question of class ascendancy and forms
is also a thing at the margin,
underpinned and involved and circumscribed...etc,
with manifold heteronomies...
 
...nso on
 
bob
 
bob
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Surette <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 8:12 PM
Subject: Bourgeois Fascism
 
 
>Bob Scheetz wrote: "probably the principal virtue of fascism its not being
>bourgeois."
>   I wonder where Bob got that idea. Everything I have read about Fascism
>and Nazism identifies both movements as entirely bourgeois--petit
bourgeois,
>to be sure, but certainly bourgeois.
>    The anti-bourgeois movement of the thirties was Communism or
Bolshevism.
>Leon Surette
>English Dept.
>University of Western Ontario
>London, Ont.
>N6A 3K7

ATOM RSS1 RSS2