| Fascism With a Happy Face by Doug Dowd Introduction
Gross well knew that neither fascism nor capitalism has been or ever could be “friendly,” and that there have been and will be substantial variations for both. Thus, fascism, although always murderous, was less so in Italy, say, than in Germany; and capitalism, though always exploitative and dehumanizing, has not only varied much over time within countries, but also as between them: compare the U.S. capitalism of the 1920s with that of the 1960s, or contemporary German capitalism with ours. Gross aimed to show that fascism, like capitalism, does and must change its forms to suit itself from time to time, place to place. So watch out. Fascism has always been a response to capitalist crisis. That metaphor is a slippery one, used by economists (including Marx) to characterize the turn from economic expansion to contraction. However, in what follows, “crisis” will not be confined to the economy, but to a “crisis” of the capitalist system’s always and necessarily interacting economic, political, and sociocultural dimensions. Thus, when Marx said (in The German Ideology) that “the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of its ruling class” he was pointing to both the need and the ability of capital to dominate all facets of existence, if it was to control the economy. Capitalism must be viewed as an organic system; its “health,” like that of humans, depends upon the harmonious functioning of its interdependent “organs.” But it is also true of both systems that some organs are more important than the others: the heart and the brain for us, the profitable accumulation of the privately-controlled means of production for capitalism. The accumulation process by its very nature produces always alternating periods of economic expansion and contraction. When times are good for capital, they are likely to be at their least bad for the rest of us, and the system is not in contention; not so when times are bad — then, those who work for a living pay quite reasonably blame their troubles on those who have taken the credit for the good times. In that sense, an economic crisis always means some degree of political discontent; but for that degree to increase sufficiently to threaten capitalism itself requires much else. Here we treat very briefly of some of the “much else” that produced capitalism’s first “systemic” crisis, and that in doing so gave birth to powerful socialist and fascist movements. Capitalist crises: Number One Capitalism didn’t become capitalism until the era of industrialization began. Then, alternating waves of expansion and contraction became the rule; also a “rule” was the emergence of one dominating nation, which, by the 1850s, meant Britain. But by 1910 Germany, the USA and Japan were also industrially strong enough to be effectively competitive with Britain for markets, and Germany and Japan (both resource poor) were desperate for imperial possessions. And Britain’s “hegemony” was becoming more threatened than real — whether in the realm of economic, political, or military affairs.2 Moreover, remembering that capitalism’s birth and what is called its “health” have always depended upon the exploitation both of workers and of weaker societies in a global system, then, when Britain could no longer provide either sufficient carrots or sticks to control the emerging giants, trouble was just around the corner — economic + military + political trouble. It was the most disastrous set of troubles the world had ever seen: international war, 1914–1918, a virtual breakdown of the global economy (world trade dropped by 2/3 between 1920 and 1930), and, not a “cyclical downturn” but a depression that spread from Britain (which averaged 10 percent unemployed throughout the 1920s) to the rest of the world. The connected chaos and convulsions finally produced war again, 1939–1945, the worst war ever. So far. Devastating though World War I had been, it was horrifically outdone by the second: 10 million dead in the first war, but six times that in Europe alone in the second (28 million of which, it is here relevant to remember, those of the USSR), plus the crushing of Europe’s infrastructure, factories, and agriculture, and an historically unprecedented sociopolitical collapse in all of Europe (and Japan). It will be argued later that in the 1970s, capitalism showed the early signs of its second crisis. Whether we are still at its early, or at its middle or late stage will be discussed later. Now back to the effects of the first crisis, which, some decades after its beginnings, also produced history’s first fascist society. The monster is born3 “Unfriendly” fascism first raised its head in Italy in 1919, Mussolini its cheerleader. The cheerleader became Duce in 1922, when he was handed state power by King Vittorio Emanuele — “handed” because he was neither voted in nor had he won a struggle. Why? Item: In the years 1918–1922, there were from 1,000 to 3,000 left-led strikes a year, many of them entailing the occupation of factories. One can almost hear the murmur of the then business, governmental, and religious rulers of Italy, as regards fascism: “There is no alternative.” (Pace Margaret Thatcher.) In those same years, the seeds of Nazism were germinating; as they sprouted, they produced various forms of intimidation and violence against what became the composite scapegoat of the Nazis: Jews, militant workers, homosexuals, intellectuals, and Gypsies. And in 1933, although Hitler and the Nazis had won only a third of the votes in that year’s election, Hitler was “handed” the Chancellorship by President/General Hindenburg; a year later, when Hindenburg died, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer. In both countries, the postwar economy was essentially chaotic; also both countries (if we exclude Russia) had suffered the greatest war damage and (relatively) its highest casualties, with many damaged and bitter veterans. And, although Italy was among the victors and Germany the prime loser, both had reason to be bitter about the peace: Italy because it had not been granted its “fair share” of the war’s spoils, Germany because of severe disillusionment from its popular expectations about the outcome of the war, joined to the serious economic harm done by the vindictive and greedy Treaty of Versailles — all this, mind you, in the midst of a flattened economy.4 Before World War I Italy and Germany possessed the two largest and most powerful socialist movements in the world, even if we include that of Russia.5And in both cases, the combination of the postwar economic crisis, their strong socialist movement, and the anger and disillusionment following a disastrous war meant that, in the absence of force, socialism would win out: fascism did not emerge in a vacuum, it was counter-revolutionary. But surely there is no revolution of any kind threatening capitalist powers today, and least of all the USA? Correct. Which is why it was Gross’s argument that if fascism ever took hold in the USA, it would be neither likely nor necessary for it to do so with the assistance of the violent processes accompanying its triumph in Italy and Germany: the extension of the trends emerging in the 1970s — which have intensified since he wrote — were likely to produce a “friendly” fascist society, that is, ...one without the need for a charismatic dictator, one-party rule, glorification of the state, dissolution of legislatures, termination of multiparty elections, ultra-nationalism, or attacks on rationality...; rather, if and when neofascism emerges it may be associated with a relaxation of crude terror and the maturation of more sophisticated, effective, and ruthless controls...(Gross, 169, 171) Not the horrifying fascism of the past — at least in its surface appearances, at least at first. As such it can creep up on the world by surprise; and as such it is all the more insidious and dangerous. Most especially is that “camouflaged” process likely for the USA — which, however, is by no means the only capitalist nation now on this path. That said, I add several remarks before continuing. The two countries most under focus here are those I know most about and most care for: the USA and Italy. I am from the USA, of course; but I have worked and taught in Italy for many years — beginning in the mid-1960s and doing so half of each year for the past 20 or so. Both countries have changed greatly since the 1960s, mostly for the worse; but, interestingly and tragically enough, different though the two societies are, their paths toward “neofascism” are eerily similar — as is true for others: “americanization” has many legs.6 Those spreading tendencies toward “fascism with a happy face” were originally the stimuli for this essay, whose discussion will be resumed shortly. First, what may appear to be a digression, but is not. I began work on this in January, 2002; now it is March. Meanwhile, the January and February issues of Monthly Review raised some issues that connect importantly with the present focus (and it is recommended that they be read along with this). The January issue contains a lively exchange of views between the Editors of MR (Foster and McChesney) and Immanuel Wallerstein: “Left Politics in an Age of Transition”; also relevant is the lead article by Foster, “Monopoly Capital and the New Globalization.” The February issue has at least two relevant articles: “Anti-Capitalism & Social Justice,” by Sam Gindin, and “Renewing Socialism” by Leo Panitch. Taken together, those essays provoked me to reflect further on the relationship of “crisis” to the evident emergence of neofascism in the USA and Italy. Italians are all too familiar with fascism. As such, most are opposed to fascism in any form; but despite all, some significant minority of Italians seems favorably disposed. In the USA, in contrast, only a tiny percentage of the population has any sense of fascism, wouldn’t know it, as the saying goes, if it came up and spit in our faces. Even less known is the USA’s position regarding it. So, a bit of history concerning the USA and fascism, meant to make us more wary of present developments than is our habit. The war to end fascism that wasn’t Those who were around during World War II, and especially those who fought in it, will remember that it was publicized as “the war against fascism.” Then, with the defeat of Italy, Germany, and Japan, it was taken for granted that fascism was a thing of the past.7 But whatever the war’s rhetorical aims, the behavior of the USA during the entire interwar period — and then again after the war — shows that our aim was not to end fascism. Or, even if ending fascism did become our publicized aim during the war, after the war it had ceased to be part of our official vocabulary. Like the British and the French, the USA had anything but hostile relationships with the three major fascist nations in the interwar years; moreover, after the war, the USA was distinctly friendly with the continuing fascist nations (most notably, Spain and Portugal and Cuba8) and assisted in the creation and/or the economic and military support of many new fascist nations: Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan, Syngman Rhee’s South Korea, South Vietnam’s Nguyen Ky (who often and publicly praised Hitler), the “Three Colonels’” Greece, and Pinochet’s Chile, only the best-known. But here a glance at some relevant highlights of the interwar period, the years in which Italy, Japan and Germany were established fascist nations: Item: In 1938, the world’s major steel companies met in Dusseldorf to arrange a steel cartel (including U.S. Steel, in whose Research Department I was then working). Item: Also in 1938, the democratically elected “Loyalist” government of Spain sent the cargo ship S.S. Mar Cantabrica to New York to load military supplies in its losing fight against the fascist Generalissimo Francisco Franco. By order of FDR, and in the name of neutrality, the ship was not allowed to dock — despite that before and after 1938 the U.S. government had allowed U.S. oil and other military supplies to be sold and sent to Italy and Germany, both militarily active on the spot in Spain, the Italians on the ground, the German Stuka bombers in the air: the bombs falling on Picasso’s “Guernica” were German.9 Item: Again in 1938, Sir Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain (also “neutral”), gave his support in Munich to Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia; six months later, Hitler annexed the rest of the country. Item: In 1931, the Japanese had invaded China. Over the ensuing years many hundreds of thousands of Chinese were slaughtered. In those same years, Japan was a good customer of U.S. companies, to meet Japan’s scarcity of oil and metals. Despite a long and bitter strike against those shipments by the longshore workers of San Francisco (the ILWU), the shipments continued — until December 7, 1941. And then, after the war, in Germany, Italy, and Japan, there were all those who had functioned in their fascist nations as businessmen, politicians, judges, military personnel and scientists and who were deemed useful to the USA in the Cold War. Why were allowed to resume their positions? Because the clear alternative was for them not to function in those roles, which meant that others would — in the economy, in government, in the courtroom, in the military, in the university. But many, if not all, of those “others” had been the opponents of fascism — represented by the partigiani in Italy, the maquis in France, and the underground Germans, all having taken great risks for many years “to end fascism.” In sum, U.S. governmental policy toward fascism, both past and present, has been “pragmatic.” Those who rule now cannot be expected to be any more principled on such matters in the future — especially if confronted with a systemic crisis. As I now turn to a discussion of ongoing tendencies toward fascism in Italy and the USA the initial focus will be on the Cold War, as it shaped the political histories of both countries in the past 50 years. In doing so, it also weakened and warped our possibilities of understanding contemporary processes.10 We begin with Italy. Postwar Italy Italy’s history since World War II is inexplicable except in terms of the USA’s heavy influence upon the structure and functioning of its national politics. As the USA saw matters at war’s end, and as its Cold War strategy was unfolding, Italy’s strategic location in the Mediterranean was both a threat and an opportunity. A threat because, like all of Europe, Italy’s economy was flattened and in total disarray, its people desperate; that combined with an honorable left tradition, and the left’s already substantial and growing popularity, made Italy ripe for a victory for democratic socialism — a victory that could easily become contagious elsewhere in Western Europe. But the shattered economy and government and widespread poverty also presented an opportunity for the USA to stake out a secure political beachhead in Europe. First, Italian fascism had been defeated on the battlefront, but there were fascists aplenty still in Italy, plus, of course, a considerable number of “good Italians” who were anti-socialists — amongst businessmen, politicians, the media, and the Church. The USA thus embarked on a campaign to keep the left out of power, realizing (1) that its ways and means would have to be as discreet as possible and, at the same time, (2) that it was effectively impossible to outlaw the Communist Party (PCI).11 As to (1), U.S. intervention had many elements to it, among which were a) the effective “purchase” of virtually all Italian newspapers and magazines, in order to propagandize the population against the Communists, b) the financing of large-scale communications between Italo-Americans and their Italian relatives, the successful aim of which was to persuade those in Italy to vote in favor of the new Christian Democratic Party (DC) and what became its coalition partners; and c) in addition to our locating air and naval bases over Italy, there were numerous other efforts of a more clandestine, hidden nature — bribery, intimidation, jobs, and the like — which helped to grease the skids over a period of 30–40 years so that the PCI could never have a governmental position, and that the officers and supporters of the DC would become thoroughly entrenched not just in the government, but also in the judiciary, the economy, the various military and paramilitary organizations, and in the media.12 An additional vile element of U.S. intervention had to do with the mutual interest of the USA and of the DC in keeping the left at bay, by any means available. That meant reaching out to the substantial fascist residue in Italy, most obviously but not only in the party named Italian Social Movement (MSI). There was little secret to the nature of its membership. “Fascism” had become an illegal term in Italian politics; so the Italian Fascist Party changed its name to become the MSI. They and their connections — in the secret service, the Mafia, the military the Carabinieri, and the CIA — did the very dirty work of Italian politics over the years. Among their ultimately discovered activities were the blown-up trains, train stations, and banks from the 1960s on, in which many dozens of people were killed and wounded — terrorist acts spectacularly blamed on the left13 Corruption had always been as common as pasta in Italy, but the decades after World War II caused it to become thoroughly corrupted. It was this that led to the scandals of the 1990s called “Tangentopoli” (loosely translated as “bribe city”): scandals brought to trials called mani pulite (“clean hands”) that had many immediate but few lasting effects. We look at one spectacularly failed instance of those investigations.14 Giulio Andreotti, seven-time DC prime minister of Italy was accused (in an 8,000 page document) of various crimes while in office, ranging from taking bribes to working with the Mafia. A year or so ago, he was cleared — by judges whose own virtue was questionable.15 Sweetest of all for Andreotti — now a “Senator for life” — must have been his clearance regarding the Mafia: a clearance granted despite that in addition to Mafiosi testimony implicating him, there is a photograph of him embracing and kissing one of its capi. So, who’s perfect? Andreotti continues to sail through Italian life, smiling, bowing, respected, feared, having his way. And that takes us to the present prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, consciously or not, is paving the way for fascism in Italy for the second time. Italy today Not too many years ago, Berlusconi was a crooner on a cruise ship; from that, by hook and by crook, he rose swiftly to become Italy’s most powerful capitalist. His ego is super-strong, he is muscular and emphatic, with a very large smile — “Oh, the shark has pretty teeth, dear...” He seems entirely sure of himself (except that in his public appearances he always speaks from an elevated platform, making himself seem taller than he is). Berlusconi is a proven master at acquiring, merging, and controlling whatever he puts his mind to: newspapers, book publishing, TV, film, finance, leading soccer team,16 and retail trade, among other areas. Along with the legendary Agnelli (of Fiat) he is now the richest person in all of Italy. When, in May of 2001, he won the election hands down to become prime minister for the second time, he was very much aided and abetted 1) by the total disarray of meaningful opposition from center-left, and 2) by his ownership of the main private TV stations and his ability to outspend everyone else combined: uniquely and spectacularly sending to 12 million Italian families a fat and glossy magazine entirely about himself.17 There are a few startling resemblances between Berlusconi and Mussolini: a single-minded aggressivity and the bombast and body language that goes with it, a solipsistic politics, a seeming inability even to comprehend others’ views or ever to bend to them. But Berlusconi at this stage is more dangerous than Mussolini was, say, in 1919. He is considerably more intelligent than Mussolini; the left opposition today is considerably less strong than earlier; the population mixes skepticism and cynicism with, unsurprisingly, apathy. Add to that his domination of the “information” sector, and there is reason for deep concern. Or perhaps it is already too late for concern, however deep. He has been prime minister for only 8 months as I write. In that brief period, he has accomplished the following: Item: The early 1990s “Tangentopoli” allegations of bribery and corruption against Berlusconi continue, to which, meanwhile, other charges have been added. On the principle that the best defense is a strong offense, Berlusconi 1) intermittently barks out various charges against the judiciary (including that they are Communists), as he also seeks to have the locus of the trials moved away from his hometown of Milan, where his many friends may be outnumbered by his enemies, to a more friendly city — say, Palermo. Item: His safe parliamentary majority has passed legislation on what does or does not constitute “conflicts of interest” that allows a “Berlusconi” to own a company that is the focus of state control or investigation, but not to manage it. Thus, Berlusconi’s Fininvest, Italy’s largest financial conglomerate, now under investigation for bribery and and corruption — and managed by his son — is not a conflict of interest; and the same is true of his media ownership and their reporting of the news. That an owner might be disinterested in what he owns would surprise Italians. (The center-left coalition walked out en masse the day of the vote thus became a unanimous vote.) Item: Berlusconi’s coalition is classified as “center-right.” Those from the “center” parties are mostly tiny remnants of the once-powerful DC. If by “center” one means to signify its traditional meaning of “conservative,” then there are few centrists in the coalition. Berlusconi’s Forza Italia is the most powerful of his coalition’s members; next is the Lega Nord (the Northern League), led by Umberto Bossi. Its stated aim is to divide Italy into two parts, the north and the south — the rich and the poor, that is. His theme is that the wonderful north is paying for the support of all those bums in the south. He is popular for the same reason as Reagan: the people of the north who support him believe their taxes are being paid to support a bunch of lazy people. Bossi didn’t invent this Italian form of racism, but he is making the most of it. And tied to that are his fulminations against immigrants (from North Africa, Albania, and ex-Yugoslavia, mainly). He brought Berlusconi’s first government down, and this time around Berlusconi is wooing him in every which way. He is now Minister of Reform (!), and two other cabinet members are from his party, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labor. Just right, for Berlusconi and for Bossi.18 The next strongest member of the coalition is the National Alliance (AN), whose leader is Gianfranco Fini, now Berlusconi’s Deputy Prime Minister. One of the few “centrists” in the cabinet had been Foreign Minister Ruggiero. But he disagreed publicly with Berlusconi in January and was forced to resign. With that, Berlusconi let it be known that Fini would get the job. Fini calls himself an “ex-fascist” — no more than prudent given that the very word has been illegal in Italian politics since 1945. There was a certain grumbling from various European foreign offices, given Fini’s politics — understandably, given his public proclamation as late as 1994 that “Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the 20th century.” In February he conceded that “I wouldn’t say that again...,” and went on to cite two others he would nominate. (Which leaves Mussolini the 3rd greatest?)19 So, Berlusconi came forth and said that he had decided to be his own Foreign Minister for six months. Not to worry, there was a precedent in Italy for such a step: Mussolini had also been his own foreign minister. Item: Then, to placate the AN, Berlusconi took the opportunity to appoint Fini as Italy’s representative in the now-forming Constituent Assembly of the European Union, charged with making a constitution for the EU. At first, little Holland and little Sweden objected to Fini; then big Germany. Then nobody. Fini, still Deputy Prime Minister, has the spot. Item: In July of 2002, the many-faceted coalition Genoa Social Forum spent two days demonstrating against the G8 meetings going on there. It is generally agreed that the “harshness and violence of the Genoa police and the Carabinieri was unheard of...” in recent times: Over 300 were arrested, and about 600 received medical treatment or were hospitalized, with many others, also hurt justly fearful of putting themselves in the hands of the authorities. And one young man was shot at point-blank, then deliberately run over, back and forth, by the Carabinieri jeep; and died. In addition, the police and Carabinieri accompanied all this with insults, physical cruelties, and, interestingly, the singing of fascist hymns. All this, despite that in the past 15 years or so, the Genoa police have gained the reputation of becoming “humanized,” while also forming themselves into unions. What went wrong? Or did it go wrong?20 Months after the event, Berlusconi’s Minister of the Interior, Scajoli, admitted that the police had been ordered to shoot to kill when they deemed it necessary. Before and since that, it was known that those who were given as the justification for the foregoing harsh practices — the “Black bloc” — were largely agents provocateurs, uncontrollable by the Genoa Social Forum, many of them known to be “imported” from northern Europe.21 Put all that together with Berlusconi’s earlier-noted successful move to control public TV, and it looks very much like what someone would do who, consciously or not, has a strong urge to run his country as a one-man show. Clearly, Berlusconi could not have risen to power or act as he has without considerable assistance from powerful others, plus substantial popular support, and, not least, the absence of meaningful opposition. He has had all three, and it is that which needs discussion, its starting point the role of Italy’s fascists after the war and subsequently. As will now be related, the political processes of contemporary Italy are, like those of the USA, only superficially democratic: the electoral process is dominated by considerable apathy on one hand, considerable wealth on the other, and a mumbling opposition. In the decades after World War II, Italy lost a good part of its soul; soon it could lose the rest of it. The U.S. political party of choice in Italy from 1947 on was the DC, usually led by Andreotti; by the 1980s, the Socialist Party (PSI), led by Bettino Craxi, had become significant in the DC’s coalition, which came to be known as “center-left” — leaving those on the left to wonder whether to laugh or weep: Craxi’s version of “socialism” had just two parts: anti-PCI and pro-business; his business. Given the pervasive corruption of the preceding years, and whether because Craxi had so much on the DC or vice versa, he became prime minister 1983–1986 and then again 1986–1987. In the 1990s he became the biggest fish (after Andreotti) to be hooked by the “clean hands” investigations — except that just as the hook was taking hold he fled the country to settle in a luxurious estate in North Africa, where he recently died. Meanwhile, the PCI had changed both its name amd its politics, the name to the Party of the Democratic Left (DS), its politics such that it is barely distinguishable from, say, Clinton’s New Democrats or Blair’s New Labour. That meant a steady abandonment of the left/liberal’s historic demands for socioeconomic equality and justice; instead it sought to squeeze itself into the already crowded center. For a brief period when the center-right fell into “tangentopoli disarray,” the DS and its fragile center-left coalition held the governmental reins. However, in ruling as though taking a driving lesson, they re-opened the door to Berlusconi. It is integral to the thrust of this essay that the PCI’s abandonment of a left position did not occur in a vacuum. The majority of its voters were of the working class. Before and then again after World War II, they had fought long and courageously to bring some elements of social decency to Italy; and, as noted earlier, they had substantial successes. But — as happened also in the USA, in Britain, in Scandinavia, in Germany — those important gains, joined to the diverting consequences of consumerism, caused the outlook and the energies of the working class to turn more toward shopping and taxes and less toward social justice; to become always more “individualistic,” always less solidaristic. In effect, then, Berlusconi walked into something like a political vacuum and, with lots of money and drama, strode out as effectively unchallengeable. However. In the period in which I have been writing this essau, those left of center have truly come alive, to the consternation of their coalition “leaders.” Berlusconi came to power in May, 2001. From that point on, most dramatically with the “No-global” events at Genoa in July, diverse groups have increasingly begun not only to protest but, seemingly, even to seek ways to work together. There are four substantial union “confederations” ranging from left to right (respectively, CGIL, CISL, UIL, and UGL). Led by the CGIL (also the largest) they are now challenging Berlusconi on several fronts: 1) and most actively, his attempts to scuttle protective labor laws going back to the 1960s, but 2) also his efforts to weaken health care and education and the other realms of the “social wage.” Just in the past two months there has been a rat-a-tat-tat of many well-attended demonstrations throughout Italy, ranging from 10,000 participants in small towns to one with 500,000 in Rome. Today, as I write, the journalists’ union is demonstrating in Rome. Scheduled for a week from no (March 23) is a major demonstration (called “manifestations” [manifestazioni]) comprehending all the sources of protest. A million or more are expected [Ed. note: In fact, more than 3 million showed up!], and already it is impossible to find a bus or train seat. Then, in early April, a general strike with all the federations participating is scheduled. It is worth commenting that Italy’s population is less than a fifth of ours; that is, a demo with a million people would be more than 5 million in the USA. If anything, all this has led Berlusconi not to back down, but to push ahead always more forcefully; with an “equal and opposite reaction” from the no longer dormant left of center population. Is that the dialectic in action, or what? There are good reasons to believe that this is just a beginning — from both ends. And just as it is possible that Berlusconi’s cockiness and haste may do him in, there is reason also to fear that if current efforts do not become transformed into a strong and effectively unified movement, going beyond protest to a positive program, current efforts could backfire. Berlusconi, by taunting the unions, has made it clear that he expects just that. And what about the United States? The USA: Bought and Paid For “Democracy” Today; Tomorrow...? The people of the USA have accepted capitalist values to a degree not approximated elsewhere; its ends and means have fully infused all of our institutions, whether private or public — in the economy, education, culture, sports, religion and, of course, politics. The associated socialization processes over time have created a people with what Veblen called “a trained incapacity” to understand socioeconomic processes. It is saying something of the same thing to point out that the USA has been virtually alone among capitalist nations in never having had a significant socialist movement. U.S. workers have of course struggled often and vigorously, even heroically, to better their lives through union organization; typically, however their struggles have not been against capitalism but for higher wages and better working conditions. Workers in the USA at their strongest achieved a union movement; they did not seek to build a labor movement, where the people, not capital, would rule. Thus it is that, without irony, U.S. unionism is called “business — or “pork chops” — unionism”22In short, a political threat to U.S. capitalism has never existed. Despite that, official and unofficial “anti-communism” was a persisting and effective reality throughout the 20th century: most damagingly the trio of Red Scare in the 1920s, the House-Un-American Activities’ investigations of the 1930s, and, of course, the McCarthyism that took hold as the 1940s ended and which, in different forms, persists to this day. But the story doesn’t end there. All fascist countries have caused whole generations of their people to be robbed of their societies’ cultural, intellectual and political life — whatever their other horrors. Without such horrors, the same effect was produced in the USA by McCarthyism in the past half century. Item: In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act forbade closed (all-union) shops, outlawed sympathy strikes (or any strikes by federal employees), restricted unions’ contributions to elections and, most relevantly here, required that all union officers in effect prove that they were not Communists. The act has never been repealed. And unions become always more “businesslike.” Item: In 1950, at Berkeley, all faculty members were required to sign a “loyalty oath” stating that “I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party.” Those who refused to sign on grounds of academic freedom — few if any were or had been “Communists” — lost their jobs. Not long after, such oaths had become common in the universities. When the law was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, it was put on the ballot as a referendum to change the constitution — and to include all state employees — and passed easily. Most professors are not social critics in any case; most of those who were or who might have been ceased to be so, at least openly. Item: Whether in radio, film, the theatre, or journalism, there was a general “house-cleaning,” most famously the case of “The Hollywood Ten.” Actors, producers, directors, writers, all were forced to put up or shut up. to “name names,” or lose their jobs (or leave the country). Unions, universities, information and entertainment...., so what? Setting aside the direct harm done to those implicated — whether “named” or “namers” — or those who lost their jobs, or those countless others who couldn’t get the job they were suited for; setting that aside, ask what it means for a society to lose or suppress its critical minds and courageous strugglers.23 The answer to that question is easily discovered by examining the sociopolitical history of the USA in the past several decades: the flabby unions, the business-like curricula of the business-run and Pentagon-subsidized universities, the ease with which a Gingrich gained control of the House, a Ronald Reagan — himself a “namer,” along with Walt Disney and Elia Kazan — and the two Bushes got into the White House, the soggy middle which politics has become in the USA; and the manner in which the social gains of the 1950s and 1960s have been deliberately and increasingly eroded. In the United States we have not had anything approaching the fascisms of Europe or elsewhere; here it has been learned that capitalism can keep the “gloves” of political democracy on and still run the whole show — causing income inequality to worsen steadily in the past 25 years, allowing the gains against racism to drain away and, most clearly (but not only) since 9/11, developing an always more arrogant and bellicose foreign policy and a steady process of restriction of freedom of speech and assembly — all of this acquiesced in by a flag-draped population. All this serves to render almost invisible the reduction of social benefits and the enhanced destruction of the environment, presided over by a cabinet dominated big business and finance and oil and militarism, and a President who exemplifies the spoiled brat who has never done a day’s work, and never will; a puppet who speaks to us as though a high school actor reciting lines he must memorize, and doing so with a falsity of voice, of walk, of face that makes one shudder. And who is immensely popular. In short, recent decades have rendered what was never a dangerous atmosphere for capitalism into one that allows it to become ever more heedless, in a society enthralled by the flag and hooked on shopping. There is no need for capitalism to tremble in the USA; presently there are all too few signs of dissent, let alone “revolution.” About 30 years ago, the poetess Diane di Prima wrote, These are transitional years and the dues will be heavy. Change is quick but revolution will take a while.
Capitalist Crises: Number Two? In the MR exchange between Wallerstein and Foster/McChesney of MR, their estimate of the possibility/probability of systemic crisis centered on several points: Wallerstein (who sees us as still in the first crisis) argued that three major factors were at work: 1) that the “deruralization” of the world, the source of ever-cheapening labor, is drawing to a foreseeable end; 2) that the always increasing economic expansion upon which capitalism depends will soon run into an ecological wall; and 3) that growing democratization will entail a rising “social wage” (health care, etc.). Taken together, these raise capitalists’ costs, with further “ways out” unlikely. The editors of MR disagree, arguing 1) that “deruralization” shows no signs of reaching its limits, and that it has steadily made it easier to exploit not just the still abundant “new entrants” but also to increase exploitation of the “core’s” workers; 2) that capital has passed on rising environmental costs and can continue to do so, as is also true of (3) regarding the social wage. I shall return to these arguments momentarily. First, it is important to understand that if a “second crisis’ is on its way its first signs appeared in the 1970s; like the earlier crisis that almost destroyed capitalism, this one — if there is to be one — comes to full size only over many years. Not to be neglected is that the manner in which the “mini-crisis” that began in the 70s was resolved is very likely to have intensified the probability of an even deeper crisis: as was also true for Crisis Number One, when the principal means for coming to grips with the “depression of 1873–1895" was heightened imperialism — doubtless the trigger to World War I. The resolution to the “stagflation” of the 1970s — when, uniquely, both prices and unemployment rose for about a decade — was the financialization of the U.S. and global economies. That in turn was a consequence of several interacting developments: 1) heightened mergers and acquisitions (“M&A’s”), breaking all records for numbers, dollar amounts, and sectoral and geographical complexity, yielded the now-dominant and multi-sectoral transnational companies, and whose tendency is to be dominated by finance, 2) the actual and required tendency for the USA to become “consumer of last resort,” a main element of fimancialization, others of which were 3) spectacular increases in business and consumer debt, where the former was a indirect or direct means of enhancing profit, the latter the means by which U.S. consumers became the U.S. economy’s “purchasers of last resort,” (with household debt — which excludes mortgages — now standing as 120 percent of household income) and in doing so, served much the same purpose for the global economy to a vital degree. But, 4) the “downsizing and outsourcing” of recent years has lowered both the money and the social wages of U.S. (and other advanced countries’) workers, and thus — debt piles up to unsustainable levels — reduced their ability to serve as part of the “consumer of last resort” process; and the desperately low wages of the “deruralized” societies will never be consumers of their production.25 Thus, 5) we now confront the most fragile U.S. and the most fragile global economy in history, one based not just on borrowing, but on borrowing and spending (domestic, national — the USA owes more than $3 trillion to others — and global) which is itself both the basis for and, to an important extent, the result of speculation — whether in currencies (something between $1.5 and $2 trillion daily), or in stocks and bonds or, the saints preserve us, “derivatives.” A careful reading of Wallerstein, Foster and McChesney will show that they do not argue that there will not be a crisis; the argument instead is one of particular causes and of timing and, not least, of what might follow — for better or for worse. There are many of us on the left (I do not wholly exempt myself) who have tended to predict crises at “the drop of a hat.” That should not lead us to go overboard and eliminate the possibility/ probability of a “second crisis,” but to be very wary of predicting the how and why and when. And given the general weakness of the left throughout the world today, it should also lead us to two other attitudes: 1) to hope the crisis comes later rather than sooner, and 2) to get down to working hard politically on, if not on a 24/7 basis, at least many hours each week — joining existing organizations and helping to start new ones, being creative and tolerant of the others by your side (as you might expect them to be about you), learning and teaching, contributing in any way we possibly can. The alternative to our doing the necessary work, sooner or later, is fascism with a happy face — here in the USA, there in Italy, here and there over the earth. And along with our accelerating destruction of nature, our self-destruction in what would surely be the last world war. Notes 1. The phrase was borrowed from the great English
political philosopher Harold Laski, from his book The Rise of European
Liberalism (1936). Bertram Gross died a few years ago. He was not,
and did not see himself as a radical; he was, in fact, something of an
insider: he actually wrote the legislation that became the Hawkins-Humphrey
Employment Act of 1946. And then he watched what became of it — and, subsequently,
of the USA. The act was initially called the “Full Employment Act...,”
but in order to get it passed it had to be watered down so as to suit those
who see full employment as a threat, not a virtue. Have you noticed that
when the unemployment rate takes a jump up that usually the stock market
also
jumps up? It has something to do with the function of what Marx called
“the reserve army of the unemployed.” 2. Britain’s strength and wealth, as more recently
for the USA, depended squarely on two connected achievements: 1) as the
first to industrialize it was able to speed up and deepen its own capital
accumulation and, at the same time, to become the main creditor, exporter
to, and importer from the rest of the world; but, 2) Germany and the USA,
its main customers, became always economically stronger as they too industrialized.
Thus, what had been Britain’s principal source of strength had inexorably
become self-defeating. Veblen (in his Imperial Germany and the Industrial
Revolution) showed why in a phrase: “The advantages of borrowing and
the penalty of taking the lead”: by 1900, Britain was “old-fashioned” both
technologically and organizationally — that easily translated into military
strength. So it was, already in 1897 that an influential British journal,
pointing to Britain’s ongoing market losses and Germany’s more modern navy,
argued that “Germaniam esse delendam” (that is, destroyed), and
soon. See R.J.S. Hoffman, Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry,
1875–1914 (1933). 3. Given the “social amnesia” of our times, it is
likely that some discussion of both the origins and the nature of the fascism
of the past is important. But the “some” that follows is far from even
the bare essentials. For more than that these books — also by themselves
not enough — are recommended: Robert A. Brady, The Spirit and Structure
of German Fascism (1937), to my mind the best (as well as the first)
book in English on German fascism. See also his Business as a System
of Power (1943), which describes and analyzes the economic, political,
and social nature and processes of the six leading capitalist countries
(USA, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) in the era leading up
to World War II; and finds fundamental similarites among and between them
which produce strong tendencies toward fascism. All recognize that as having
occurred in Germany, Italy and Japan; few see that France was on the very
edge of its realization when — rather easily — it was occupied by the Germans
in 1940. For Germany, see also Franz Neumann, Behemoth: the Structure
and Practice of National Socialism (1942). For Italy, see Gaetano Salvemini,
Under the Axe of Fascism (1936) and Carl T. Schmidt, The Corporate State
in Action (1939) and The Plough and the Sword (1938). Soon there will be a brief discussion of U.S. behavior toward fascism both between the two world wars and up to the present; illuminating in that regard is that in 1938, a year after Brady wrote his book on German fascism, he was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Subsequently they officially classified him as prematurely anti-fascist; to my knowledge a uniquely USA concept. 4. John Maynard Keynes was Britain’s economic representative
at Versailles. When it was over he wrote his deservedly famous Economic
Consequences of the Peace. In that he argued that the treaty, far from
being a basis for peace had in fact made another world war inevitable.
It is a book still worth reading for understanding the cruel idiocies and
suicidal tendencies of modern capitalist states. 5. It may be useful to add here that Russia, analytically,
was not a capitalist but a colonial society; its relatively modern sectors
were owned by the Germans and the British. And, it is generally agreed,
when the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 it was due less to the nature
or strength of a “socialist” movement than to the agile leadership of Lenin.
(See John Reed’s famous description of the critical moment, in his Ten
Days That Shook the World.) It is pertinent here to note that when
Antonio Gramsci, leader of the Italian Communist Party in the early 1920s,
was imprisoned amd wrote his Prison Notebooks, he reflected upon
how it was that a strong socialist movement had been conquered by what
seemed to have been a weak fascist group. He went on to develop his ideas
of the “ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie” (that is, the capitalist
class). His writings have gained rather than lost relevance in our time.
For a fine introduction, see Carl Boggs, Gramsci’s Marxism (Pluto,
1976). 6. That such is the case was a major reason that de
Gaulle, when he was President of France, argued against the attempts of
the USA to push Western Europe toward what subsequently became the European
Union. In doing so, he spoke not of “americanization” but of “Coca-colonization.”
Not bad, especially for a general. 7. It was also taken for granted that peace had not
only been won but was here to stay. Then, a strange development: Despite
that (as noted earlier) 1) the USSR was the most damaged of all countries
— its factories flattened, its rail transport totally destroyed, its agriculture
disrupted, and with so many dead, wounded, displaced, and 2) as has been
generally agreed by the U.S. military, that when the the Nazis were beaten
and turned back at Stalingrad, their end was near. Notwithstanding, of
a sudden, the USSR portrayed as a military threat to all that is
dear. A political threat it may or may not have been to capitalism,
given that socialist movements were once again alive and kicking throughout
Europe; although there was little or no reason to believe that Britain,
France, Italy, and Germany (among others) were contemplating having the
USSR serve as model or boss. There are many books on this matter; a comprehensive
and useful source is Lawrence Wittner, Cold War America: from Hiroshima
to Watergate (1978). Others will be cited later. 8. “Fascist Cuba”? Since when? The beginnings were
after the Spanish-Cuba-American war when, in 1903, the USA installed its
naval base in Guantanamo (at the southern end of Cuba), claiming the right
to intervene militarily when deemed necessary (which was many times, when
independence movements arose); and, subsequently, succeeded in controlling
Cuba’s internal affairs (most especially its economy, whose sugar plantations
and its utilities were USA-owned) by installing caudillos — the
last of which was Fulgencio Batista, unseated in 1959 by Fidel Castro.
At least two other items worth remarking: 1) Up until 1959, Cuba was a
paradise for U.S. citizens who wished to drink, gamble, and consort with
very young prostitutes, all under the approving eye of the temporal caudillo
(a euphemism for dictator); 2) Guantanamo is still a U.S. naval
base and, as well, the location of “Camp X-ray,” for holding those deemed
to be terrorists. 9. Nor is it without interest that, although Spain
proclaimed itself to be “neutral” in World War II, it sent an entire division
to fight alongside the Nazis on the Russian front. Spain and Portugal remained
fascist until the mid-1970s. However: immediately after the war, the Cold
War having begun, Franco gave the USA established military airbases in
Spain. Details, details... 10. There are many important works on the Cold War;
best for present purposes (in addition to Wittner, cited earlier), are
Melvyn P. Leffler,
A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the
Truman Administration, and the Cold War (1992), Howard Zinn’s Postwar
America: 1945–1971 (1973), and Walter LaFeber, America, Russia,
and the Cold War: 1945–1990 (1991). 11. What was true in Italy was also so for Western
Europe in general. At war’s end, held in low esteem were not only the fascists
of Germany, Austria, Belgium, and France, but also the centrists — capitalists,
large and small, the Church, and many public figures. Thus — and quite
apart from the USSR — there was a real probability of a democratic process
leading to socialism throughout much of Europe. The intervention of the
USA in Italy must be seen as disgraceful by our own professed standards;
most especially is this so when one considers the role of partigiani
— a major portion of whom were Communists — in the military defeat of the
Italian and German fascist troops as the war moved up the peninsula — sparing
many US and British soldiers’ lives. To my knowledge, that debt has never
been acknowledged officially or otherwise by the U.S. government — not
even by Sen. Bob Dole (at least publicly), who was rescued by them in Italy
when wounded in battle with the Germans. 12. That the PCI could not be part of the government
did not, and without the resumption of fascism could not, mean that they
could not vote or be voted for. Consequently, from 1947 to the early 1990s
(when the PCI changed its name to the Party of the Democratic Left, or
DS), there were always numerous PCI members in Parliament, numerous enough
that they were able, in the 1950s and 1960s to pass legislation that many
in the USA would find reason to envy, if they knew about it: universal
health care, pensions (better than those we have), paid vacations, improved
education at all levels (essentially free universities) and, most strikingly
in this almost entirely Catholic nation, free abortion and divorce. The
same function was performed in the USA, if with less effect, through strong
trade unions and their political representatives. But, as will be pursued
further later on, in both countries (among others) those very successes,
the consumerism accompanying them, and the broad ideological impact of
the Cold War, helped to reduce and to water down the political efforts
of the working class and its allies. 13. There were violent leftists, of course, best-known
of which were the Red Brigades. But their activities were few and far between
and caused minimal bloodshed, in comparison with the secretly-supported
fascist activities — financed wholly or in part by the USA. 14. Hundreds of lesser politicians and many in the
business world were indicted and convicted (or fled in order to avoid being
so); but, and except for Bettino Craxi (to be discussed later), none of
the top government people were ever punished. 15. For some, courage rather than virtue may have
been the problem. When the Mafia has come under scrutiny it has more than
once murdered the judges involved who were seen as honest. 16. The team is AC Milan. Its fans have long rooted
for the team with the shout “Forza Italia!!”, roughly the equivalent
of “Go Dodgers!” And the name of his political party is, guess what?
Forza
Italia. It is generally recognized that his political popularity has
its original and still firmest base among those soccer fans. 17. Electioneering on Italian TV and radio is forbidden,
whether by ads or paid appearances, anything. But on his own three TV (and
radio) stations, he was in the news all the time. The only paid advertising
allowed are street posters (about 5 x 3 feet in size) in the cities, which
virtually all can afford — though not, however, as many as Berlusconi had.
Funnily enough (for a while), his original posters were of a smiling young
Berlusconi, with lots of hair, which he does not now possess. The photo,
revealed as having been taken 15–20 years earlier, was hastily replaced
as the laughs became louder. Now, as prime minister, he has effectively
gained control over the three public TV stations — with three of his people
on the 5-man Board of Directors. In a recent interview, one of Berlusconi’s
longtime business associates stated that Berlusconi runs his Forza Italia
in the same manner that he does his many businesses: it’s his party,
they are his businesses; and now Italy is his, too. 18. The latest outrage in Italy happened in March,
when a boatload of immigrants sank off the southern coast. Fifty died,
a dozen or so were rescued. The Navy (in effect, the Italian coast guard)
was nearby, with ships and helicopters and, though the distress of the
boat was unknown, nothing was done to help; a small fishing at last saved
the few surviviors. A few weeks earlier, the Minister of Welfare had agreed
with Bossi’s suggestion that ships carrying immigrants be fired upon by
naval craft. Bossi is frightening: a guttural voice, a brutal manner, always
threatening something terrible; and too often carrying through. His main
difference with Berlusconi is obvious: He wants to run Italy. 19. Mussolini has a granddaughter, Alessandra Mussolini.
She is an elected member of Parliament, for the AN. Fini’s change of mind
was too much for her; she is now busily trying to get Fini shoved aside
in the AN. In February, while Italy was observing a Memorial Day for the
Holocaust, Fini attended a meeting of Italian Jews and announced that “the
Holocaust should not happen again.” Someone in the audience rose to ask
“Why? Because once was enough?” Those of you who went through the McCarthy days may remember the occasion
upon which a liberal prof was being examined. At some point the victim
stuttered out that, “But Senator McCarthy, I’m an anti-Communist!”
“I don’t care what kind of Communist you are; answer the question!” 20. The information just presented and that which
follows are entirely taken from the formal legal report: Obiettivo,
Genova e il G8: I fatti, le istitutizioni, la giustizia, by Livio Pepino
(FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2002) 21. This is very much what was done under Nixon beginning
in 1970, under the so-called “Houston Plan.” At any given demomstration,
people under the control of the Justice (!) Department would attend a demonstration
and stir up violence in one manner or another. One group of victims of
this was the so-called “Seattle Seven.” They went to prison for “crossing
state lines to provoke violence...,” but on appeal (having been in prison)
were acquitted. One of them was my son Jeff. 22. The “pork chops” came to be defined more broadly
in the 1950s and 1960s, when unions fought not just for higher wages and
better working conditions, but also for pensions, health care, and paid
vacations — and won. But those struggles were against raw capitalism, not
the system as such. There have been individual exceptions, of course: a
socialist movement among some workers in the 15–20 years preceding World
War I (forcefully rebuffed by the then dominant AFL), the IWW (Industrial
Workers of the World), many of whose members were jailed, even lynched,
in the years surrounding World War I (often with the cooperation of the
AFL), the mild “Norman Thomas” Socialists throughout much of the 20th century,
and several Marxist groups, most notably the Communist Party of the USA.
But these groups were always small in membership and, most relevantly,
generally weak amongst industrial workers. 23. For a thoroughgoing documentation of much of
this, see the excellent study of Bud and Ruth Schultz, It Did Happen
Here (Univ. of California Press, 1989), Victor Navasky, Naming Names
(Viking, 1980), and David Caute, The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist
Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower (Simon & Schuster, 1978). The
title of the Schultze’s book deliberately echoes the 1935 book of noted
novelist Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here, meant as a warning. 24. Diane di Prima, Revolutionary Letter #10
(City Lights Books, 1971, 1974). 25. All students of capitalism agree that the access
of richer to poorer countries’ labor and resources was vital in the accumulation
process; it is too often overlooked that the “emerging economies” of today
were
(and are) those exploited countries and, quite apart from the socio/cultural/political/resource
destruction laid upon them, they have no such exploitable “other
world” to exploit. June 23, 2003 |
n 1980, Bertram Gross’s Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power
in America was published, just before Reagan became President. I reviewed
the book for Monthly Review in 1981, under the title “Capitalism
with the gloves off.”