Can fascism arise in the U.S.?

Scan page 10

in Italy, and in September 1920 it resulted of factories and industries by the workers.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat [the establishment of a new state based on the democratic organizations of the workers and their allies] was an actual fact; all that was lacking was to organize it and to draw from it all the necessary conclusions. The social democracy took fright and sprang back.

"After its bold and heroic exertions, the proletariat was left facing the void. The disruption of the revolutionary movement became the most important factor in the growth of fascism.

"In September, the revolutionary advance came to a standstill; and November already witnessed the first major demonstration of the fascists [the seizure of Bologna]." ("Fascism, What It Is and How to Fight It.")

In Italy, the anti-capitalist demagogy of Mussolini was directed at the banks associated with imperialism, primarily the British banks. Exempted from the fascist "anti-capitalist" rhetoric were the Italian "national" capitalists.

Fascism in Germany

In Germany, Hitler's anti-capitalist "revolution" was similarly focussed on imperialist banking interests, zeroing in on German capitalists who happened to be Jewish. At the same time, "national, patriotic" capitalists were portrayed as good guys.

The fascists erected a fantastic conspiracy theory in which international capitalism and communism were the cause of the people's misery since both had ganged up to further exploit and oppress the suffering masses.

Hitler, adding an anti-Semitic component to fascism in Germany, was able to divert the ire of the ruined middle class away from capitalism, the real cause of its misery, and vent it upon the local Jewish storekeeper, Jews in general, and the labor unions.

It is important to reemphasize, however, that the capitalist class does not play its fascist card until its back is up against the wall. It opens the door to the fascists only after an economic crisis has ignited a mass revolutionary workers' upsurge, and continued capitalist rule is at stake.

The boss class knows that a mass fascist movement cannot be built in periods of relative stability, when a majority of the people support the status quo, even with heavy infusions of money and other forms of support.

But capitalists tend to give discreet support to incipient fascist movements after signs appear that the economic system may be on the verge of a major breakdown. They also withdraw such support when capitalism restabilizes and the crisis doesn't materialize.

SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER Farmers in the United States today are being ruined by the collapse of agricultural prices. Prices in the supermarkets stay high but farmers are unable to earn enough to pay their bills and are being foreclosed in increasing numbers.

A polarization is taking place among these natural allies of the working class, with the great majority looking to the workers for aid and assistance and a minority receptive to demagogues like Lyndon LaRouche.

Forms of American fascism In the United States, a variety of candidates for American fascism have come and gone. The Ku Klux Klan was one of the earliest candidates for this role. It was a leftover from the post-Civil War period.

The Klan was created after capitalism decided to halt and roll back the democratic gains won by Blacks in the Civil War and during the period of Reconstruction. It was used to break up the alliance between poor white and Black farmers forged in this post-war period.

The Klan experienced a big expansion after the World War I economic boom attracted masses of Southern Black farmers to war jobs in the Northern industrial cities.

But, although the Klan again received a boost in the 1930s, when capitalism here entered its most serious econor nic crisis, it was not well-suited for the fascist role in the 'Oth-century world and was largely bypassed.

Klansl RALL More rigid copies of the European model-fascist bands with black- and brown-shirted uniforms sporting emblems made famous in Italy and Germany—made less headway and received less support.

All these movements withered and died after World War II revived the economy and ended the economic crisis born of the great Depression.

More recently, several small groups have emerged parroting fascist phraseology and sporting Nazi uniforms, swastikas and all. But these groups, lacking an understanding of the "anti-capitalist" appeal of fascism, are unlikely candidates.

But the persistent surfacing of such vile and discredited elements only testifies to capitalism's need to divert discontent toward Jews as a scapegoat to safely absorb anti-capitalist sentiment. The illusion that "Jews control the country" is reinforced by U.S. capitalism's heavy political, military, and economic support to Israel. Israel, U.S. imperialism's puppet, is made to appear to be the puppeteer.

When required, capitalism will open the sewers of antiSemitism, whose tell-tale odors leak through the official lid now in place. It will again provide fascists with an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist facade.

The LaRouche movement The LaRouche movement seems to be a more creative application of European fascist methods to current American conditions and appears to be on its way to greater success.

Lyndon LaRouche started his political career, like Mussolini, as a socialist. Beginning in the late 1960s, his group, originally associated with the Students for a Democratic Society, went under the names of U.S. Labor Party and National Caucus of Labor Committees. It soon moved in the fascist direction.

LaRouche began this turn by launching a campaign of physical violence against organizations within the working class, such as the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party.

Shortly afterward, the LaRouche newspaper, New Solidarity, noting a qualitative distinction between "productive and non-productive capitalism," came out in support of such "productive capitalists" as the Bank of America.

At the same time, LaRouche began to weave a case against an alleged conspiracy that included a bizarre collection of political forces and personalities. Nelson Rockefeller was foremost in a panoply of devils that included Henry Kissinger, the Trilateral Commission, Zionism, imperialism, and the "drug-pushing" Queen of England.

LaRouche briefly portrayed the Soviet Communist Party bureaucracy as good guys. But their demonology soon included the Soviet government in the LaRouche amalgam of "anti-American" conspirators.

The LaRouche group attracted attention through its policy of regularly appearing at airports with slogans and petitions calling for the expansion of nuclear power and displaying posters calling for "nuking" the Soviet Insinuated throughout this extreme right-wing line is the theme of a pro-communist conspiracy that includes major, authoritative, capitalist institutions, as well as

Scan page 11

...Philippine revolution Ten Meani NGET DUMALO SAY BOYCOTT RA •PLAZA H • ABRIL 25 *ИКА 3.80 (continued from page 7: “["People's power" in the Philippines mobilized millions of…]”) labor movement and political prisoners. The same is true for her advocacy of negotiations with the CPP's New People's Army (NPA).

The revolution's goals Removing Marcos. was not the only goal of the Philippine revolution.

The liberation of the Philippine people from foreign political and economic domination was and remains a central aspect of the struggle.

The Marcos dictatorship represented a choice made by the Philippine capitalists to accept the economic development strategy foisted on the country by the World Bank. This included the massive penetration of imperialist capital and the imposition of austerity measures and military rule to guarantee profit.

Today, Aquino's finance minister, Jaime Ongpin, is reluctant to substantially break with this strategy. Breaking with the economic stranglehold of imperialism would require the mobilization of the Philippine masses, placing the Philippine government in direct opposition to the U.S. government.

This struggle, in turn, would set into motion a radical dynamic whose logic would go further than opposition to foreign rule. It is this anti-capitalist dynamic that the native ruling classes fear first and foremost.

Land reform is another key aspect of the struggle. It concerns not only a peasantry crushed by debt, depressed prices, and the encroachment of the multinationals, but also vast numbers of dispossessed farmers who constitute a miserably poor strata in the cities. Agriculture Minister Ramon Mitra, himself a landlord, has been incapable of going beyond the inadequate reform introduced by Marcos.

All of these tasks-political democracy, national liberation, and land reform—have historically been the purview of a "national democratic revolution." In the advanced industrial countries, all were achieved, to one degree or another, in the course of establishing the economic rule of capital.

However, with the advent of the modern imperialist era at the close of the 19th century and the corresponding imposition of capitalist market relations throughout the underdeveloped world, the previous possibilities for balanced growth and social progress were cut off. A dependent capitalism emerged in the former colonial world as imperialism required the subordination of the local bourgeois-landlord classes to a global economic network dominated by the industrialized West.

Due to this warped development, and because the working classes of the semi-colonial countries ultimately pose a greater threat than does foreign capital, even the most "nationalist" factions of the ruling class have been incapable of accomplishing the democratic tasks previously associated with the rise of capitalism.

This job has instead passed onto the workers and poor peasants of the underdeveloped countries, requiring their seizure of state power for a radical transformation of society in the interests of the majority of the population.

Anti-imperialist united front

The resolution of these unfinished democratic tasks in predominantly peasant societies such as the Philippines —where 60 percent of the population lives in rural districts—requires the creation of a strong worker-peasant alliance.

The loss of capitalism's original progressive dynamic was emphasized by the Communist International of 10 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 1986 BOYCOTT E The Meaning Section International Viewpolnt (DR)

Lenin and Trotsky in its early conferences. "The longdrawn-out struggle with world imperialism... will demand the mobilization of all revolutionary elements. This is made all the more necessary by the tendency of the indigenous ruling classes to make compromises with foreign capital directed against the fundamental interests of the mass of the people.

"Just as in the West the slogan of the workers' united front has helped and is helping to expose the social democrats' sell-out of proletarian interests, so the slogan of an anti-imperialist united front will help to expose the vacillations of the various bourgeois-nationalist groups [and] help the working masses to develop their revolutionary will and to increase their class Members of New People's Army (NPA).

Aquino, despite talk of cease-fire, has continued to wage war against the insurgents.

consciousness..." ("Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Communist International," Inklinks, p. 415)

The tactic of the anti-imperialist united front and its relation to solving the democratic tasks of the revolution was distorted in the wake of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Communist movement under Stalin in the 1920s. It was transformed from a tactic designed to mobilize the masses in their own class interest, to a strategy to subjugate the masses in favor of a programmatic alliance with the so-called anti-imperialist bourgeoisie.

The actual experience of the Soviet Union showed it was possible to achieve a thorough-going land reform and other national-democratic tasks only through a socialist revolution under a workers' government supported by the peasantry. This required a decisive break with capitalism, including its "liberal" variants.

But the Stalinist regime, which aimed to curb revolutionary struggles in favor of "peaceful coexistence" with world capitalism, mechanically assigned the democratic tasks to a distinct capitalist stage of the revolution that would precede the "socialist stage."

Under this scheme, the national-democratic revolution was to be led by a "people's front" coalition, which included the capitalist class. Keeping the bourgeoisie in the alliance required the soft-pedaling of worker and peasant demands whose logic challenges the capitalist system.

Rather than a tactic for discrediting the bourgeoisie, the Stalinist version of the anti-imperialist united front became a noose which subordinated the mass movement to the interests of the capitalist class, resulting in no revolution whatsoever.

Today the Philippine workers' movement confronts a popularly supported capitalist government. But isolation under these circumstances is not new.

After the February 1917 revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks were marginalized by the accession to power of the widely supported Provisional Government. This government defended capitalist interests and the continued Russian participation in World War I. As in the Philippines, it rode to power on the coattails of a mass mobilization of workers, soldiers, and peasants.

Under the pressure of events, the Bolsheviks flirted with giving backhanded support to the new "democratic republic," a tendency halted only after Lenin led a fierce struggle to win the party to his "April Theses." Lenin demanded that the party strive to put an end to the capitalist regime and that it give leadership to the fight for a workers' government.

Had it not been for Lenin's struggle to reorient the Bolshevik party, the socialist October Revolution in Russia would not have occurred or, at best, would have been delayed.

Problems of the boycott Given the inability of the workers' movement to pose a political alternative representing the fundamental interests of the Philippine workers and farmers, the vacuum was filled by Cory Aquino.

A call for an electoral boycott is a statement that the cards are so stacked against you that participation only gives credence to a rigged game. The success of any boycott is measured by the degree to which the electorate accepts this premise and abstains from voting.

The February boycott was a failure not because there was no fraud, but because the people believed their intervention could force a change in Marcos' script.

The "February revolution" itself arose out of the concentrated indignation resulting from Marcos' attempt to steal the election, a situation aided by Aquino's being the dictator's only opponent. Yet to suggest, as the CPP and others have done, that this justified a vote for Aquino ignores the very nature of elections for public office.

Not simply a public opinion poll, elections pose the issue of which class interests will be represented by the government. In the Philippines, consideration of the merits of a united front against the dictator for the purpose of boycotting fraudulent elections is one thing. It is quite another when this cross-class unity is expressed in favor of the candidate of the capitalist class. Such collaboration with the oppressor class makes the construction of an independent movement of the workers and peasants impossible.

Aquino's inability to represent the interests of the working people was underscored by her agreement to run under the banner of Salvador Laurel's conservative UNIDO party. The price for electoral unity was to play down the U.S. presence and the need for land reform.

BAYAN called a boycott only after Aquino refused to endorse a series of demands. But by this time, it was too late to request ballot status. Believing that only armed struggle could topple the dictator, leaders of the 2million-member organization professed that the elections would be merely a "noisy game."

But BAYAN's hesitation to call for an alternative to Aquino also stemmed from its failure to recognize the importance of politically organizing the workers and farmers independently of the pro-capitalist electoral bloc.

If the mass organizations had explored the possibility of running a trade union or farmworkers' leader early on, they could have avoided leaving the field entirely to the capitalist opposition. The potential base for such an independent campaign was certainly present, given the millions who adhere to the trade union, farmers', and poor people's community groups.

A mass-action-oriented electoral campaign would have called for closing the U.S. bases, repudiating the foreign debt, genuine land reform, an elected constituent assembly, and other demands of the workers and farmers for democracy and social change.

The masses could have been mobilized in rallies, marches, petition campaigns, and other tactics around the fight for a place on the ballot. The refusal of ballot status under these conditions, when the masses were mobilized, would have then provided the basis for an active boycott.

CPP's armed-struggle strategy

The CPP's approach to the boycott stemmed from a view that elevates the role of rural armed struggle over (continued on page 11)

Scan page 12

(continued from page 10) that of urban mobilization. Thus, even after the February election, the CPP could write that "armed struggle is the principal form of struggle in overthrowing reactionary and fascist rule." (Ang Bayan, March 1986)

The CPP-influenced left believed that the Marcos dictatorship could only fall through armed revolution. Hence, elections could only be a diversion. The real showdown, according to the CPP, would come in three to five years when the New People's Army (NPA) had accumulated sufficient forces to launch the "strategic offensive.' As much as the workers and urban poor might sympathize with the NPA, they retain illusions in the ability of the Aquino regime to grant reforms. Their fight for everyday survival precludes rural guerrilla subordination to imperialism are the $26-billion national debt and the presence of U.S. military bases. Repudiation of the debt and the expulsion of the bases are central demands and can be tied to calls for the nationalization of foreign enterprises under workers' control.

The pressing need for jobs, housing, and medical care throughout the country links farmers and the urban poor with a workers' movement struggling to maintain its living standards and working conditions. And as the most concentrated social force in society, the workers in city and plantation can become the social axis for all of these movements.

But these and other demands must be concretized in a strategic focus, in the call for true people's power, a government of workers and farmers—without bosses, rich landowners, and generals.

The prospects for such a campaign are good. The May issue of Ang Bayan reports that twice as many workers went out on strike in the first four months of 1986 as in the same period in 1985. This indicates not only demands pent up by over a decade of dictatorship, but more important, widespread confidence born of the mass mobilizations that overthrew the Marcos dictatorship.

Marcos rebels granted pardon The Aquino government has failed to seriously purge the government and army. Aquino's handling of the July 6-8 coup attempt by Marcos' vice-presidential running mate, Arturo Tolentino, should forever eliminate any doubts as to the class nature of her government. The proMarcos rebels were greeted by Aquino's representative, Defense Minister Enrile, with handshakes and pardons.

After the rebels surrendered, Gen. Jose Maria Zumel, a military leader loyal to Aquino, was quoted by the July 8, 1986, New York Times from a radio interview broadcast in the Philippines: "We are appealing to citizens to unite so that we can fight communism together."

For the moment, the capitalists have decided to rely on the moral authority of the Aquino government to mollify the anger of the masses. But as the government's reform image wears thin, the capitalists will turn to increased repression to defeat the mass movement.

Over 1000 people have already died in skirmishes with Aquino's army. The Task Force Detainees defense organization reports that nearly 500 political prisoners remain in provincial jails.

With an independent orientation, the mass movement of workers, farmers, and urban poor can once again seize the initiative. As Agriculture Minister Ramon Mitra admitted, the regime "will enjoy a honeymoon, maybe another six months. But within that time we'll have to deliver or else people will be out on the streets again. (San Francisco Examiner, March 3, 1986)

A successful movement to achieve the unsatisfied demands of the "February revolution" requires a firm resolve to maintain its independence from any section of the ruling class.

First and foremost, this process necessitates the building of a revolutionary socialist party which strives to strengthen the struggles of the workers and farmers and helps give them an independent expression at every juncture.

As the masses become conscious of their own power and confident that their own mass organizations constitute the basis for democratic rule, the socialist revolution will be posed in the Philippines. The oppressive rule of the tiny minority will be challenged by an organized people ready to rule in their own name. I

----- pull-quotes -----

OYCOTT! OTTI