Nixon and Watergate put the question of fascism back on the agenda. Since his fall, Ford and Rockefeller have begun to resume his offensive – but with greater care and cunning, trying to avoid giving undue offense to the more influential Senators and Congressmen and even securing their collaboration. The extremely reactionary S-l bill which outdoes the Smith and McCarran Acts is a prime example. What Nixon did illegally, Ford and Rockefeller are legalizing. The legal methods used to expose Nixon are being made illegal. The emergence of neo-fascists in various local affairs, such as Boston, have helped to keep this issue on the front burner. Fascism is no longer regarded as some remote and abstract possibility anymore, even by bourgeois liberals.
Why is it that Nixon’s neo-fascist assault came about, why is it that various neo-fascist forces are becoming more open and blatant now?
Certainly one cannot say that it is because of the danger of imminent revolution. Even at the height of the militancy of the 60’s revolution was remote except for those intoxicated by the events of the day or something else.
It cannot be said to be the strength of the left, which is not much to speak of right now, and even at its height in the 60’s was never that ominous.
It cannot be said to be the militancy of the mass movement because, as anyone can see, there is less open activity among the masses, even the black community, and certainly among the students than used to be the case in the 60’s.
In our opinion there are two principal reasons why fascism is once again becoming a serious danger. First, if one recalls during the war in Vietnam (or, more accurately, the Indo-China war), it came to pass that the opposition to the war became so wide and deep, although never revolutionary except for a small minority, that further prosecution of the war on the same scale became impossible. The principle obstacle to U»S, imperialism in Indo-China was the Indo-Chinese, but the anti-war movement became a very great internal obstacle after a certain point. Even certain sections of the loyal opposition began to become antiwar. It was for this reason that Nixon’s enemies list contained so many loyal supporters of the free enterprise system, but not so loyal supporters of the war in Vietnam. The F.B.I, and the C.I.A. have since been revealed to have directed activities not solely at wild-eyed radicals, but also just plain liberals, including Senators and Congressmen. Although most of this opposition was not directed at the system, it nevertheless was an obstacle to the designs of U.S. imperialism, and something its leaders deemed necessary to attack.
Second, the developing economic crisis plus the growing rebellion in the third world countries has led the big monopolies in this country to increasing their attack on the people generally in this country. This means that white working people and the white middle classes are coming under attack as well as the third world communities. The big monopolies have no other course, in order to rescue their profits, but to greatly intensify their attack. But it is absolutely certain that even some of the union leaders and politicians will feel enormous pressure to begin opposing these attacks, if only to retain support of their rank and file. Parts of the press and TV are bound to constitute something of an embarrassment to the needs and desires of the big monopolies if they even give a halfway professional account of what’s happening to the country – if they abide by even bourgeois codes of professionally. For all these reasons, the biggest monopolists increasingly, although with ups and downs, feel the need to begin doing away with bourgeois democracy, to begin attacking even liberal politicians and the media, to begin attacking even loyal labor leaders. And, such things cannot be done openly, without any cover at all. For this reason, they find it necessary to incite the white workers against black and other third world peoples, to blame them for what’s wrong, to concentrate on those issues which make it appear as if blacks were the cause of the white working class problems such as crime, drugs, welfare, busing, etc.
In so many words, fascism is increasingly needed by the big monopolists here not because of imminent revolution, not because of a powerful left, but in order to break the resistence to a necessary big attack on the people, and to break the internal resistence to U.S. war making ability.
This picture of the danger of fascism differs from those who say it can only arise with the threat of revolution. It differs from those who say that it necessarily has as its main target a powerful left. Mao has said that revolution is the main trend in the world today, and certainly this is true. But it does not mean that revolution is developing evenly all over the world. Revolution in the third world is much more advanced and imminent than it is in the U.S. To use the phrase “revolution is the main trend” in regard to the U.S. is very deceptive. It overlooks the very ominous activities of reaction, and the development of fascist danger. It sets an altogether false frame of reference for our tactics. If revolution is on the offensive in most parts of the globe, this cannot be said of the movement in the U.S. Here it is much more a question of preparing people for the attack and to defend themselves. He are not on the outskirts of Phnom Phen marching in. Those days are still in the future for us.
But it is precisely here that the “anti-imperialists” have gone astray. The “anti-imperialists” pay insufficient attention to the distinctions between the U.S. and the third world. Comparing the U.S. to the third world, they exaggerate the proximity of revolution here, and underestimate the obstacles.
Such a pollyannish attitude is just as dangerous as the view which thinks that revolution is impossible here, or won’t come for a hundred years. Revolution will come here too, but there are some very big obstacles. Both points are very important.
The U.S. has been a wealthy imperialist country for a long time. It has exploited and oppressed the rest of the world. The rest of the world, especially the third world, has suffered torment and anguish, poverty and torture for many decades. But their day has arrived, and parts of the third world have already passed over the threshold into a new era of light and happiness, and many others are on the threshold. But real poverty and suffering for many U.S. working people is just beginning. It will take a great deal of struggle and sacrifice before we (by we, I mean to also include the left) can rid ourselves of the corruption and complacency and worse of an era of relative imperialist prosperity.
One form of this pollyannish attitude is the underestimation of the danger of fascism. Revolution – the R.U. newspaper – once ran a headline – WATERGATE: CAPITALISM IS THE REAL CRIME. The significance of Watergate’s threat to democracy, as a portent of fascism, was thoroughly obscured and played down.
A second form is to acknowledge the danger of fascism, but underestimate what fascism itself means. This is reflected in the way many groups oppose socialism to fascism. “The only answer to fascism is socialism.” Such a slogan is but a replay of the light-hearted attitude Dimitroff fought against at the Seventh World Congress. To fight against the danger of fascism means to fight to defend (and even expand) the bourgeois democratic liberties we have. Revolution and socialism are far from being imminent enough to save us from the danger of fascism. We are confronted today not with a choice between fascism and socialism, but rather fascism and bourgeois democracy.[1]
In general, the “anti-imperialists” tend to act as if we were in an offensive situation, and adopt tactics and slogans based on that. Someday we will be in an offensive situation, and we will require offensive tactics and slogans. But that day has not yet arrived, and by not recognizing it we detach ourselves from reality and the masses.
[1] Dimitroff, in his report to the 7th World Congress, said:
“Our attitude to bourgeois democracy is not the same under all conditions. For instance, at the time of the October Revolution, the Russian Bolsheviks engaged in a life and death struggle against all political parties which, under the slogan of defence of bourgeois democracy, opposed the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. The Bolsheviks fought these parties because the banner of bourgeois democracy had at that time become the standard around which all counter-revolutionary forces mobilized to challenge the victory of the proletariat. The situation is quite different in the capitalist countries at present. Now the fascist counter-revolution is attacking bourgeois democracy in an effort to establish the most barbaric regime of exploitation and suppression of the toiling masses. Now the toiling masses in a number of capitalist countries are faced with the necessity of making a definite choice, and of making it today, not between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois democracy, but between bourgeois democracy and fascism.” His words have great relevance again today.