So, when Paul comes to deal with “fascism”, his narrative is unanchored, and relies upon these ephemeral concepts such as “elite”, the actual content of this elite being left to be filled on each occasion according to the particular role it is to play in explaining the actions of the mass. As Lenin described, the Narodniks did a similar thing, but using "estate" where Paul uses "elite". When Paul explains the January 6th. abortive coup attempt, it is connected to the elite as represented by Trump, but, then, for the reasons set out above, its not even clear who else constitutes this Trumpian elite, other than a few other similar mavericks. By denying the role of class (which itself seems odd for anyone wanting to continue to describe themselves as a Marxist, even if not a Leninist) Paul avoids the awkward question of explaining any connection between this elite and the state. But, in doing so, he, again, removes any analytical power from his hypothesis. Paul may have done with the Marxist class analysis of the state, but the class nature of the state has not done with Paul.
If the elite, mobilising and manipulating the mass, is not the ruling class, then it is obviously some other elite, and, as not ruling class, it does not have at its disposal the state, because the state is the state of the ruling class. It exists to serve the interests of the ruling class. Now, of course, that does not mean that there are not individuals occupying positions within that state apparatus who are not themselves sympathetic to the views of this mobilised reactionary mass. There always are, but they tend to occupy the lower ranks. Police and armed forces always have a disproportionate number of racists, homophobes, anti-Semites, xenophobes, sexists and even outright fascists, which is partly down to the nature and role of these organisations, and the type of people they recruit to them.
Bonapartism is always a phenomenon that is based upon the petty-bourgeoisie or the middle class - which of these intermediate classes again depending upon whether the particular Bonapartism is looking forward or looking backwards. The upper reaches, however, tend to be recruited from the universities, and the same social strata, at least, as the professional middle class, and even the ruling class itself. These upper layers of the state only become active instruments of fascism, when that ruling class itself requires fascism as an adjunct of the state, to beat down, and violently disperse, a revolutionary proletariat. The role of the reactionary elements within these state institutions, which are also characterised by a powerful hierarchical structure, is always massively subordinated to the function of these bodies as instruments of the ruling class.
And, so, when it came to analysing the events of January 6th 2021, Paul was all at sea. The basic thrust of his analysis of fascism is that, it does not matter that the ruling class is not faced with a revolutionary proletariat, requiring it to turn to the fascist paramilitaries as an adjunct to its state apparatus, because the basis of fascism, today, is not class conflict, but intersectionality and culture war. Let us assume that is true, the problem for Paul, then, is that, because the ruling class itself stands on the other side of the barricades to the petty-bourgeoisie, which is the main protagonist of this culture war, the fascists are then confronted by the capitalist state itself, which acts on behalf of the ruling class. That is the opposite of the conditions that existed in the 1920's, when Mussolini was met with at least tacit support from the Italian state, enabling him to come to power. To emphasise that, before the German bourgeoisie concluded it needed the fascists to break up the power of the German working-class, the German state acted to put down Hitler, for example, during the Bier Hall Putsch. It is only when the bourgeoisie came to conclude it needed the fascists that the state, as in Italy, facilitated their rise to power.
Paul's analysis required him to explain why the US state would not act to slap down the January 6th coup, indeed, why, given his abandonment of the category of class for elite, the elite, manipulating the reactionary mass, would not also mobilise the state along with it. That is the problem of abandoning the term class, and, here, ruling class, for the vague and empty concept of “elite”, because it is necessary to concretise this term “elite”, and as soon as you do, it becomes seen that it is indistinguishable from class, if it is to have any analytical meaning or reference to material reality.
The actual ruling class, had no reason to support Trump or the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, who he acted as spokesperson for. So, the January 6th coup, no doubt intended seriously by the fascists and right-wing petty-bourgeois that stand behind Trump, was never going to be anything other than a farce. It was never going anywhere, and indeed, by allowing it to go as far as it did, the ruling class, and its state, were able to point to it, as such an attempt on democracy by Trump and his followers, all the better to then mobilise the full force of the state against them, which has continued to roll on in the year since, irrespective of the incompetent actions of Biden and his administration.
And, typical of Paul's superficial, idealist and subjectivist approach, he completely confuses and conflates government office with state power. Whether its Trump in the US, or Johnson in Britain, Paul mistakes the fact that these political forces are able to win elections, and form governments with them actually having captured state power. Again it is a symptom of his lack of class analysis, and class analysis of the state.
The reality is that, even without the ruling class having to utilise its state to overthrow a government, as it did in replacing Allende, in Chile, in 1973, the ruling class has a whole panoply of measures it can mobilise against a hostile government of either Left or Right. It can organise capital strikes, attacks on the currency, and so on, as well as simply using the state bureaucracy to frustrate the measures any such government seeks to enact. But, yes, ultimately, if a radical right-wing (fascist) government representing the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, was seriously threatening the interests of the ruling class (for example, breaking up corporations, attacking fictitious-capital, embarking upon serious measures of national autonomy, and so on) it would retain the option of simply overthrowing the government, which could be done by a number of means, including coups, or, in the US, assassinations.
No comments:
Post a Comment