Richard Seymour
“Fascism comes only when the working class shows complete
incapacity to take into its own hands the fate of society.”
Leon Trotsky, Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It
“In the meantime, the first characteristic of a
revolutionary party is- to be able to look reality in the face.”
Leon Trotsky,
Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It
“If we place events in this more historically comprehensive
context, it is clear that January 6 marks a new stage in a protracted process
of democratic breakdown. We have witnessed in recent days efforts by historians
and journalists to claim that really nothing of great importance happened on
January 6, and that everything will more or less return to normal. This
dangerous underestimation of the danger is based not merely on an incorrect
evaluation of American conditions.”
David North.
While it is usually not possible to tell a book by its cover,
you can usually gauge a book by its first page. Probably the greatest example
of this is Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, which is arguably the most stunning
introduction to a book in modern literature. The same cannot be said about
Richard Seymour’s first page.
The quote from Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of
Enlightenment is perhaps fitting, given that Seymour is not a Marxist but a
pseudo-leftist, and both Adorno and Horkheimer were anti-Marxists.
As Peter Schwarz says, “The first thing that comes to mind
when reading 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' is the complete absence of any
reference to concrete historical, economic or political events, social classes,
political parties or questions of perspective. Neither the policies of the
Social Democrats nor those of the Communist Party are examined. Not even Hitler
is mentioned. Instead, everything is treated at the level of pure thought,
which is presented as an independent subject, completely detached from thinking
individuals, social consciousness, the struggle of classes and the struggle of
ideas. Horkheimer and Adorno describe this as “thought ... reflecting on its
own guilt.”[1]
Seymour does examine in a limited manner concrete
historical, economic and political events, which is not the problem; however, he
does so not from the perspective of a Marxist but from that of a radical
leftist. In Richard Seymour’s book, Trump is not a fascist but another
far-right leader who is peddling a non-Marxist term called “Disaster
Nationalism”.
There are many sides to a Marxist, and one of those sides is
clarity of thought and action. Arguably, the greatest Marxist thinker of the 20th
century, apart from Vladimir Lenin and the modern-day Trotskyist David North,
was Leon Trotsky. You would have thought that if someone was looking to
understand modern fascism and be given a book contract to do so, you would
consult the most brilliant authority on the subject, and that is Trotsky. Yet
in Seymour's book, Trotsky warrants one tiny mention with no quotes from his
major works on German and Italian fascism.
This is Trotsky’s approach: “What is fascism? The name
originated in Italy. Were all the forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship
fascist or not (That is to say, before the advent of fascism in Italy)? The
former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923–30, is called a fascist
dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that it is
incorrect. The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large
masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in
origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from
the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from
the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a “self-made” man
arising from this movement.
Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high
military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he
accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The
dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two different forms of dictatorship. It is
necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling
many old military institutions with the fascist militia.
This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera. The movement
in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its
leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the
creation of the mass movement. The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty
bourgeoisie. In Italy, it has a very large base – the petty bourgeoisie of the
towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large
base for fascism. It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that
the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private
administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question
that must be analysed. To be capable of foreseeing anything about fascism, it
is necessary to have a definition of that idea. What is fascism? What are its
base, its form, and its characteristics? How will its development take place?
It is necessary to proceed in a scientific and Marxian manner.”[2]
Seymour does not proceed in a scientific or Marxist manner.
If he did, he would behave like any decent historian or writer and examine the
only orthodox or classical Marxist movement on the planet, which is represented
by the Marxists who write for the World Socialist Website. They have written extensively
on the rise of modern fascism. It suffices to say that Seymour did not contact
them or quote their analysis.
Their analysis of the rise of Trump and his brand of
American fascism cuts across Seymour’s pseudo-left perspective, which is to
downplay the rise of world fascism. Marxist writer Joseph Kishore believes that
the return of Donald Trump to power represents “the violent realignment of the
American political superstructure to correspond with the real social relations
that exist in the United States. Trump’s rise and return to power are not an
aberration but the product of deep-rooted crises in American and world
capitalism. His administration is carrying out a historic restructuring of the
state, tearing apart the remaining democratic constraints on oligarchic rule,
and preparing for global war.”
While it is one thing to describe Trump and his gang as
fascists, it is another to set his dictatorship in the same context as the rise
of Hitlerite fascism in 1933. David North, the chairman of the International
Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site and national chairman of the
Socialist Equality Party (US), in his introductory remarks to the post-election
online webinar “The Election Debacle and the Fight Against Dictatorship,” cautions:
“ Now, it is not the position of the SEP and the WSWS that
the accession of Trump to the presidency is the equivalent of Hitler’s 1933
victory. The United States is not Weimar Germany, and the transformation of the
United States into a police state dictatorship backed by a mass fascist
movement will not, whatever Trump’s intentions, be achieved overnight. But it would be politically irresponsible,
and contribute to the success of Trump’s aims, not to recognise the dangerous
implications and real consequences of last Tuesday’s election. At the very
least, it is necessary to take Trump at his word.[3]
Which Seymour does not. He is not alone in underplaying the
dangers of the rise of fascism in America. Alan Woods, leader of the
Revolutionary Communist International (RCI), the successor to the International
Marxist Tendency (IMT), published an article that starkly illustrates the
complacent and anti-Marxist orientation of his and other political tendencies.
Revealingly titled “Trump victory: a kick in the teeth for the establishment,”
the article echoes Trump’s fraudulent claims of being an anti-establishment
figure while downplaying the immense dangers posed by a Trump presidency to the
working class.
Woods writes, “The ruling class of America – firmly
supported by the governments of Europe – was determined to keep him [Trump] out
of office, by fair means or foul. After Trump was ousted in the 2020 election,
everything was done to prevent him from running again… All the numerous attacks
against him rebounded and turned against those who were seen, correctly, as
being involved in a conspiracy to prevent him from re-entering the White House.[4]
The World Socialist Website opposed Wood's complacency,
writing, “This portrayal is false. The ruling class was not 'determined to keep
[Trump] out of office.” Significant sections of the financial and corporate
elite, including billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, actively
supported Trump, viewing his authoritarian and pro-business agenda as a means
of furthering their class interests. Others, like Jeff Bezos, have proclaimed
their support for Trump after the election.” The article went on to reiterate
its position that Trump and his allies were not fascists.
Seymour, like many of his pseudo-left fellow travellers,
downplayed the 2006 coup attempt by Trump and his supporters in his latest book.
In his article “Myths about the January 6th Capitol Building Events,” written
by Roger D. Harris, a member of California’s Peace and Freedom Party, joins
Seymour in his criminal underplaying of the coup attempt. Harris writes, “The
riot was no attempted coup; it was just a sitting president unprecedentedly
calling a march on the Capitol... signifying a breakdown of bourgeois political
norms. What did happen is that a sitting president unprecedentedly called for a
march on the Capitol to contest an election, signifying a breakdown of
bourgeois political norms. Quite unlike Al Gore, who took a hit for elite
political stability rather than contest the 2000 presidential election, Trump
flagrantly broke the rules of orderly succession.”[5]
There is a degree of confusion, complacency, and even a hint
of deception in Seymour’s analysis; when he writes, “ Disaster nationalism is
not fascist. These movements do not seek to overthrow electoral democracy. Except
for the RSS in India – the grass-roots cadre organisation supporting Modi’s BJP
– they do not command far-right, paramilitary mass movements. The fascism that
is being prepared through this sequence will not resemble classical fascism.
The world that made fascism — colonialism, class civil war, revolution, and
intense industrial modernisation-has passed. The new world is one in which the
big questions will be those raised by the climate crisis: who gets what and who
does without, who lives and who dies. Neonate fascism, whether green or brown,
is preparing the terrain for a war on what it sees as mutant or out-of-place
biology: the migratory or criminal.”[6]
Analogies with the past are fraught with danger, especially when
examining the rise of fascism. Yet, the past can serve as a guide for today. Crucial
to understanding the rise of fascism today is a systematic study of the past,
especially the work of Leon Trotsky. As
Trotsky writes: “German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power
on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram
against the organisations of the working class and the institutions of
democracy. But fascism in power is least of all the rule of the petty
bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly
capital. Mussolini is right: the middle classes are incapable of independent
policies. During periods of great crisis, they are called upon to reduce to
absurdity the policies of one of the two basic classes. Fascism succeeded in
putting them at the service of capital.
“Trotsky’s
understanding of fascism can be used to understand today’s fascism. Seymour’s reluctance
to study or utilise Trotsky’s work on fascism stems from his political views, which
are a mishmash of liberal, Stalinist, and reformist traditions. Seymour joined
the Socialist Workers Party in 1998 and fully immersed himself in their
anti-Trotskyism. Pseudo-leftists Mike Kidron and Chris Harman, for economics;
Alex Callinicos, for political philosophy; and Tony Cliff, for the
weltanschauung, were his heroes. A second layer of influence was the ‘political
Marxists,’ including Ellen Wood and Robert Brenner, and thirdly, Althusser,
Gramsci, Poulantzas, Stuart Hall, and the Birmingham School. Is it any wonder Seymour is completely vague and indelicate
regarding the rise of fascism in America
As the Marxist George Lavan Weissman wrote: “An indiscriminate use of the term (fascism)reflects
vagueness about its meaning." Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies
in such terms as dictatorship, mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of
unscrupulous propaganda, the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the
masses, etc. Impressionism and confusion among liberals are not surprising. However,
Marxism’s superiority lies in its ability to analyse and differentiate among
social and political phenomena. That so many of those calling themselves
Marxists cannot define fascism any more adequately than the liberals is not
wholly their fault. Whether they are aware of it or not, much of their
intellectual heritage comes from the social-democratic (reformist socialist)
and Stalinist movements, which dominated the left in the 1930s when fascism was
scoring victory after victory. These movements not only permitted Nazism to
come to power in Germany without a shot being fired against it, but they failed
abysmally in understanding the nature and dynamics of fascism and the way to
fight it. After fascism’s triumphs, they had much to hide and therefore
refrained from making a Marxist analysis, which would, at the very least, have
educated subsequent generations.[7]
This book lacks merit and should not have been allowed past
the editorial stage by Verso. The fact that the Pabloites at Verso share
Seymour’s politics should not come as a surprise. If the Scribes at Verso
wanted to understand the rise of global fascism, they could have at least
reprinted some of Leon Trotsky's works. We wait with bated breath for this to
happen.
[1]
The rise of fascism in Germany and the collapse of the Communist Internationaw.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/10/le9-all.html
[2]
Extracts from a letter to an English comrade, November 15, 1931;
printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932-www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1
[3]
www.wsws.org
[4]
Trump victory: a kick in the teeth for the
establishment-https://marxist.com/trump-victory-2024.htm
[6]
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2020/03/rise-disaster-nationalism-why-authoritarian-right-resurgent
[7]
What It Is and How To Fight It-Leon Trotsky-1969 Pamphlet Introduction-https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
