THE NEED FOR ANALYSIS
Reactionary political movements are
on
the rise in the world today. In Europe nationalist and fascist
parties and movements are gaining support in many countries –
France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc. Additionally some
people claim that regimes of a fascist character have power in a
number of countries, e.g. Syria and North Korea (DPRK). Some
other
countries are arguably heading in a fascist direction, e.g.
Turkey,
China. The term “fascist” is often used to derogatorily refer to
any right-wing person or party the speaker does not like, e.g.
Donald
Trump. This not at all useful.
There is an urgent need to properly
analyse different types of right-wing regimes to provide
guidance for
taking appropriate and effective action against them. For
example,
characterising the Trump presidency as “fascist” if it is not in
some concrete meaningful sense is not likely to result in the
generation of effective tactics and strategy to block the
implementation of his reactionary policies. If it is to have any
useful meaning then “fascism” must mean something more definite
and specific than “very reactionary and oppressive”. The Islamic
Republic in Iran is very reactionary and oppressive but is it
fascist
in the way that were the classic cases in Italy and Germany? The
same can be said of military rule in Egypt and Myanmar. A
clearly
defined model of fascism must be put forward which definitively
distinguishes it from from other types of right-wing rule. This
is
not simply a matter of academic interest but necessitated by the
need
to produce a guide for political action.
Fascist political systems are very
reactionary and oppressive but so are all states based on
capitalist
societies. We should not forget that imperialist societies with
liberal democratic regimes, e.g. Britain, France, USA, have
brought
about the oppression, exploitation and deaths of many millions
of
people around the world especially in their colonies and former
colonies. Fascism has no monopoly in ruling, oppressing and
exploiting people. In the case of fascism the issue is to
identify
the specific characteristics which distinguish it from other
types of
political systems in capitalist societies.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The approach taken here is on the
basis of comparing past regimes which have generally been
identified
as “fascist” to arrive at a set of key core characteristics
which clearly distinguish fascist from other types of political
systems. Then the resulting model is applied to the analysis of
some
contemporary societies to determine whether or not they can be
objectively regarded as fascist. Of course, fascism is not a
static
entity set in tablets of stone and may well have some different
or
additional secondary
features
in its current forms.
This
approach has some similarities to the ideal type
method advocated by Max Weberi.
In constructing models
of
various social phenomena, e.g. capitalism, Weber tended to put
the
main emphasis on states of social consciousness, e.g. the
Protestant
ethic, with less attention paid to social structures, e.g.
class
divisions. Taking a Marxist approach here, both aspects of
consciousness and structure are taken into account.
In
isolating and describing the factors which give rise to
fascist types of states it is assumed by many commentators,
including
Georgi Dimitrov, that the same causes will be present in all
instances of this phenomenon. This is not necessarily the
case. It
is quite possible for the same outcome to come about as a
result of
different combinations of causative factors. This is known as
equifinality. Dimitrov argues that it was
finance capitalists who instigated fascism in Italy and
Germany. This, I argue, is somewhat of a simplification of
what happened in
those cases. However if it is accepted that fascist regimes
emerged
in non-imperialist Libya
and Syria, then they were not set up by finance capital but
were put
in place by local military elements.
THE DIMITROV DEFINITION OF FASCISM
People examining fascism from a
Marxist-Leninist perspective usually orientate themselves around
the
analysis of fascism put forward by Georgi Dimitrov who was the
General Secretary of the Communist International from 1934 until
its
dissolution in 1943. The assumption of state power by the Nazis
in
Germany in 1933 was big shock for and blow to the international
communist movement. Dimitrov was trying to formulate an analysis
of
fascism which would enable the communist parties to effectively
fight
back against it.
According
to Dimitrov:
"Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country."ii
This definition is not very precise and does not say much about the particular characteristics of fascist regimes. It is more a moral condemnation than a detailed scientific description. Dimitrov almost certainly had in mind the recent case of the triumph of fascism in Germany where finance capital was very strong. However, before that fascist regimes had been established in Italy and Portugal, countries still relatively capitalistically underdeveloped, as the Comintern had pointed out, and where finance capital was not very strong. The same was true of Spain where a fascist regime was established by 1939. Also in less developed countries in Eastern Europe , e.g. Romania, fascist regimes were established in this period. In the countries where finance capital was most developed – Britain, France, USA – apart from Germany, fascism was never a very serious threat. It can be argued that fascism is more likely to emerge in societies where capitalism and imperialism are weakly developed and are faced with strong internal challenges from workers and peasants led by revolutionary organisations.
Dimitrov is dismissive of the role played by various middle strata elements in the emergence of fascism, i.e. petit bourgeois, peasants, intelligentsia, military personnel. It is a matter of historical fact that the fascist movements in Italy and Germany originated among disaffected former soldiers, struggling peasant farmers and declasse non-manual employees. They were not dreamed up by finance capitalists. Only at a certain point in the class struggle did sections of the bourgeoisie turn to the fascists and finance them as an effective means of warding off communists and socialists. When fascist governments were formed then, although some of their leading members were of middle strata origin, their actions were ones which primarily favoured the interests of finance capital and not those of the social strata from which these leaders originated. The same is true of social democracy. Its leaders originate from working class and middle strata backgrounds yet social democratic governments under capitalism primarily serve the interests of finance capital, e.g. the British Labour Government 1997-2010. What these two cases demonstrate is that it is the character of the capitalist state apparatus which determines that the individuals constituting a particular government act mainly to maintain the bourgeois status quo. The offices of a government serving capitalist interests do not actually have to be occupied by capitalists.
Another problem with Dimitrov’s analysis is that he does not provide any detailed description of the state and institutional structures of fascism and how they differ from other forms of capitalist rule. Also he does not give an outline of fascist ideology and explain its appeal.
Dimitrov’s definition of fascism needs to be considerably developed to adequately explain the coming to power of fascist regimes in the period between the First and Second World Wars let alone any contemporary developments which might reasonably be categorised as “fascist”. It should also be noted Dimitrov’s analysis of fascism led directly onto the formulation of and adoption by the Comintern in 1934 of the United Front Against Fascism policy which turned out in actual practice to be a disaster. (For a critique see The Unholy Alliance: The United Front Against Fascism and War, 1935-47, Marxist-Leninist Programme Commission, 1983).
CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM
Some of the pre-World War Two societies generally regarded as fascist will be submitted to comparative analysis so as to identify a number of core characteristics shared among them. These societies are Italy, Portugal, Germany and Spain. There are other cases which could arguably be included – Hungary, Japan, Romania – but they will be excluded in the first instance. The model below distinguishes ideological and structural characteristics although in reality they exist as a dialectical unity.
Any particular society may not exhibit all of the characteristics identified here. But if it has a significant number of these characteristics then it will display qualitative differences from other particular societies and thus can reasonably be described as fascist.
Ideology
It
is nationalistic, chauvinist and often racist. It
claims that people’s
welfare can only be guaranteed if they are members of a strong
nation. The nation
is seen
as having undergone some decline in the past which has
weakened it.
This has been brought
about
by individualist liberalism, class conflict and alien foreign
influences. There is a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the
reach
of traditional solutions. This
weakness needs to be
reversed so as to establish a stronger, more durable nation in
the
future. There are
threats,
both from within and without, to the continued existence of
the
nation. The
traits of strong masculinity are essential to strengthen the
nation
and
there should be no pretence that the sexes are equal.
Conflicts within the
nation,
especially class conflicts, need to be overcome so as to
achieve
national unity. Individuals
should completely subordinate themselves to and serve the
interests
of the nation. Internal
enemies should not be tolerated and must be eliminated by firm
measures including violent methods. Socialists
and communists in particular must be eliminated. Threats
from other countries need to be dealt with, if necessary, by
means of
war. Indeed, the preparation for and the waging of war will
strengthen the nation. The
nation must be in a permanent state of readiness to fight its
enemies. The nation
has a
right to expand into other countries if this serves its
interests.
The greatest service an
individual can perform for the nation is to sacrifice himself
in war.
Organisation
of Society
Any
sort of democracy and
social
equality is an
illusion and
a clearly stratified autocracy is the appropriate form of
rule. A
supreme charismatic
leader
stands at the head of this hierarchy and his commands must be
obeyed
unquestioningly. He expresses
the will of the people and is
the source of the nation’s ideology. Other views are the
products
of dissenting and disruptive intellectuals and should be
suppressed. The
official ideology is
anti-rationalist and anti-materialist and
stresses
the unique, spiritual qualities of the nation. It
is fairly hostile to traditional religions and
subordinates them to state directives.
The findings of modern
science are of value only in so far as this knowledge can be
used to
strengthen the nation. In
so far as any sort of legislative assemblies exist they have
no real
power which is concentrated in the leader and his immediate
associates. The
basis of the regime’s power is a highly disciplined,
paramilitary
mass movement which draws its members from all sections of
society. There is an
extensive
security apparatus to control dissent. Large,
well equipped armed forces are necessary to deal with both
internal
and external enemies and these are commanded by and are
directly
responsible to the supreme leader. The
sphere of civil society is very restricted with voluntary
activities
subject to state control. Industry
and commerce remain within private ownership but are closely
supervised by and directed by the state which organises both
employers and employees into “corporations”. As far as
possible,
the nation should be economically self-sufficient with foreign
trade
kept to a minimum, a policy of autarchy. The state extracts
large
revenues from privately-owned
and state-owned economic
enterprises and additionally there is extensive corruption in
economic and public life. The state seeks to influence and
control
all aspects of civil society so as maintain and strengthen
national
values.
Conditions
Giving Rise to Fascism
Apart
from Germany, the other three
countries considered here – Italy,
Portugal and Spain – had relatively weak economies, being far
less
industrialised than were the much more developed capitalist
economies
of northern Europe. The
economic difficulties of Portugal and Spain were of
long-standing and
had to a considerable degree been brought about by the loss of
much
of their colonial empires. In the case of Italy it had got in
late
on the imperialist carve-up of Africa in the nineteenth
century and
thus had fairly modest colonial possessions. Germany had lost
all
its colonies as a result of suffering defeat in World War One.
Portugal,
Italy and Spain still
had
large agricultural sectors
with many poor peasants in economic difficulty. There were
growing
working classes, many of them from peasant backgrounds,
concentrated
in rapidly expanding industrial centres such as Turin and
Barcelona. As is
often the case with
first generation proletarians, these workers tended to be very
militant and strongly influenced by revolutionary doctrines,
especially anarcho-syndicalism. Armed uprisings
occurred. Germany had a longer-established, large
working class organised into large trade unions and with many
workers
supporting the Social
Democrats and Communists. Germany had been hit particularly
severely
by the Great Crash of 1929 and
the resulting impoverishment stirred up great working class
discontent The
bourgeoisie
in these countries felt threatened by the growing and
radicalised working
classes.
None
of the four countries mentioned here had long-established,
stable
political systems. All of them had experienced serious
political
upheavals and dramatic regime changes. They had weak states
with
limited popular legitimacy unable
to adequately deal with long-standing peasant and working
class
grievances. In three
of
these countries – Italy, Germany and Spain – there was a
relatively weak sense
of
national unity. Italy and Germany had only become unified
national
states in the late nineteenth century while some parts of
Spain,
Catalonia and the Basque Country, had strong separatist
movements
This
model is an ideal type description. In particular cases the
details
may be more complex. For example, the political organisational
structure of Spanish fascism was more complex than
in the Italian and
German
cases. Even so,
there is a
complex of interrelated core features here which distinguishes
this
type of fascist political system from other types of
governance in
capitalist societies, e.g. liberal democracy,
authoritarianism,
bureaucratic capitalism
and
military rule.
CONTEMPORARY
CASES OF FASCISM
A
preliminary survey of the world today reveals two countries
which
strongly conform to the model of fascism outlined above: Syria
and
North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). In
addition
in both of these cases the supreme leadership has become
hereditary;
the Assad family in
Syria
and the Kim family in North Korea. In both societies no
expressions
of dissent from the present regimes are tolerated and
are ruthlessly suppressed.
Syria
The
legitimating ideology of the Assad regime is Ba’athism which
clearly has fascist characteristics. The Saddam Hussein regime
in
Iraq was also based on Ba’athism and in its characteristics
resembled
the model of fascism presented here. The
Gadaffi regime in Libya also conformed to the fascist model.
The
Assad regime had long been a client state of the Soviet Union
and
then Russia. It relied heavily upon these states for military
equipment and support. The
Syrian ruling class is a comprador bourgeoisie. The
direct military intervention in Syria since 2014 of Russian
armed
forces saved the Assad regime from defeat by its internal
enemies. As a result the Syrian state is now a puppet regime
of Russia and
Syria
has become a neo-colony of Russia. The
most ruthless forcible suppression is handed out to any
dissidents
whoever lid they might
be.
North
Korea
The
regime established in 1948 in the northern part of Korea was
explicitly socialist and carried out sweeping land reform. It
was led by Kim il-Sung
and despite the devastation brought about by the Korean War
(1950-53)
economically developed rapidly, faster
than the southern part of the peninsula under the US puppet
regime. Politically, proletarian democracy did not develop and
by the
nineteen nineties, then under the leadership of Kim’s son Kim
Jong-il, the country was in serious economic difficulties.
Heredity
leadership became firmly established with Kim Jong-un
succeeding his
father. This regime
has
effectively abandoned Marxism as its legitimating
ideology. Instead it
espouses ‘Juche’ which is anti-materialist
and racist. Mao
Tse-tung
suggested that if the process of socialist transformation went
wrong
then a fascist regime could well be the outcome. This seems to
have
happened in North Korea which strongly resembles the model of
fascism
presented here.
Iran
Another
regime which is often described as “fascist” is the Islamic
Republic of Iran. It
certainly has many of the features of fascism but whether it
is fully
fascist is debatable. Periodical contested elections for the
national presidency still take place although in a somewhat
restricted way. It is certainly a very reactionary regime but
this does not automatically make it fascist.
Further investigation is necessary to determine whether or not
Iran
is fascist or some sort of “authoritarianism”.
Another
very reactionary regime is the one in Saudi Arabia. Given the
hereditary
nature of its ruling class it might be described as “feudal”
but
at the same time it has a fully developed capitalist economy.
It
does not have a mass movement supportive of the regime. Its
legitimising ideology is a branch of Islam, Wahhabism. Again,
it might be more accurately characterised as a type of
authoritarianism.
Turkey
Leftists,
including Maoists, have often characterised the Turkish regime
as
fascist. Many claim that Turkey has been fascist ever since
the
foundation of the modern Turkish state by Kamal Ataturk in
1923. The
military played the major role in establishing the Turkish
state and
have directly intervened in its governance on a number of
occasions. They see themselves as the guarantor of a secular
state as opposed to
an Islamic one. The periods of direct military rule in Turkey
have
been very oppressive and have targeted socialists and
communists. At
the same time it is the case that Turkey has experienced
periods of
rule by governments formed from popularly elected parliaments.
The
past political order in Turkey might be accurately
characterised as
“military” whereby no government can rule without at least the
implicit consent of the military. In this respect it resembles
Pakistan where the military periodically directly intervenes
in
national political affairs.
Turkey
has experienced a resurgence of Islam in recent decades. In
2002 the
Conservative and Justice Party (AKP) led by Recep Tayyip
Erdogan was
elected into government office. Since then it has pursued a
policy
of growing Islamisation
of Turkish society. Also
the oppression of the Kurds has intensified. In 2016 there was
an
unsuccessful military coup against the Erdogan regime. This
provided
the Islamist government with the opportunity to have a mass
crackdown
of its opponents. This led on to the holding of a referendum
in 2017
which approved a new constitution which embodied a
presidential
system of government whereby the president had very
wide-ranging and
sweeping powers. In 2018 Erdogan was elected President for a
five
year period. There
seems to
have been a shift in power relations in Turkey with the
military
playing a lesser role than in th past. While it would not be
accurate to characterise Turkey as fascist at present it has
been
heading in a very authoritarian direction and fears that the
Erdogan
regime could develop into outright fascism are well founded.
China
A
powerful country where
trends towards fascism are growing stronger is China. Since
the
revisionist coup d’etat in 1976 socialist relations of
production
have been completely destroyed and a state capitalist class
has
emerged consisting of the top echelons of the Communist Party
of
China in close alliance with the owners of private capitalist
enterprises, e.g. Huawei. State
institutions are made up by self-selection by members of the
state
bourgeoisie. Oppositional political parties to the CPC are not
allowed. A certain amount of critical political and
intellectual
debate is still possible in China but this is steadily being
limited. In particular growing restrictions are being placed
on the use of
the internet. Any
serious
dissent is not tolerated. The
current President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi
Jinping,
has emerged as the supreme leader. His
decisions cannot be challenged. The
Constitution has been changed so that he can enjoy unlimited
periods
in office and his political line has been elevated into “Xi
Jinping
Thought” thus trying
to
give it the same status as Mao Tse-tung Thought. The latter
was
internationalist in character while the former is nationalist
and
chauvinist.
China
is now economically expansionist on an international scale. It
is a
major exporter of capital to many countries, especially in
Africa. Thus it is imperialist. Also it is rapidly developing
and upgrading
its armed forces explicitly to back-up its overseas ventures.
It is
the rising imperialist power on a world scale setting out to
challenge American imperialist hegemony. Given the features
mentioned here, China can accurately be
characterised as an
emergent
fascist state. (For more detailed analysis see ‘Apologists for
Chinese Imperialism’ at
http://www.revolutionarypraxis.org/?cat=205).
Russia
Another
case of a formerly socialist state heading in a fascist
direction is
Russia. With the strengthening of revisionist tendencies after
the
death of Stalin, especially the weakening and dilution of
socialist
relations of production, the
Communist Party of China, led by Mao, came to characterise the
Soviet
Union as having a system of state
capitalism. With the final collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991 the opportunity
arose for opportunist would-be capitalists to get their
hands on, to
steal, valuable state enterprises and become overnight
billionaires –
a sort of latter day “primitive accumulation of capital”. Many
of these entrepreneurs held positions in the Communist Party
of the
Soviet Union apparatus which they used to get their hands on
state
enterprises at bargain prices. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who
became the
richest person in Russia, was a full-time Komsomol official.
Other
members of the new capitalist class were people who had
operated in
the unofficial, underground economy which emerged within the
Soviet
Union in its declining decades. Many of these were violent
criminals, the Soviet mafia. Also actively involved in the
scramble
for privatising state assets were members of the security
ministry,
the KGB, now called the FSB. Vladimir Putin was a Lieutenant
Colonel
in the KGB, then deputy mayor of St. Petersburg before being
appointed Prime Minister by President Boris Yeltsin. The
present economic organisation of Russian capitalism is
dominated by
the “oligarchs”, billionaire capitalists in closes
association
with the higher echelons of the Russian state apparatus. It
is
suffused by rampant corruption.
The
Russian Federation has an elected president and an elected
parliament. But throughout its history there have been
allegations
of ballot rigging particularly in the repeated elections of
Putin as
President. Rival
candidates have been disqualified or assassinated. Putin
heads the
United Russia party which propagates a line of Great Russian
chauvinism. In Russia it is widely known as “the party of
crooks
and thieves”, its members being deeply involved in corrupt
practices in the state and economy. The
other political parties represented in the national
parliament offer
little opposition to Putin’s increasingly dictatorial rule.
The
Communist Party of the Russian Federation is largely
supportive of
the Putin regime. It is antisemitic and has a positive view
of the
Russian Orthodox Church which also is antisemitic, homophobic
and misogynist. The Putin regime has been very supportive of
the
Church which
it sees as useful in promoting Russian nationalism. If you
want to
do business in Russia then it must done within the
strictures laid
down by Putin and the FSB. Otherwise you will be shutdown,
or
expropriated or even worse. Putin is an enthusiastic admirer
of the
writings of Ivan Ilyin, a Russian fascist of the interwar
years. The Bolsheviks expelled Ilyin from Russia along with
other
reactionary intellectuals. Putin
has had selections of Ilyin’s writings distributed to
members of
the state bureaucracy. The
ideology being propagated by United Russia has been taking
on an
increasingly fascistic character.
The
imperialist character of contemporary Russia has already
been
mentioned with reference to the case of Syria. Putin has
made it
clear that he wishes to incorporate into the Russian
Federation at
least some of the
former
Soviet Republics in Asia. The
Russian state has sent personnel and weapons to the Central
African
Republic. It has been trying to revive some of the alliances
that
existed with African states during the Soviet era. There is
a strong
drive to establish economic interests such as mineral
extraction
rights although it is a long way behind China at present. It
is not just the luxury London property market which attracts
investment from Russian oligarchs. Also
it is modernising and strengthening its armed forces. Russia
is an
emerging imperialist power.
There is still in Russia a certain
amount of freedom of expression although this is steadily being
curtailed with increasing state restrictions on the mass media.
If
Russia continues on its present course on the consolidating
dictatorship of Vladimir Putin then it will become a full-blown
fascist state.
* * *
All of the possible cases of
fascist
regimes discussed here need further investigation. But in the
meantime it is necessary to draw at least some provisional
conclusions in terms of current revolutionary strategy and
tactics
FLIRTING WITH FASCISM
Some
Marxist-Leninists, including some who call themselves
Maoists, have
expressed “support” for some of these reactionary regimes.
This
is usually premised on the false supposition that any regime
which
falls out with US-led Western imperialism must have some
sort of
progressive character. This
is a fallacy. In
Libya and Syria there were genuine mass popular uprisings
against the
Gadaffi and Assad regimes. They were not the result of
machinations
by US imperialism as claimed by many leftists. In
the case of Libya the Western imperialists had brought
Gadaffi in
from the cold. Tony Blair had been sent to kiss him. Of
course, the imperialists like to be on the winning side in
any
upheavals in countries that interest them. Thus
they quickly drop regimes they previously backed if it suits
their
convenience as happened in the case of Libya.
At
the same time the
leftist supporters of such fascist regimes denounce
brave workers and peasants who attack tanks with their bare
hands.
The
leftist “anti-imperialists” claim that the Gadaffi and Assad
regimes represent the interests of the “national
bourgeoisie” and
thus are objectively anti-imperialist. On the contrary these
regimes
have a comprador bourgeois character whereby they directly
collaborate with one or another imperialist power. They
enrich
themselves at the expense of the
petit bourgeoisie and the
masses. True, the result of the popular uprisings in Libya
and Syria
has brought about chaos as rival imperialists have
intervened and
Islamic fundamentalists have seized opportunities. But this
is
hardly a reason to argue for the continuance of highly
oppressive
fascist regimes.
The
seeds of their destruction were sown from within, not from
without.
People
who claim to be Marxists should ask themselves why there are
no
significant communist forces in these countries who could
have
steered popular revolt in a different direction.
There
are some leftist elements, particularly the Communist Party
of Great
Britiain (Marxist-Leninist), who claim that China is still
on the
socialist road and playing an anti-imperialist role in the
world. They also claim that Russia is anti-imperialist. In
fact these two
capitalist countries are rapidly developing imperialist
powers which
increasingly are coming into conflict with the Western
imperialist
powers. As the “have-not” imperialists in the world today,
China
and Russia are more adventurist and aggressive than the
established
imperialist countries in the Western bloc. There
is some resemblance here to the situation in the nineteen
thirties
when the have-not fascist-led imperialist countries of
Italy, Japan
and Germany became increasingly bold in their challenges to
the more
established imperialists of Britain and France.
Revolutionary Marxists must face up
to
the fact that we live in a world where new inter-imperialist
rivalries are opening up which will lead to major wars unless
prevented by revolutionary insurrection. It is up to us to build
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces capable of taking the initiatives
necessary to ensure that this calamitous scenario does not
occur. And in countries where fascism is emerging we should say
so and
oppose it.
i An ideal type in this sense
is not a normatively best case but “ideal” only in the sense
that
it exists as ideas in the mind of the researcher. These ideas
are
abstracted from examination of concrete instances of the
phenomena
concerned and constitute a simplified, one-sided model of the
real
life phenomenon, e.g. capitalism. This model is then used as a
guide
for examining further possible cases of the phenomenon under
investigation with a view to further developing the model to a
more
sophisticated level, e.g. monopoly capitalism.
ii
Dimitrov’s writings
on fascism are to be found in the volume Dimitroff, Georgi, The
United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War,
Proletarian Publishers, San Francisco, 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment