WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, FAI - Umanita Nova: Fascism to Come. The Subjectivity of the Exploited Classes. (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 In the first part of this article I proposed a reasoning on the "fascism

to come", starting from the re-emergence of the alliance between
liberals and fascists that brought Europe historical fascism, and which
today re-emerges with new characteristics but still similar to those of
the first black wave known by this continent. ---- At the black heart of
this phenomenon lies the neoliberal policy that has pursued an
uninterrupted process of concentration of wealth in a few hands, with
the consequent ferocious war against the working classes to take back
what was torn away during the thirty years of economic expansion of the
last century.

Today the phenomenon of wealth concentration is at a level unknown
before, considering that the comparison between a worker's salary and a
managerial one has shot up from 1 to 20 to the immeasurable ratio of
today, where the poorest managers earn 120 times as much as a worker in
the same company, not to mention the extreme case of Musk who recently
obtained an annual salary of 56 billion, more than humanly conceivable
in mathematical terms.

Lazzarato recently noted how behind these figures there is no economic
rationality but a precise subdivision of humans into categories that are
incommensurable with each other. It is simply a relationship of power;
the same one always practiced in the colonies by the European powers and
which divides humanity into different races, where one has precise
claims of ownership over the other.

It is clear that we are no longer talking about an unequal world but of
a world where there exist (at least) two humanities that have no
relationship with each other, other than that of absolute dominion of
one over the other. The freedom invoked by Musks or Silicon Valley is
the freedom of the dominant humanity to be able to dispose of other
humanity as its own property. The credo of this class of ultra-rich is
precisely that of the incompatibility between the forms of democracy and
law, which at least theoretically recognize a form of legal equality
between people, and those of advanced capitalism.

If characters like those cited maintain for us the classic distance that
is established between people belonging to the "old Europe" and those
who grew up in a new world where the class order has never existed (and
therefore they sound strange to us, "exaggerated", almost folkloristic),
we should be aware of the fact that the Macrons, the Draghis and the
various company that governs our countries, pursue exactly the same
project. Going back to before welfare, before the New Deal, before the
wage growth of the second half of the twentieth century, before the
revolutions.

An idea of a small aristocracy that earns in the form of income exactly
what it decides to earn and that reigns undisturbed over a plebs that
must share a pittance and that is in a constant internal struggle
according to an impressive number of hierarchies of poverty.

Western states - even today some speak inappropriately of a contrast
between State and Market - are the main suppliers of income to
companies, through a tax system heavily unbalanced in favor of the rich
and aimed at penalizing the working classes and through direct financing
(a textbook case of those linked to the infamous PNRR) for which the
companies themselves do not have to answer or provide accounting.

Think of when the "Dignity Decree" timidly introduced limits to
fixed-term work and the abuse that is made of it; immediately animated
choruses arose from all the press and commentators in which it was
argued that an attack on freedom of enterprise was underway. Very clear
conception of the power relations between people within a society, very
clear conception of the role of the state as an administrative machine
charged with seizing social wealth in favor of the narrow elite of
capitalist-aristocrats.

To be poetic, a return to a social formation with typically feudal
traits, from a census society. Being much more pragmatic, the refutation
of the liberal narrative that sees capitalism and democracy as
convergent phenomena. Someone said it in a single sentence in a
particularly effective way: it is Peter Thiel, the founder of Paypal. On
the occasion of one of the global events in which billionaires dispense
their word to the masses, he declared: "I do not believe that freedom
and democracy are compatible". Where the concept of freedom is obviously
that of the possibility for the narrow circle of the richest men to have
no limits in their action.

But if these characters are the boldest expression of this project (we
note another phrase by Thiel: "The 1920s in America were the last time
one could be optimistic. The subsequent creation of welfare and the
extension of the vote to women made the expression capitalist democracy
an oxymoron"), their ultimate goal is no different from that of all the
economic and political elites of the West; public spending, welfare have
never disappeared from Western countries: they have simply changed
recipients. The target of these funds is no longer hospitals, education,
social assistance, social insurance or pensions, but the highest incomes
and businesses. In a country like France, 230 billion euros a year are
transferred from the pockets of the lower-middle classes to those of
businesses; in Italy it is a slightly lower figure, but the sense of the
financial flow is the same.

Clarity is strictly necessary for our political action: the compromise
between democratic forms and capitalism is the result of the class
struggle. Political confrontation and conflict is ultimately always a
conflict between equality and liberalism. Fascism is only one of the
faces of liberalism, the most ferocious one that abandons any semblance
of human society and replaces it with a society of classes or castes.

Equality, on the other hand, is always linked to class struggle,
liberalism in all its forms to social difference based on property.

Contrary to what generations of Marxists have thought, social relations
based on property and wealth are totally indifferent to modernity and
progress. On the same side of the fence we find old relics of
twentieth-century fascism like Meloni and Le Pen and new oligarchs of
the cutting edge of technological research and finance like Musk.

Whatever the center of the political action of the movements, all find
themselves clashing with the privilege of power; and the privilege of
power is property: of the work of others, of other human beings, of
women, of nature. From this point of view, the path of the privileged
classes has only slowed down a little during the twentieth century after
the Russian revolution; at the end of that cycle it immediately resumed
and with greater vigor its project of subjugation of every existing
thing or person.

But the class conflict necessarily presupposes that a class opposes the
dominant one. This has been given in a sectoral and limited form (even
if sometimes with impressive mobilizations) for almost fifty years
throughout the West.

Mobilizations that have not stopped the liberal project of imposing the
dictatorship of private property.

Within this process, similar to that triggered by the end of competitive
capitalism about a century and a half ago, the demons of war between
powers, of civil war within individual countries have emerged, but the
class struggle as a public and insurgent expression of the friction of
interests is completely missing.

The class struggle refers to the concept of class which, as such (as a
sociological expression) simply does not exist. Those who refer to a
concept of class as a form of identity or as a sociological form of
convergence of well-defined interests, demonstrate that they have not
looked deeply into the social dynamics of the last two centuries.

Class is a political phenomenon, it is an event; the working class even
at the time of the mass worker was multiplicity, not identity; a
political construction, not the result of a sociological phenomenon.

Class without a politics of liberation, first of all from property,
simply does not exist; it is a social formation that exists only in
relation to other classes.

In other words, class exists only as a consequence of class struggle.

Class is therefore, at the same time, the intersection of a multiplicity
and the ability to practice a duality towards the common enemy, always
practicing the refusal to be closed in an identity tool but at the same
time imposing a necessary polarization on the social conflict.

Within this difficult but necessary dialectic lies the action of those
who intend to subvert the world of the property-owning classes. Defining
the contours of the class on the basis of the ongoing conflict, starting
from action as the starting point of the same definition of the class,
with the strict conviction that action, as Thompson recalled in The
Making of the Working Class in England, "does not reside in an identity,
but in the women and men who practice it".

Stefano Capello

https://umanitanova.org/il-fascismo-che-viene-la-soggettivita-delle-classi-sfruttate/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca