[R-G] Re: Is America Becoming Fascist? Counterpunch
mstainsby at tao.ca
Thu Nov 7 16:50:06 MST 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ILSTU.EDU>
> 2) Despite the horrors the U.S. is capable of under its constitution,
> there are advantages to our present degree of political and personal
> freedom, advantages that are worth fighting for and if possible
> expanding. And even the degree of political freedom we now have is
> indeed under threat. But to call that threat "fascism" is (I've used
> this image a number of times) as silly as it would have been in the
> Germany of the 1920s to ignore Hitler and claim that the real threat of
> the restoration of power to the Kaiser.
> Carrol Cox
Good analogy, but it isn't like *I* (can't speak for others here) am warning
about "Fascism" taking over the White House from the remnants of George Lincoln
Rockwell's followers and installing a series of Reichstag-inspired decrees.
I am talking about the aims of fascism being completed through the democratic
process, and just as ruthless an attempt at garnering the same powert for
themselves *as a class*, and as Dmitrov put it "the most reactionary section of
the bourgeoisie" who the Hell are the people around this criminal cabal in the
Bush party, if not these?
No, they are not marching through the streets. Not because they are less
reactionary, not because they have goals or morals and virtues that differ from
capital F fascism.
My problem, in a nut shell, comes down to the belief that "Fascism" is the far
end of the political spectrum, that we can look along varying degrees and decide
when we must call it the most urgent situation possible.
Considering that the current rulers *do not need* to cancel elections, they have
the exact same goals (nationalistic xenophobia as well) as "traditional"
fascists, yet they are only in the corridors of the White House and the Senate
and not the streets because they don't need to be!
Considering that Habeus Corpus is shredded, that the goals of fascism are being
attained without the "open, terrorist rule" Dmitrov spoke of, would not Fascism
(classically, the reaction to the rising of a mass-class-based opposition to
their policies) indicate a step forward? Will these criminals from the most
reactionary part of corporate-oil America not institute Fascism before they
succumb to the limiting and removal of their power?
Fascism "techincally" means the farthest right of the ruling class, where things
are at their absolute worst. They are cartoon images, and the real murderers are
in power now. As such, Fascism (without a re-definition), if "only" usable as a
catch-word for dictatorships of the far-right (why on earth would they cancel
elections when even leftists go around voting for people like Gore, Nader and
even Bush en masse?) has ZERO meaning to our world today.
Look at the culture around the state-- they are treated as "can do no wrong",
even when they admit to random murder with unmanned planes in sovereign
That means now they proudly proclaim the right to murder anyone, anywhere, at
"Fascism" as a term either reflects this or it means absolutely (pardon me)
sweet fuck all. What just was done in Yemen, proudly, openly and with a promise
of more of the same in the future (rather than denials, blame shifting and
attempts to put the story on pge 87 of your newspaper), is the "open terrorist
rule of the most reactionary section of the [global] bourgeoisie."
Be afraid, be very afraid. But don't give up.
More information about the Rad-Green