>>> Gerald Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/20/99 06:50AM >>>
I. If any authoritarian and nationalistic regime is fascist, then all
bourgeois governments are and have always been fascist. Indeed, by that
definition fascism has its origins in the emergence of the state long
before the birth of capitalism. Thus (using this definition), "fascism"
becomes a meaningless, empty abstraction devoid of any historical
specificity. While this might appeal to some bourgeois sociologists, it
has nothing to recommend itself to Marxists.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas: I agree with Jerry's comment. All states by definition are a monopoly of
repressive force. This force is always rendered authoritatively. "Fascism" , of
course, originated with the Italian Fascist Party, more or less. It's main, unique
class characteristic is as a desparate policy of the financial oligarchy of
state-monopoly capitalism/imperialism to counter the rising working class and
communist movement at the beginning of the 20th Century in Europe. It was marked by
wholesale revocation of political reforms ( some labor rights, due process, freedom
of speech, the whole panoply of bourgeois civil liberties) of capitalism which the
working class had won in decades of struggles.
There are other forms tyranny in 20th Century governments. But there is some value in
retaining especially the element of imperialism and the financial oligarchy in
classifying fascism in the taxonomy of state forms.
The configuration of world politics has changed today such that none of the
imperialist powers has fascism in it domestic polity. The new form of "fascism" has
the denial of civil liberties in a neo-colony by the comprador bourgeois government
and with the U.S.'s connection to the neo-colony's comprador bourgeoisie "supplying"
the imperialist element. But this is a modified form of fascism, with the changing
times. Perhaps a new term should be developed.
Charles Brown
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
