Greetings Economists, While true in the sense that capitalist use what ever bulwark comes to hand, Fascism seems a historical event. The times changed from then make it difficult for a similar mass movement to emerge.
War is not fought in the same way and young men can't be schooled in the same militarist manner. In terms of politics a street march by young nazi's in the U.S. is not likely to revive 'White Power', because it is not very useful in terms of Capitalist power. It is no accident that Bush et al use white fundamentalist religion over semi-military style political movements. The clash between socialist sorts of materialism and religious 'subjectivity' is much more potent than young men getting out with baseball bats and killing each other for something or other. Not withstanding some exploration of this sort of theme in the mass media, organizing mass movements in this vein seems closed off. The automation of war machines precludes such movements. Massing lots of people in clear public concentration invites some well placed weapons of mass destruction. Therefore massing publicly has to be invisible to the war machine. While the epithet 'Fascist' is a potent symbol of Emotional Suffering', the reality of such a movement in these times is unlikely. Also directly and primarily ignores that such bases had to be created from the material of the first world war. Oddly enough the Spanish Fascist lost without even a shot being fired in Spain. thanks, Doyle On Nov 20, 2005, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both Gramsci and Trotsky relate fascism directly and primarily, not to a shoppers' list of symptoms, but to [Gramsci] "the activity which the bourgeois class carries out to halt the proletarian class on its path."
