Charles wrote:
* Lou P.:This is the same complaint I got from Stan. I would prefer to deal with the substance. Any way you slice it, you don't get fascism without the threat of proletarian revolution. That might be going on somewhere else in the USA, but surely not in NYC. ^^^^ CB: What name shall we use for the likely response to one, two or three more "9/11"'s ?
================================ Charles, it's unclear to me whether you think fascism is already here, or are just worried about the possibility of fascism down the road, which is quite a different thing. Do you consider the the Bush administration is "fascist", as some on the left do? If so, what if the "fascist" Bush administration were at some point succeeded by one which outlawed elections, other political parties, unions, demonstrations, judicial review of its decisions, press and internet criticism, etc. and organized its party ranks to terrorize dissidents and the poor - what would you call that regime? Wouldn't it represent a qualitative change in the American political situation from what currently exists? Most people would say yes. That's what fascism means to them. They think they'd lose whatever rights they now have to criticize and organize against the government. These rights, however imperfect, matter to them. Would you challenge them on this? No doubt there are conservatives within the Republican party who want to curb the democratic rights which the masses have fought for and won under capitalism, and perhaps it even harbours closet fascists who would like to eliminate these entirely, but so long as these rights exist, and however much they're threatened, we don't live under fascism. I don't think you'd find anyone on the left who has lived both under fascism and under the Bush administration saying they're the same thing.
