On 1/2/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The authoritarianism we've seen in recent years -- especially right after 911 -- was forcible only toward an unpopular minority and was generally accepted by the majority in the US. In many ways, it was akin to Cointelpro back during the 1970s, which also applied to unpopular minorities (e.g., the Black Panther Party). The fascism in the Mussolini or Franco sense of the word was aimed at very popular movements tending toward becoming the majority. The authoritarianism of recent years in the US isn't that kind of fascism as much as it's American as apple pie.
In the past, though, the targets of repression as American as apple pie were more clearly defined: racially, as in the cases of American Indians, Blacks, Japanese, and so on, when racial exclusion was perfectly legal, which is not the case today; or politically, as in the case of Communist Party members, Black Panther Party members, etc., though liberal sympathizers could become collateral damages. The repression that comes with the "War on Terror" is much more indefinite, though the main victims so far have been indeed such unpopular minorities as Muslims and undocumented immigrants. And the majority certainly have accepted repression to wage the "War on Terror," including abolition of habeas corpus and other fundamental rights, open and well-documented practice of torture, and so on. While most (all?) modern states have practiced torture, it is unusual for the state, media, etc. to defend it openly, and states that suspend constitutional rights tend to do so in the name of emergency rule (which can, to be sure, continue for a long time), the path that the American government did not choose. While the Iraq War will eventually come to some kind of end, the "War on Terror" can continue indefinitely, and it is possible that no challenge to it will arise from inside the USA. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
