Charles writes: >I disagree with getting rid of the word "fascism" itself, too, because there is still a danger that at some point the financial oligarchy will become desparate and try to institute wholesale, open terrorist rule again. This is one reason, the U.S. will not outlaw fascist groups, because it might need them at some point. "Fascism" is an important scienttific term we should continue to use to measure the U.S. political economy.< (a) I wasn't advocating getting rid of the word "fascism" -- but I was "trying to avoid" the word. Like a lot of rhetoric, it loses value in overuse. (It's a classic case of diminishing returns.) This is especially so since the it has been applied to describe not only the social system of Italy in the 1920s and 1930s but also a kind of personality (the F-scale) and also anything we don't like. Looking at the way it's been used, it's hardly a scientific term. What does calling the Governor of Michigan (Engler?) a "fascist" say except that we don't like him? If I were to use the word "fascism" in a scientific way (linking up with the original fascism of Mussolini) I would use it to apply to Pat Buchanan, who combines a lot of the classic elements (fierce nationalism, rabid anti-communism, opportunism, use of "proletarian" rhetoric, racism, etc.) His personal history also links up with the old fascist movements. (b) Do you think that the "financial oligarchy" (which I think could be described in less hackneyed terms) is likely to become desperate in the near future? The anti-capitalist movement is very very weak. It's nothing like in the 1960s and 1970s. Then they did bring in COINTELPRO. By the way, CONINTELPRO was very bad (using agents provocateurs to break up the Panthers, etc.) but I don't think the word "fascist" adds much. It stretches the analogy with Mussolini to the breaking point. (c) I'll grant you this point: there is a kind of "fascism" (gross and violent social injustice) going on right now in the US, the war on drugs, which has led to massive incarceration rates, disproportionately falling on the backs of "minorities." However, to call it fascism again stretches the analogy. (BTW, the war on drugs doesn't seem to be due to the desperation of the financial oligarchy.) Also, to call it fascist distracts us from the point that heroin, cocaine, etc., should be legalized and medicalized. Calling it fascist simply says we hate it -- or that we need a revolution, which doesn't seem to be on the agenda at this point. (d) I _hope_ that the US doesn't outlaw fascist groups (which "they" might need some day -- sounds paranoid). The reason is that the kinds of laws which would ban fascist groups (militias, etc.) can and will be applied to ban leftist groups and parties, even labor unions. (W. Germany banned Nazis _and_ Communists.) My commitment to civil liberties tells me we shouldn't ban fascist groups, only fascist activities. And the word "fascist" doesn't add much if anything to clear thinking about this issue. >My example of the assassination by the SD's pokes more of a hole in your notion that "social fascist" was inaccurate than you admit. I don't take an approach that communists and social dems were equally to blame for the failure to unite against the fascists in Germany.< I didn't say that "social fascist" was an inaccurate term to describe the SDs in Germany during the 1920s. That's sort of an impossible argument, since the word "fascist" can be (and has been) stretched to fit almost any group or individual we don't like. (Wasn't it Susan Sontag who labeled the old COMECON countries "successful fascism"?) I was arguing against the _utility_ of that phrase. I also do _not_ say that the CP and the SDs were "equally to blame," since blame can't be quantified. Both of these groups had their problems, both contributing in different ways to a lack of unity against the Nazis. If I were a German leftist in the 1920s, I wouldn't join either of them. (Of course, I also wouldn't be communicating with you over the Internet if I were a German leftist in the 1920s.) Capitalism sure seems to be in big trouble on a global scale, but there's hardly enough of a movement to replace it. This seems especially so here in the "belly of the beast": the US left is in big trouble these days. We have to deal with this situation partly through serious theoretical debate and discussion, and of course, serious action. But crucial is reaching out and communicating with (not just talking to) the younger generation. I don't think this last is facilitated by talking or writing as if we lived in the 1930s or 1940s. Throwing around terms like "fascist" may be gratifying, but does it communicate with people who aren't already committed to the left? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out of Serbia!
