Nationalism at the core of the global system is not identical with nationalism at the periphery. There is also a heavy dose of fascist inevitability built into neo-liberal globalization, so fascist tnedencies alone need not be the overriding concideration in rejecting anti globalization postures. As you pointed out: "Fascism isn't a very imminent danger in the U.S. now," but globalization is a clear and present danger to the world. So a tactical exploitation of anti-globalization postures at the core, even when they come from a "continuum that ends in fascism," seems to be a reasonable approach.
On a global basis, nationalism is the only remaining, effective force in combatting destructive globalization buttressed by coercive Western neo-liberalism. Scientific socialism has proved itself ineffective in the task.
BTW, your observation about "Buchanan constantly uses "Goldman Sachs" as his synecdoche for Wall Street," is curious. He mentioned only Bob Rubin who together with Greenspan have personified US globalization. If you mean to suggest that as an example of Buchanan racism, it is a weak case (not becasue Buchanan is not a racist, more visible in his stand on immigration). Buchanan's support for Isreal is of long standing and unwavering. And American Jewish support for him is not non-existent. The ethnic distinction between GS, Merrill or MS has stopped being operative some years ago.
Henry C.K. Liu
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>
> >If we remove the names of the authors, would the statements read differently?
> >The pertinent question is: are these ideas themselves fascist, or are they
> >otherwise sensible ideas that are exploited by fascists for political
> >objectives that the left also opposes.
>
> First of all, it's no accident, as the vulgar Marxists used to say, that
> Buchanan constantly uses "Goldman Sachs" as his synecdoche for Wall Street.
> Sure, GS is big and important and the former home of Robert Rubin, but he
> never says "Merrill Lynch" or "Morgan Stanley." And second, what they have
> in common is a critique of the internationalization of capital, not capital
> itself, and a deeply nationalist view of the world (Germany first, America
> first). Fascism isn't a very imminent danger in the U.S. now - we have no
> economic crisis, we have no working class in revolt, we have no Bolsheviks
> to the east - but there's a real continuum there. With the toxicity of
> nationalism in the Balkans in the news, I wish people would draw the
> general lesson that you can't have nationalism without some form of
> xenophobia and racism. If the left stands for anything it should be
> anti-xenophobic and anti-racist. So yes, the ideas themselves are either
> fascist or on a continuum that ends in fascism.
>
> Buchanan is no fan of unions, is he?
>
> Doug