. . . I also dissent on the notion of Clintonism as a fascist danger. `This ignores the fact that the democratic republican form is the preferred type of bourgeois rule. The bourgeoisie only turn to fascism in crisis. U.S. capitalism is far from crisis today ( ask Doug). Clinton is presiding over a neo-liberal or classical democratic republican ( as well as DemRep) regime. Any U.S. fascism will come later during a crisis, a threat of working class power seizure, and it will be militia type ideologies that play a more important role than Clintonism, which will be gone by "then", if "then" does hit us.
I dissent from the consensus.
CB
>>>>>>>>>>>
As we say on the floor of Congress, where I've never been, I'd like to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
As much as I think the militia dudes are f'ed-over workers who can and should be talked to, I also think Chip's and similar work is important, because they reflect a dangerous potential. I've talked to guys like this myself and they can go either way. The potential is the proliferation of armed gangs that make elementary left politics a life-threatening pastime. We saw a glimpse of this in the Detroit newspaper strike, in the form of the private security goons. I don't think there's any comparison to run of the mill capitalist governance. Certainly there is focused use of government repression, but in the militia-fright scenario, we would still have all that plus much more.
Clinton is just another politician. He's been more successful than many, he's gotten out of more jams than many, and he's more revolting than many (in light of expectations for him, as well as in relation to basic norms of political integrity). It's the historical period that makes a pol dangerous. So clinton is dangerous relative to, say, Social Security because he could privatize it. His fiscal policy is dangerous. But the potential danger of militias -- which is what is being alluded to -- is of a different order than the pedestrian mendacity of Clinton. As far as behavior in a crisis goes, Clinton is no more dangerous than many other bourgeois politicians. It isn't hard to imagine Nixon, Bush, Reagan, and others doing epochally revolting things in a crisis. Nothing special about Clinton, in that regard.
mbs