>>> nathan at newman.org 06/29/01 11:51AM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>My whole original point was that the present Chinese state in its governing
>was beginning to resemble fascist regimes in its policies.
((((((((((
-CB: The question would be, why haven't you been speculating about the United States state beginning to -resemble fascist regimes in its policies before that. The U.S. has more characteristics like that of a fascist state -than the Chinese state.
I have. I've spent quite a bit of activist time (far more than on anything aimed at the Chinese state) fighting immigrant bashing, welfare scapegoating, and the bashing of affirmative action by US capitalists as their strategy for maintaining its elite alliance with rightwing US working class forces.
((((((((
CB: But have you speculated that the U.S. becoming fascist specifically ?
Probably not.
((((((((
On the other hand, the difference is that I don't think the US is the unique evil in the world on this score,
(((((((
CB: The U.S. has played a special role in world capitalism for about 55 years
(((((((
unlike folks on this list who think the defeat of the US state is somehow synonymous with the defeat of global capitalism,
((((((((
CB: Given the key role of the U.S. in world capitalism in 2001, defeat of the U.S. state, if by that is meant an anti-capitalism radical change , would be about the most effective blow against the world capitalism system .
(((((
as if those capitalist would not happily just pump up their alliances in other countries as a substitute with barely a shrug. At the moment, those capitalists are targetting alliances with the Chinese state as a key part of their global strategy.
And at the more theoretical level, I also don't equate capitalism with fascism - a point where I agree a bit with Chip against Charles' seeming equation of dominant capitalism with fascism, since the latter is associated with dictatorship.
(((((((
CB: I already said, with Carrol, that the definition of fascism should be more strict, and gave the Dimitrov definition, which specifically includes the term "dictatorship". I was actually half joking in my original response to your labelling China approaching fascist or whatever. I said , "if we are going to play fast and loose with the definition of fascism , I denounce the U.S." That implies that by a strict definition, the U.S. is not fascist. So, there is no Charles seeming equating dominant capitalism with fascism. Refer to the Dimitrov definition.
((((((
China combines capitalist economics with dictatorship, partly due to the weakness of its capitalist institutions. The very strength of capitalism in the US allows it to function under a formal democracy without the dictatorial trappings of direct fascism.
((((((((
CB: The U.S. has as much dictatorship as China does.
((((((
I should also note that non-fascist capitalism is necessarily a wonderful thing, one reason I feel little need to hold out for the term "fascism" for every capitalist state I am happy to argue that formal democratic capitalist states have promoted more mass starvation globally in the last two centuries than all the fascist states combined.
But China is of course a bigger issue since a billion-plus population capitalist dictatorship could radically effect the next century. If it becomes a pool of subjugated oppressed capitalist labor driving down wages globally, the danger of global immiseration is profound.
And there seems to be a nostalgic unwillingness by some sectors of the Left to examine China in that light, preferring to pretend that it is still some anti-imperialist beacon even as its leaders cut massive corporate deals with the likes of Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch.
((((((((((
CB: Cutting deals with capitalists is not identical with being capitalist. Lesser developed socialist nations must make this concession to imperialism.