"John K. Taber" wrote:
> OK, I stand corrected. I like Brad DeLong's definition
> of fascism. I'll run with it pending further comments from
> lbo-sters.
>
> I also like Michael Perelman's comment.
>
> <<
> Brad DeLong:
>
> I always thought that fascism had five important elements:
>
> - --A strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is
> ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic
> relationship.
>
> - --A strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that
> individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect.
>
> - - -In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the
> state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.
>
> - --A strong belief that parliamentary democracy is not the way to
> choose the leaders of the state: a combination of charismatic
> expression and bureaucratic oligarchism is.
>
> - - -A strong fear of Marxist communism, and an eagerness to use any
> and all weapons--suspension of parliamentary democracy, mass
> propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to combat it.
>
> So I don't think calling the current Russian or the current Chinese
> governmetn "fascist" is terribly useful. They have some of these
> elements, but not all of them.
>
> Michael Perelman:
>
> Brad's definition of fascism was excellent, except the part below might
> use some modification. I think that he should add that the state has
> the
> responsibility of serving the people (Volk) as a whole. Of course, no
> fascist regimes did that any more than liberal regimes respect the
> rights
> of individuals when they are inconvenient.
>
> >>
>
> --
> John K. Taber