China Fascism weeds out the "unfit" from higher education

[Dennis Breslin]

Daniel Davies wrote:
> 
> > CB: I agree with Carrol on defining fascism more rigorously , and not fast
> > and loose: the openly terrorist rule of the most chauvinist, reactionary
> > sectors of finance capital.
> 
> Why _finance_ capital?  Finance is typically far more open and international
> than industrial capital; it has a lot more to lose from autarky and less to
> gain from chuavinism, particularly if that is oupled with austerity.  The
> stereotypic fascist is the small industrialist or shopkeeper, not the banker.
> 

The openness you mention seems a bright blush on something a tad more
odious.  Bankers are more like B-52s, bombing at 35,000 feet, navigating
and targeting through hi-tech, and rather indifferent to the conditions
on the ground.  International certainly in their range, scope, and
consequence.  Open largely as a result of dispassionate attention to
accounting details but also fastidious so as to remain clean and above
the fray of politics and struggle.  You might add also quite sensitive
to any hint of disorder or disruption.  You may well be correct that
the industrial booboosie produces far more sound and fury but I
always thought that fascism was useful for bankers who obligingly
lubricated its operations.

Dennis Breslin