Micheal Ellis wrote:
>
> >I have yet to see one single appropriate use of the term "fascist" in
> >discussion of contemporary politics. There are a number of reasons for
> >its non-utility, but the major ones are:
> >
> >1. It utterly obscures the repressive power of bourgeois democracy.
>
> foriegn policy is not democratic...at all.
Micheal, you miss the whole point of my post by assuming a non-democratic state is a fascist state.
That assumption blinds you to where _new_ forms of authoritarianism might come from or what forms they might take.
Probably you and I would agree more or less wholly on our empirical description of the U.S. and other bourgeois democracies in the imperialist camp. But if, as an old bearded german noted, there science is needed precisely because appearances do not coincide with reality, then that empirical description is only the _beginning_, not the end of analysis.
I have some sharp disagreements with Chip Berlet, but I can't think of a better place to begin an analysis of threats to democratic rights than his papers on (and lbo posts, which cite the papers) on fascism, conspiracy theory, and populism.
Our thought will be clearer if we (mostly) keep our use of the words "fascism" and "nazism" confined to the particular historical conditions of the 1920s-40s.
We do not know that Hitler is the worst that can happen. So if we prepare for every threat to democracy as if it were a nazi or fascist threat, we may find ourselves asleep at the switch.
And also, do not underestimate the horror that a _really truly good_ bourgeois democracy can impose on the world or on its own people. If you count every atrocity committed by the ruling class through the state it more or less controls as a "fascist" threat you are accepting a nursery school understanding of bourgeois democracy.
Carrol