Well, Charles, we actually agree. The potential danger of fascism in periods such as we live in is something that needs to be considered. But what I am arguing is that fascism is more than just top down authoritarian rule, and that the new scholarship on fascism, despite many variations, is that for it to come to state power, there needs to be a sizeable autonomous middle class populist movement clamoring for the regime to be replaced.
Your comments about the Bush presidency are right on target, however.
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Jannuzi
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 4:32 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: The New N at zi$m
>
>
> >But none of this can lead to a serious debate unless there
> is a willingness
> >to discuss the contemporary scholarship on what fascism was
> and is, and how
> >these new definitions make a huge difference in how
> progressives should be
> >analyzing the current crisis.- -Chip Berlet
>
> With or without the f- or n- words, the Bush presidency does
> not bode well
> for what's left of US democracy or multilateral management of and
> participation in the world economy (globalization, though I
> realize some
> think it transcends US interests and is still a bad thing).
>
> At least the Bush-Cheney portfolio is diversified enough to keep it
> interesting: oil, gas and mineral fuels, construction,
> defense, and good ole
> Texas beef. Aren't there some major investments in China in
> there too? Oh,
> and the religion that guides it all: the rock solid belief
> that the US
> presidency is always right because it leads the chosen
> people. I think the
> potential danger for fascism is clear enough.
>
> Charles Jannuzi
>
>
>
>