no to both questions, if you need reassurance.
regarding the dave renton piece:
"First, fascism is a reactionary ideology...reactionary in the sense that it has a defining ambition to crush the organised working class, and to eradicate the reforms won by decades of peaceful struggle....
Second: fascism built itself as an independent force, capable of making the most revolutionary promises....[&] expressed 'the sharp grievances of small proprietors, never far from bankruptcy, of their university sons without posts and clients, of their daughters without dowries and suitors, demanded order and an iron hand'....
Third, if fascism is a movement shaped at one and the same time by mass support and by reactionary goals; then there is an antagonism at the heart of the movement. This contradiction explains the 'Bonapartist' aspect of fascism. In so far as fascism is a mass movement, it promises to rule against the interests of capitalism. In so far as fascism is a reactionary movement, it does rule against the interests of the class that provided the bulk of the fascist party's members...."
aren't the majority of regimes outside the west (excepting regimes such as saudi arabia which never made any revolutionary promise) fascist by this definition?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/