>Back in 1938 Trotsky wrote:
>
>"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there
>now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only
>view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow
>England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on
>whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will
>answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on
>the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain.
>Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be
>a question of democracy or fascism. If England should
>be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro
>and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the
>contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse
>to national and democratic consciousness of the country
>and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.
>The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow
>to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the
>revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly,
>one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms
>and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and
>democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish
>exploiters, slave-owners and robbers!" (Writings, 1938-39, page 34)
But in this case the U.S. helped install the fascist in the first place, and there was no likelihood that a new kind of fascist would take his place. 65-year-old analogies have probably reached retirement age.
Doug