> Calling Bushism "fascism" is no lie anyway. About "unscientific
> hyperbole." For example, "We have proof that Saddam Hussein's
> government possesses four thousand kilograms of weaponized anthrax,"
> that's a statement that is either true or false, and provided the
> material facts are known there can be no grey area for dispute.
> "Kilogram" is a precise "hard science" word, whereas "fascism" is a
> "soft science" word. There is no such thing as a universally
> agreed-upon precise "scientific" definition of the word "fascist." All
> you would mean by saying "The Bush Administration is a fascist junta" is
> that the Bush Administration's international policies and actions bear a
> considerable resemblance to the international policies of Hitler and
> Mussolini. Which obviously they do.
Well, you're certainly right that the Bush administration commits routine bald-faced lies. And while I concede there are constructable similarities between Fascism and neoconservatism, there are as many differences, both essential and unessential, as there are similarities.
I am sorry if it appeared that I was trying to moralize. I just haven't seen people respond strongly to either the quick tossing about of the "fascist" label, or even more careful explanations about the similarities between Bush and Hitler. Perhaps they are numb to that comparison. I don't know. Many workers and potential activists have pretty solid bullshit detectors, and a level of mistrust of hyperbole that makes them uncomfortable reading a lot of revolutionary literature. That such skepticism (much to our frustration) doesn't extend to the Bush administration is more a sign of manufactured consent and demoralization than stupidity.
stannard
Your revolution makes me wonder Where could we go If we could drop the empty pursuit of props and the ego --Sarah Jones, "Your Revolution" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030518/30acc83d/attachment.htm>