[lbo-talk] biz ethics/slavery/groups/constitutional

[Carrol Cox]

This seems an odd exchange. I don't for the life of me see the logic
behind Charles's original argument. That is, I think one can argue that
Bush may be the lesser evil (more efficient imperialism) but I don't see
how _either_ Bush _or_ Kerry is remotely a fascist threat. The U.S.
ruling class does not need anything like fascism, though they may need
(and are getting) one of the periodical tightening ups on good old
bourgeois-democratic repression. As I've argued many times before, the
throwing of the label "fascist" around simply obscures how repressive
(capitalist) democracy is. The U.S. Constitution is too precious a
document _to the capitalist class_ for it to be lightly discarded.

But as to Marvin's question - NO, our present conditions are not
remotely like German conditions in 1932 -- and that is why ABB is so
silly.

And I'll say this much for Charles's suggestion: if an equivalent to
fascism ever comes to threaten the u.s., it will be dressed in liberal
not old-fashioned reactionary clothing. So if someone told me that they
knew for sure that either Kerry or Bush was a covert fascist, I'd pick
Kerry. But the game is silly. No fascist threat in 2004.

Carrol

Marvin Gandall wrote:
> 
> Shane Mage:
> 
> > Doug wrote:
> > >Charles Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >>Afterall, Bush may be the lesser evil. How can we say that Kerry's
> election
> > >>wouldn't be something very close to fascism ?
> > >
> > >Easy: Kerry's election wouldn't be something very close to fascism.
> >
> > Was Hindenburg's [1932] election "something very close to fascism?"
> >
> > Shane
> --------------------------
> Are conditions similar?
> 
> MG
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk