I provided the link to the essay and excerpted the relevant passage - which is standard practice around here - which despite your fulminations, still provided a sound critique of your assertion that "Using the term fascism to describe capitalist state repression or transnational corporate power is an abuse of the term". Indeed, the first lines of the essay show that the author is problematizing the term 'fascism' and allows that "the dividing line between capitalism and fascism is never entirely clear" but this in no way supports your earlier assertion, nor does it support your odd statement that I was 'manipulating reality'.
Joe W.
>From: "Chip Berlet" <c.berlet at publiceye.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] anti-fascist agitation/full spectrum dominance
>Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:25:48 -0400
>
>Wanzala!
>
>This is a prime example of your tendency to manipulate reality to fit
>you preconceived ideas.
>
>The first lines of the essay you posted actually read:
>
>= = =
>
>"Do we live now in a fascist state? Do the Americans? No. But in the
>last four months we have moved another step - a giant-sized goose step -
>further in that direction."
>
>"It is true, of course, that fascist tendencies are always alive in the
>repressive nature of capitalism; that fascism is a product of
>imperialism; and that the dividing line between capitalism and fascism
>is never entirely clear."
>
>--David Lethbridge
>
>= = =
>
>The section you posted by the author, David Lethbridge, is part of a
>complex analysis that is--when read in full and in context--a more
>complicated analysis than that of Dimitrov or Gross.
>
>
>Chip Berlet
>Senior Analyst
>Political Research Associates
>Webmaster
>http://www.publiceye.org
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:11 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] anti-fascist agitation/full spectrum dominance
> >
> >
> > Chip Berlet wrote: "Using the term fascism to describe
> > capitalist state
> > repression or transnational corporate power is an abuse of
> > the term. These
> > realities are bad enough without self-righteous
> > hyperbole."
> >
>http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/fullspectrum.html
>
>All too often it is suggested that the defining quality of fascist state
>
>power is, in the classic 1935 definition of Georgi Dimitrov, "the open
>terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and
>most
>imperialist elements of finance capital" that substitutes "terrorist
>dictatorship" in place of "bourgeois democracy." But, as Dimitrov
>himself
>understood, such a description refers more to the appearance than the
>essence of fascism.
>
>It may be that the core of fascism is simply "reactionary repression at
>home
>and expansion abroad" as the American radical Bertram Gross once wrote.
>Indeed, as Dimitrov himself put it, "the ruling bourgeoisie more and
>more
>seeks salvation in fascism, with the object of taking exceptional
>predatory
>measures against the working people (and) preparing for an imperialist
>war
>of plunder."
>
>In short, the whole point of fascism is to ensure increasing
>mega-profits
>for the ruling class - through neo-colonialism and militarized global
>plunder - while consistently destabilizing and ultimately crushing the
>militant organizations of the working class. Is this not the path that
>US
>imperialism has now entirely embarked upon? US imperialism does not
>refer to
>this vicious project as "fascism," nor can it for a whole variety of
>reasons. Instead, the newly minted term currently being employed in the
>White House is "full spectrum dominance."
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk