> Anyone who believes that fascism cannot happen here is fooling himself
> (or herself). It can happen anywhere, especially here - see for
> example
> Richard Rubenstein, _The cunning of history: the holocaust and the
> American future_. The argument there is that every nation has a
> potential of becoming fascist, all it takes is the government willing
> to
> go that road and a small band of zealots willing to follow.
You and others keep repeating the cliche "It can happen here!" -- as though I were claiming that very bad things cannot happen in the great USA. For the record (I wish I didn't have to say this -- it should be obvious), I *do* believe that very bad things can happen in these United States, and they *have* happened. They are happening now, under the Bush administration that a lot of LBO'ers seem very sanguine about seeing continue, and they will happen in the future. I even jogged Charles' memory on the interning of Japanese-Americans, which he forgot to put into his list of American very bad things.
What I maintain is that the term "fascism" should be restricted in its usage. It should have a more specific meaning than just "very bad things done by a government," which is what a lot of lefties seem to think it means. Otherwise, we run the risk of not seeing what is actually happening.
Some people, I guess, think it is tactically effective to throw the term around almost indiscriminately. I don't believe that, because I believe that thinking people appreciate the accurate use of terminology. But perhaps it's more important to wow the non-thinking people with highly loaded terms like "fascism."
Furthermore, the difference in constitutional systems between the U.S. and Weimar Germany is not just a "legal technicality," I think. The Weimar constitution was clearly set up to deal with a country that had been formally unified only a few decades before, so that it was riddled with suspicions and antagonisms between segments of the electorate. So it was designed to go straight to authoritarian rule as soon as there was a crisis which produced a strain on whatever power arrangements the laundry list of parties managed to cobble together. The world depression at the beginning of the 30s was the final straw that tipped the system into the authoritarian mode, which was ready-made for Hitler's manipulations.
The U.S. constitutional system, which many radical leftists deplore as a "perpetual government of unity," was set up to discourage this kind of political splintering (what the 18th century leaders called "factions") as much as possible, and while it does frustrate would-be third-party enthusiasts no end, it does tend to work against the kind of process that played out in Germany.
Rather than the image of a small trickle gradually building into a roaring stream which people who fear Weimar Germany replaying in 21st century U.S., what we have is a situation in which the radical Christian (mostly) right has acquired a great influence in the GOP, but not total control (as this week's convention is showing). I think that the fact that the electorate is divided almost exactly in half on the presidential race, just as it was 4 years ago, suggests that this is about as far as the far right can get -- it has already shot its wad, very differently from the process by which the Nazis gradually built up strength.
As for whether the U.S. capitalist class is getting ready to unleash a fascist movement, I think Ulhas is basically right:
> I don't know what the US business would gain by fascism that it
> wouldn't
> able to obtain by usual liberal democratic process. Fascism is usually
> a
> very high risk political option.
I also think Chip is also essentially right:
> The flawed definition of fascism put out by the Comintern led to the
> decision by German communists to pursue a narrow united front rather
> than a broad popular front, which in turn split a left/liberal
> alliance.
> This was disasterous, no matter how often Charles Brown invokes the
> lousy Comintern definition or attempts to rewrite history.
>
> At the same time, voters in middle class conservative parties grew
> frustrated with the regime in power, and in large numbers cast votes
> for
> Hitler and his party in an attempt to shake things up. This backfired,
> and allow power to be handed to Hitler by the elites who feared a
> left/worker revolt.
>
> Finally, early on some left/worker activists joined with the national
> socialists to smash the regime in power, in part because they embraced
> a
> conspiracy view of history that also scapegoated Jews.
Of course, the Marxist-Leninist line, expounded by Charles, is that the KPD were only "tragic heros" who made no mistakes, but were only victims of circumstances. And of course he accuses me of "anti-communism." "Anti-Marxist-Leninism," yes -- I certainly don't buy the ML line on this or any other subject. I do think that Marx himself does have some very penetrating things to say on capitalism, which could be very illuminating about our present situation if they were applied the right way. I don't think the typical ML way of handling Marx is the right way to do it. But that's another whole subject for argument.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)