CB:> What you tell them is that the U.S. war on Iraq violates the international law against war that was established in the Nuremburg Trials of fascists.<
Why can't you mention the law-breaking, without bringing up fascism?
BTW, wasn't the international law against war part of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of the late 1920s?
> "Tell" them that there is no reason to have a plan for martial law unless you have a fascist motive [to explain Bush's actions?], because why would you think the mass of the American population is going to start rioting and tearing up their own country in response to a "terrorist" attack ? <
Why the scare quotes? you don't think that 911 was a terrorist attack? if a bombing that kills large numbers of civilians for political ends isn't terrorist, what is?
(NB: as I've said before, the US power elite also engages in terrorism. Wholesale terrorism, as Chomsky notes.)
>The vast majority of Americans would not respond to a "terrorist"
attack by joining the "terrorists". They would _fight_ the
terrorists. [right.] So, a plan for martial law against the vast
majority of Americans in response to a "terrorist" attack by a dozen
foreign terrorists doesn't make any sense, unless there is another
motive for such a plan.<
As someone on LBO said, the military alway does planning. As I said, the punitive solution to even mild threats reflects a ruling-class perspective.
>Also, there have been several statements in recent months by
ministers ( I think including Bill Moyers) using the term "fascist"
and nobody but some rightwing propagandist ( or their leftwing
cohorts who are allergic to the word "fascist") has called those
ministers wackos.<
The ministers & Moyers have some status in this society, so they might be heard and even listened to. I don't. If I start calling Bush a "fascist" -- as you seem to be advocating -- I can't see it having any major effect except to undermine my credibility.
Maybe you have the same kind of status as the ministers?
>The fear of being thought of as wacko for using the term "fascist" is
paranoid and very exaggerated.<
It depends on the venue. With a friend, in the midst of a serious conversation, I might bring up the term -- but I couldn't ignore those pesky real-world differences between Bushism and fascism (see below).
If I spoke on Pacifica radio, it might be okay. Unfortunately, people expect wild talk on Pacifica.
I do public speaking now and then. What I say depends on the audience. I think I'd rather bring out people's own feelings about Bush -- and argue against the idea that the Democrats are better -- than waste my time and energy arguing that Mussolini and Bush somehow fit in the same category.
>Italy had fascism. Its repression is very comparable to repressions
in the U.S. None of you in the "don't use 'fascist' " crowd every
mentions Italy, because, Italy demonstrates that "fascism" is
appropriately applied to countries with repression less than Nazi
Germany. The Minutemen on the U.S.-Mexican border are incipient
fascists. The Patriot Act is incipient fascism. Torturing prisoners
held in violation of the Geneva Accords etc. is fascist.<
now it's _incipient_ fascism.
Gee, I didn't know I was in a "crowd." (Now I have to find the other two people...)
I do mention Italy (the paradigm of fascism), but I do not think it is a _good analogy_. To simplifiy a lot, Italy's fascism was a reponse to mass working-class action, the communists, the Italian anarchists, and the 1917 Revolution. Nothing like that has happened in the US in recent memory.
In rich countries like the US, neoliberalism doesn't required Mussolini. The working class is already fragmented and largely politically deluded.
>... Just because "fascist" may have been misused by some radicals in
the 60's/70's does not mean that sober leftists don't use the term,
surrender the term. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, we
couldn't use any terms, because all terms get abused at some time or
another.<
As I've said, it's a bad analogy. I'm beginning to think that you think that history repeats itself, so that we don't need an understanding of the current era; all we have to do is to dust off old concepts and recycle them.
(BTW, I don't think Pinochet is a good analogy either. I wasn't thinking. Pinochetism is very close to fascism.)
Charles had said: >>> One thing left activists do is try to persuade a lot of people to think differently about the political situation, to change their way of thinking , not change our way of thinking to the way a lot of people are thinking wrong.<<<
me: >> Right. But I don't see Bush as fascist. He's definitely bad.<<
CB now:>The U.S. war and blockade on Iraq (now 15 years long) is fascist. The U.S. war on Viet Nam was fascist.<
what new information is added by labelling an imperialist blockade or war "fascist"?
it makes it sound like some of that North Korean rhetoric.
>Bush's fascist tendency is his willingness to ignore and overturn
U.S. liberal democratic principles, such as the Geneva Accords or the
U.S. Constitutional limits on search and seizure, his willingness to
steal the presidential election, and the like; and of course the
fascist wars he is waging.
> Reaganism and the whole U.S. rightwing trend in this period is in a fascist direction.<
a lot of Bushism and Reaganism is simple a repeat of what was done during the Cold War.
>You don't wait for fascism to arrive to start using the term
"fascist". You _warn_ that things are moving in a fascist direction
before fascism actually gets here. It is obviously foolish to wait
until there is actually fascism to start using the term "fascist" when
it is too late.<
why won't the word authoritarianism suffice?
Me:> (I think the specifics of that badness are quite useful in propaganda. People can connect the dots for themselves. Then we can have an abstract discussion with such terms as "fascism.")<
CB:> The specifics of Bush's badness have already been put before a lot of Americans. They need a push and a jolt further saying , "hello, this Bush badness is getting to be comparable to those really bad guys we were fighting in WWII." Americans need this type of historical tutoring. They don't get it from television. You have to connect the dots for them. <
maybe. But because Bush and his Boyz aren't like Mussolini, it will likely confuse the issue.
> Again a really sober ( sober like a judge) way of saying it is that the U.S. war on Iraq violates the law established to prevent future fascist wars. <
It should strike home more accurately to say that the international laws against torture (and the like) help protect US soldiers from torture.
...
me:>> If we want to convice people of the veracity of our perspective, it's important to treat them as thinking human beings. Among other things, that implies that bombarding them with rhetoric and slogans won't impress them (unless they already agree).<<
CB: >Nobody said bombard them. Use of rhetoric means to try to persuade them, so we should use rhetoric ( the connotation of "rhetoric" as somehow speaking to them in a way that won't persuade them is an artifact of anti-left thinking coming out of attacks on the political efforts of the 60's and 70's). There is nothing in slogans that is inherently unpersuasive. Depends on the slogan.
> Using the term "fascist" _is_ treating them like thinking human beings. Contra your implications, the term "fascist" can be used soberly and technically, as I have suggested. To use "fascist" is to trust the listeners to be thinking enough to understand the gravity of the situation. <
Again, I don't think the analogy is good.
me: >> We have to know how others think, not because we should agree with them but because it's a step toward convincing them.<<
CB:> I agree. I'm saying what I am saying based on the way lots of people think: they don't want their country to be carrying out fascist policies. We point out " hey, your country is carrying out fascist policies. "<
I don't see why the word "undemocratic" couldn't be used as a substitute term here.
me: > Again, I think the sweep of events (actual class struggle) will be more convincing than anything we could say, especially if it affects people personally. In the process, we don't want to convince people that we're crazy.<
CB:> It's a suburban legend on the left that any use of the term "fascist" makes somebody think you are crazy. Actually, the problem is more that most Americans are so ahistorical that they don't even know the grave significance of the word "fascist".<
the ahistorical bit also infected the 1960s Left, with "fascist" being interpreted psychologically, so that every cop was a "fascist."
...
gotta go.
-- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.