(1) the idea that Bush is "fascist" is a false analogy. Unlike classical fascism (e.g., Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet), Bush is not stomping on an politically-active and class-conscious working class. Getting beyond classical fascism (as 1960s lefties often did), the word fascism gets very nebulous.
(2) using the word "fascism" in arguing against Bush is an example of preaching to the converted. It's inside talk, not talk aimed at convincing outsiders. It's also been over-used and mis-used out the wazoo.
I had written:> what new information is added by labelling an imperialist blockade or war "fascist"? it makes it sound like some of that North Korean rhetoric.
John Thornton comments: >Or you could say it sounds like Bill O'Reilly... and the list goes on and on. Why compare it to North Korea when there are thousands of homegrown examples of inflammatory rhetoric that could just as easily if not more easily be label an inaccurate use of a term such as "tresaon", "communist", "fascist" or whatever? You chose North Korea as your example rather than one of the names above because you can plainly see that the use of such terms has done these individuals and their right-wing agenda no harm and may actually help them<
That's not true. I had in mind a recent LBO-talk message (posted by Leigh Meyers) about someone who had archived NK rhetoric on a website (http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050815/017364.html).
BTW, I consider NK to be as "right wing" (authoritarian) as people like Bill O'Reilly. They may differ in degree, but they're of generally the same kind. That doesn't mean that I side with another right-wing force (the U.S.) against NK, however.
JD