> (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.
Listing political groups that oppose Bush as possible terrorist groups and placing names of people who oppose Bush on No-Fly lists is dangerously close to such behaviour. It isn't "officially fascism" unless the head of the DLC is assassinated?
> (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.
This is your opinion and I'm cool with that. I agree, to an extent, but disagree that this is somehow counterproductive to those who oppose Bush.
> 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 "treason", "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
So you're saying what works for O'Reilly won't work for those who oppose him? Either that or you believe that O'Reilly and his ilk would be MORE effective if they were to refrain from such tactics? I'm open to either argument but so far I've seen nothing to support either. The right seems to embrace what the left doesn't want to believe is true. Inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric can be very effective. If enough people vocalized the belief that the right in this country is dangerously close to fascist perhaps it would put them on the defensive concerning some of their policies.
John Thornton