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.<
Jim Devine: Why can't you mention the law-breaking, without bringing up fascism?
^^^^^ CB: Because I think mentioning fascism is a good idea, good rhetoric , good political tactic. We want to try to work "fascism" in there. See all my arguments on this thread and others on this issue.
^^^^^
BTW, wasn't the international law against war part of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of the late 1920s?
^^^^^^
CB: Maybe "an" international law against war, but the current UN "laws" on this derive from Nuremburg
Crime against peace
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A crime against peace, in international law, consists of starting a war. For
committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons
responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that
nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are
either exercising the right of self-defense or the right of collective
defense. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.
In 1927, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, said:
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Etc.
^^^^^^
>CB: "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 ? <
Jim Devine: 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?
^^^^^ CB: Yea, it was a "terrorist" attack, but in the current monopoly media discourse context, "terrorist" attack is only used for attacks not carried out by the U.S. and Britain, so I don't want to fall into that same usage. The biggest terrorism is perpetrated by the U.S. When the media starts referring to the U.S. military invasion of Iraq as terrorism that is an order of magnitude larger than 9/11, I'll take out the "scare" quotes.
The war on Iraq , now that's real terrorism.
^^^^^^^
Jim D.: (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.<
Jim D.: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.
^^^^^^ CB: Yea, and when they plan martial law in the U.S., it's a fascist ( no scare quotes)plan.
^^^^^^
>CB: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.
^^^^^^ CB: I wouldn't call Bush "a fascist". I would say the war on Iraq is a fascist war, and several domestic Bush measures move in the direction of fascism.
Anyway, depends on who you say it to, how you say it, how you explain it. Part of the problem in your case would be that _you_ think it's an exaggeration yourself, so, it wouldn't be surprising that you would not communicate it convincingly to someone else.
I'd say LBO opponents of use of the word "fascist" overestimate the number of people who think use of the term "fascist" destroys credibility.
The important _fact_ is that it would be foolish to act like fascism is just history and can't come back , or can't come to the U.S.
^^^^^^
Jim D.:Maybe you have the same kind of status as the ministers?
>CB: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).
^^^ CB: Exactly, they are "pesky" and _small_. Emphasize the similarities. What about the _big_ differences between Italian Fascism and German fascism. They are at least as big as the differences between Reagan-Bushism and fascism. Nobody feels bothered in calling Italian Fascism and German fascism the same thing. Hell, if there had only been Italian fascism, there probably wouldn't have been WWII. How many people were murdered by Italian Fascism ? Not anywhere near the German scale. Gramsci was sent to prison. Thaelmann was executed.
^^^^
If I spoke on Pacifica radio, it might be okay. Unfortunately, people expect wild talk on Pacifica.
^^^^ CB: The use of the term "fascism" is not wild talk. It's sober talk. That's the point. Those who avoid the use of the term "fascism" are engaged in sticking their heads in the sand. That's the right way to think about it. Use of "fascist" is sober; not using it is denial. The mental problem is with not using the term "fascist".
^^^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^ CB: That's because you are like the people in Germany who....
^^^^^^^
CB:>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.<
^^^^
Jim D:now it's _incipient_ fascism.
^^^ CB: The Patriot Act is incipient fascism. The war on Iraq is fullblown fascism. The war on Viet Nam was fullblown fascism. Jim Crow in the U.S. was fullblown fascism.
^^^^^^
Jim D: Gee, I didn't know I was in a "crowd." (Now I have to find the other two people...)
^^^^ CB; Look around you.
^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^^ CB: In general, we can say fascism is open terrorist ( speaking of "terrorism") of the most reactionary section of finance and imperialist capital. The Bush regime represents the most reactionary section of U.S. imperialism. Imperialist war is part of imperialism's open terrrorist repsonse to the international class struggle in the "Middle East".
^^^^^^
Jim D: In rich countries like the US, neoliberalism doesn't require Mussolini. The working class is already fragmented and largely politically deluded.
^^^^^ CB: However, since Reagan the U.S. state has moved steadily in the direction of "Mussolini",i.e. to the right, so perhaps the U.S. ruling class doesn't view the class situation as you do. Perhaps, they are acting premptively for future situations. Perhaps they see a class storm on the horizon that you do not. Important point is that there is, in fact, steady movement to the right. Best way to characterize that is "moving toward fascism". Other words don't make the point strongly enough.
^^^^
CB:>... 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.<
Jim D: 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.
^^^^ CB: Surely you think there are some general patterns in history, otherwise, knowledge of the past would be useless in the present. You don't think each new event is absolutely unique, do you ? What sense does it make to refer to the present as "capitalism" if we don't see something in the present that repeats things from the past ? Why study the causes of the Depression of the 1930's if you don't think something in them might repeat in the present or future ? You don't think there's a science of history ?
So, the concepts aren't "old". They are still vibrant and alive.
^^^^^^^
Jim D.: (BTW, I don't think Pinochet is a good analogy either. I wasn't thinking. Pinochetism is very close to fascism.)
^^^^^ CB: Sure we learn from Pinochetism. Chavez learned that you can't move toward socialism from the head of state, if you don't have significant support in the military.
I'm not sure the aim is to make "analogies".
^^^^^^^^^^
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.<
Jim D: what new information is added by labelling an imperialist blockade or war "fascist"?
CB: Well,you can't use the word "imperialist" in the first place, because the same people who think "fascist" is wild and crazy think use of "imperialist" is wild and crazy.
So, "fascist" would add new info that's not there because you can't use "imperialist".
^^^^^^^
it makes it sound like some of that North Korean rhetoric.
^^^^ CB: Correct. Use of "imperialist" does to. Resistence to use of "fascist" is a residual concession to redbaiting, radicalbaiting and anti-communist censorship of the rhetoric of socialist countries and communists.
^^^^^^
CB:>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.<
Jim D:a lot of Bushism and Reaganism is simple a repeat of what was done during the Cold War.
^^^^^^ CB: A lot of the anti-Communism of the Cold War and before was fascism.
^^^^^^
CB: >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.<
Jim D: why won't the word authoritarianism suffice?
CB: If one is not trying to avoid the use of "fascist", then one is not looking for a different word that will suffice.
Also, "authoritarianism" has the very unhappy history of being part of the Bourgeois propaganda effort to equate communism and fascism, so its use would aggravate a big miseducation of Americans.
^^^^^
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. <
Jim D.: maybe. But because Bush and his Boyz aren't like Mussolini, it will likely confuse the issue.
CB: The important thing is the ways in which Bush and his Boyz _are_ like Mussolini.
By way of analogy, the U.S. economy today is as different from the U.S.economy in the 1930's as Bush is different from Mussolini. But progressive economists would use the same term , "capitalism" , to refer to both because of the primary importance of the similarities over the differences. Same for the word "imperialism". Why call the U.S. today imperialist, when the U.S. today is so different from the imperialism of old ? Because in critical ways they are the same. You don't shy away from using the words "imperialism" or "capitalism".
^^^^^^^
CB:> 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. <
Jim D.:It should strike home more accurately to say that the international laws against torture (and the like) help protect US soldiers from torture.
CB: No aya contradiction
...
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. "<
Jim D.I don't see why the word "undemocratic" couldn't be used as a substitute term here.
CB: "Undemocratic" is not strong enough.
^^^^^^^
gotta go.
Ciao