The objection is not to "strong political terms"; the objection is to incorrect terms which obscure rather than reveal the real horrors of capitalism. Charles's insistence on the word "fascism" is actually, though I have never found the way to make this clear to him, a _cover-up_ of capitalism. The slovenly use of the term "fascism" amounts to almost deliberate blindness to how horrible and repressive even the _best_ capitalism is.
Carrol
^^^^^^
You've said this before.
The idea that the use of "fascist" covers up for capitalism is the opposite of the truth. The use of "fascism" exposes capitalism. Fascism is a form of the capitalist state. That's the main thing the bourgeois propagandists want to coverup: that _fascism is capitalism_. To point out when capitalism takes on its fascist forms _is_ to "reveal the real horrors of capitalism." By not using the term "fascism" , you are the one who covers up for capitalism's worst horrors. The fact that capitalism is also bad when it adheres to limited democratic-republican principles ( i.e. is not fascist) is evident to the people who are poor, unemployed, discriminated against, etc., and we can't and don't cover that up from them by pointing out when it does violate democratic-republican principles.
What the bourgeois propagandists coverup in the first place is that Nazi Germany _was a form of capitalism_. Hitler and the gang were agents of capitalists. They were anti-communists. The burghers' propagandists try to make people think fascism and communism are closer to each other than the U.S. system and fascism are. They want us to think that the U.S. is further from fascism than the Soviet Union was or Cuba is. Naming U.S. fascist aspects counters this bourgeois propaganda.
I use "fascism" in a precise , not slovenly, manner. Who do you think you are kidding ?
Charles