> is fully fascist. I have said that the war on Iraq is a
> fascistic war, as were the wars on Viet Nam and Korea.
So what is a difference between fascistic wars and the non-fascistic varieties? Or, for that matter, fascistic/racists or any other -ist oppression and the one that simply results from "ordinary" power inequalities that have been with the humankind since the dawn of history and, I may add, are the rule in the state of nature?
I do not mean to sound flippant, I simply want to say that you seem to have your causal order backwards. Power inequality is a part of life, the stronger eats the weaker, period. It is true of the natural order, and it is true of human societies since the dawn of history. What seems to be distinctive about human history in that respect is that humans routinely rationalize and ex-post-facto justify that exploitation of power inequalities by inventing reasons for them, which quickly solidify into ideologies, like fascism, racism, religion, nationalism or kindred "-isms." As a result, taking advantage of power inequality no longer appears to be a purely opportunistic behavior putting humans on basically the same level as animals, but instead a rational consequence of some higher moral order. In short, the "-isms" in question are nothing more than attempts to rationalize and ennoble the animalist traits in human behavior.
Therefore, the causal order is power inequality causing ideologies attempting to justify it, not the other way around. Being determines consciousness, if you will. Therefore, denouncing and attacking ideologies that grew out of power inequalities is like attacking the shadow instead of the thing that casts it. In fact, there is no difference between fascistic and non-fascistic oppression, racist and non-racist one, etc. - they are all the same kind of human behavior rooted in the same causal factor: power inequality. The only way of changing that is to eliminate the root cause, not the attenuation of the shadow that it casts.
This can be demonstrated by the fact that every new wave of immigrants to this country gave birth to a new set of ethnic stereotypes, which were later attenuated. That trajectory of change - sudden appearance and then a gradual subsidence can only be explained by changes in power of the targeted group: as they got off the boat they landed at the bottom of the power ladder, which gave birth to ideological expressions of that power inequality. As these groups were fighting its way up the power ladder, these ideological expressions subsided (or in some cases even disappeared, e.g. in case of the Irish).
So as I see it, calling any form of inequality names ("fascism," racism" imperialism" "sexism" etc.) is purely symbolic and rather futile. It is like cursing at the troops invading your territory - it means less than a mosquito bite. If one does not like the incursion, one needs to secure enough power to forestall it, or otherwise put one's tail between one's legs and withdraw to a safer location.
Cursing one's enemies is the weapon (or perhaps its substitute) of the weak and the sign of weakness. That is the main reason why one should not engage in it, even if it is the only thing one can do in a given situation. Remaining silent may create doubts about one's power, cursing removes that doubt.
Wojtek