Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox writes:
>
> > If "fascism" (or some closely analogous movement) contests for power in
> > the u.s., I suspect it won't be anti-gay. In fact, I suspect a _real_
> > u.s. fascist movement wouldn't even be overtly racist or sexist.
>
> Hmm - I'm not sure your premise is right. But l've got a language
> question here. A lot of people are worried about the U.S. moving even
> farther right than it is - to , as you put it some position "closely
> analogous" to fascism.
Not quite what I said. Part of my definition of fascism is that it is a _movement_ overtly contending for power. There is no such movement in the U.S. today. The U.S. is moving towards a police statee, but fascism is not the only kind of police state. We hamper ourselves in resisting current dangers if we use the label "fascism" in describing them.
[CLIP] We want
> to be able to discuss this - so we can come up with
> prevention/survival tactics if the danger is real, for reassurance if
> it is not.
There is no danger of fascism, but this should not be taken as any kind of reassurance. If you were threatened with antibiotic resistant tuberculosis you would not be reassured if a physician told you that there was no danger of polycystic kidneys. We are NOT threatened with fascism. We ARE threatened with a move toward a police state that may be more difficult to resist than a fascist movement would be.
Carrol