Chip Berlet wrote:
>
> How true. The combination of an inabilty to define fascism and an inability to find language that describes what one does not like usually creates an intellectual atmosphere of a room full of flatulent geese.
>
> All sound and fury...and a really bad smell.
I would agree with both this and the paragraph quoted from Doug.
But Doug's point does _not_ preclude seeing fascism as one possible emergent from the "lonely crowd" -- crowds are composed of the isolated individuals Miles speaks of. _All_ political tendencies within capitalist societies in one way or another struggle to resolve the difficulty of uniting the "dot-like" (Marx) existence of the "mere free worker." Speaking of only Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany I would say that the fascist "collectivity" precisely drew its emotional appeal from its promise to give an (ersatz) solidarity/unity.
Carrol
>
> -Chip
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org on behalf of Doug Henwood
> <<SNIP>>
>
>
> ... What is it then? The whole point of fascism is not that it's
> oppressive, but that it's characterized by the radical subordination
> of the individual to the state. In the economic sphere it's
> corporatist and anti-market. If "fascism" is just used as a synonym
> for "icky" then the word loses all meaning.
>
> Doug
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk