On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Chip Berlet wrote:
> There is no connection to the mass base of the Tea Party movement
> and the potential for fascism?
I know that ideology exists in a non-simple relationship with material interest and political outcomes, but the TPers are fiendishly anti- statist, esp central-statist. That's the opposite of fascism, if that word retains any meaning. They have a lot in common with long-standing traditions in right populism, American style. Was that always potentially fascist, or is it just that way now?
I know you love to debunk the hoax Mussolini quote, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." But corporate power, in the sense that American populists use it, isn't the same as corporatism - and corporatism has a lot to do with fascism.
But why does the U.S. need fascism? There's absolutely no serious challenge to the existing order coming from the left. Precisely what needs to be repressed?
> It is like watching a group of botanists discuss the work of Luigi
> Pirandello.
What's wrong with that? It might be fun.
> This could be a forum for a serious discussion. I look forward to
> it starting.
There's nothing non-serious about it. You just don't agree with what's been said.
Doug