[lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism, and contemporary research

[Chris Doss]

I have another totally unsupported hunch that part of the reason for this is that "fighting fascism" sounds really romantic and lets one psychologically relive the struggles of the first half of the 20th century (not meaning to push the Stalinist analogies too far, but sort of how many young people in the USSR in the late 20s-30s viewed the Purges as a new October Revolution, they being too young to have experienced the first one and wanting to have one of their own). Fascism was a relatively coherent ideological movement with organized paramilitaries and a vast support base that actually had street battles with leftists that killed people, and fighting that is much cooler than fighting an amorphous blob of idiots. (Although fighting the latter is a lot safer.)
 

----- Original Message ----
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 3:42:31 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism, and contemporary research

On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:43 PM, SA wrote:


> So that's the real issue. None of us doubts that Tea Baggers, if put in power, would do a lot of awful things. But it only makes sense to call those things fascist if you believe that given the opportunity, they would cancel elections and carry out a Gleichschaltung. Does anyone believe that? Can anyone name a single prominent politician or writer associated with the Tea Baggers who's said we should dispense with elections and install a Great Leader because elections divide the volk or because the wrong parties might win? If not, the fascist warnings ring a little hollow.

But you don't understand the underlying urgency. Since they're so icky - which seems to be the ultimate meaning of fascism in this context - we have to support Obama & the Dems. They're the last line of defense between us and the goose-steppers.

Doug
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk