----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2) Despite the horrors the U.S. is capable of under its constitution, > there are advantages to our present degree of political and personal > freedom, advantages that are worth fighting for and if possible > expanding. And even the degree of political freedom we now have is > indeed under threat. But to call that threat "fascism" is (I've used > this image a number of times) as silly as it would have been in the > Germany of the 1920s to ignore Hitler and claim that the real threat of > the restoration of power to the Kaiser. > > Carrol Cox Good analogy, but it isn't like *I* (can't speak for others here) am warning about "Fascism" taking over the White House from the remnants of George Lincoln Rockwell's followers and installing a series of Reichstag-inspired decrees. I am talking about the aims of fascism being completed through the democratic process, and just as ruthless an attempt at garnering the same powert for themselves *as a class*, and as Dmitrov put it "the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie" who the Hell are the people around this criminal cabal in the Bush party, if not these? No, they are not marching through the streets. Not because they are less reactionary, not because they have goals or morals and virtues that differ from capital F fascism. My problem, in a nut shell, comes down to the belief that "Fascism" is the far end of the political spectrum, that we can look along varying degrees and decide when we must call it the most urgent situation possible. Considering that the current rulers *do not need* to cancel elections, they have the exact same goals (nationalistic xenophobia as well) as "traditional" fascists, yet they are only in the corridors of the White House and the Senate and not the streets because they don't need to be! Considering that Habeus Corpus is shredded, that the goals of fascism are being attained without the "open, terrorist rule" Dmitrov spoke of, would not Fascism (classically, the reaction to the rising of a mass-class-based opposition to their policies) indicate a step forward? Will these criminals from the most reactionary part of corporate-oil America not institute Fascism before they succumb to the limiting and removal of their power? Fascism "techincally" means the farthest right of the ruling class, where things are at their absolute worst. They are cartoon images, and the real murderers are in power now. As such, Fascism (without a re-definition), if "only" usable as a catch-word for dictatorships of the far-right (why on earth would they cancel elections when even leftists go around voting for people like Gore, Nader and even Bush en masse?) has ZERO meaning to our world today. Look at the culture around the state-- they are treated as "can do no wrong", even when they admit to random murder with unmanned planes in sovereign countries. That means now they proudly proclaim the right to murder anyone, anywhere, at any time. "Fascism" as a term either reflects this or it means absolutely (pardon me) sweet fuck all. What just was done in Yemen, proudly, openly and with a promise of more of the same in the future (rather than denials, blame shifting and attempts to put the story on pge 87 of your newspaper), is the "open terrorist rule of the most reactionary section of the [global] bourgeoisie." Be afraid, be very afraid. But don't give up. Macdonald _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
