The assumption made by most left analysts is that fascism is always defensive in character. This is why the response to the use of the term now generally focuses on the lack of a revolutionary workers movement. "Why would they need fascism today?" runs the argument, "their rule is unthreatened.." We have, as Marxists do, developed a theorem; "Capital only resorts to fascism when threatened with Communism"
The words themselves, Nazi, and Fascist evoke a particular history, a different stage of the class struggle. Carrol is right to point out that the words have been mis-used to mean "bad". But we will miss the essence of our own times if we wait for the outward forms of politics in our period to closely resemble those of the 20's 30's and 40's, in Europe. Because those times required it , the "ruling circles" had to contract out control of state power to leaders of Blackshirt militias. Not, I am sure, an experience they would like to repeat.And not one they need to repeat. Where is it written that those who own oil, arms, media and banks, political parties, armies and nuclear weapons must wait for the crisis of capital to become apparent to the masses before they strike? Fascist? Not if you insist upon black shirts. But, the essence of "fascism" is a dictatorship of the most powerful, and hence most reactionary elements within bourgeois society. Today we see a clearly controlled press, congress, judiciary, and military, the suspension of the Bill of Rights , habeas corpus, posse commitatus, as well as International Law;and, oh yes, Social Security, and Taft-Hartley. Not bad for a bunch of Bourgeois-Democrats. American Fascism will not be marketed like the Italian and German varieties were. No black shirts in American fascism. Just silk. Bob _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
