* From: Jim Devine
Once Nazism is separated from the pack, it seems that fascism is a relatively normal form of capitalist government (capitalist authoritarianism). ^^^^^ CB: If only this were the widely used rhetoric during the Cold War. Then bourgeois propaganda had to emphasize the "democracy" of non-Communist countries. If they had admitted what you say, the vast wars and build up of nukes wouldn't have been justifiable. The U.S. had fascism during the Jim Crow era, before the original Fascism. Fascism is not unnormal in the U.S. thereby. ^^^^^^^ <ellipsis> > In classic terms, fascism is defined by five characteristics of governance: > nationalist aggression; fusing of the state with corporate interests; single > party rule; the suppression of civil liberties; and pervasive propaganda. > All of these inhered in the Italian, German, and Japanese governments of the > 1930s and '40s. All of them would have to be present before the label > "fascism" could legitimately be applied to a modern regime. -clip- In truth, it's unlikely that there will ever be a general agreement over the definition of "fascism," even among leftists. ^^^^^^^ CB: Yea, to me the important thing now would be for the left to "normally" characterize the tendency of the Bush administration as fascistic and that it has fascistic characteristics. It is a rhetorical recommendation. We do have to have rhetoric. I think the article's definition leaves out a very critical factor: aggressive (non-defensive) war. The Nazi's conquering wars were a main aspect of their fascism. ^^^^^^ But IIRC, fascist Spain and Portugal did not such things. Could it be that "fascism" need not involve international aggression? ^^^^^ CB: International aggression may be "Nazism". The Nuremburg Trials convicted Goering and others of Crimes against _Peace_, i.e. aggressive war. ^^^^ <ellipsis> Though the capitalists who survived these fascist reigns benefited (at least up to 1945), it's important to note that the corporations, though influential, ceded control of almost all of the Nazi, Italian fascist, and imperial Japanese governments to the party in charge to run in a very militarized way. It's very different from the Dubya government [the Dubyament?], in which the corporations have a lot of hands-on control. ^^^^^ CB: I wonder about this. The corps had a lot more influence on Hitler than commonly "said". Plus, the militarization of things was no skin off the noses of corps, in fact in that it helped to discipline labor, I'm sure they liked it. It's like Pinochet. Bush is not so good for auto industry , seemingly. ^^^^^^ That is, fascist corporatism seems to be qualitatively different from Dubyament's corporatism. The latter is more like the "the business of America is business" governments that the US saw during the 1920s or during the Gilded Age. I think we can understand Dubya better if we study William McKinley than if we study Mussolini. ^^^ CB: I'm not so sure about what you say about Mussolini. Afterall, he defined his fascism as corporatism. Seems like he made the business of Italy business, didn't he ?
