Re: "Fascism" again, was Re: Chile

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fascism is the open terrorist rule of the most reactionary, militaristic sector 
of
finance capital. The Axis of Fascists and Nazis initiated the biggest war in the
history of humanity. Finance capital made use of war to escape the crisis of the
threat of workers revolution in the classic bourgeois style. Open terrorist 
rule fit
well with militarism.

Fortunately, so far, today's imperialism has not had to resort to world war yet.
Although, the contra-wars and Viet Nam war , war on Iraq are fully horrific. 
There is
some American fascism right this moment in the continuing genocidal war on 
Iraq. It is
very much on behalf of finance capital which heads the global ruling class. The 
fact
that the U.S. does not have internal open terrorist rule should not stop us from
referring to its war and blockade on Iraq as fascist.


CB

>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> 09/09/99 03:31PM >>>


Sam Pawlett wrote:

> Why either/or? Fascists are militaristic.

What in the devil does "milataristic" mean in this context. I'm milataristic
in that I believe Cuba should defend itself. You still want to use sloppy
moralistic terminology in what should be historical analysis with terms
narrowed from everyday use.

"Milataristic" is *useful* for analysis if and only if it has specific
reference
to the professional military. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini was a general.



Sam Pawlett wrote:

> Would you care to state the necessary and sufficient conditions for
> application of the term "fascist?"

No I don't care to. I never use the term myself just because its usual
use is so damn sloppy that it has ceased to mean anything.

Carrol