[PEN-L:9960] Re: Re: Re: Re: TINAF Special on Washingto

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky nestor at SPAMsisurb.filo.uba.ar
Fri Aug 13 15:02:41 MDT 1999



El 12 Aug 99 a las 13:19, Craven, Jim nos dice(n):

>
> I guess what I was trying to say, now with much less
> invective, is that if we walk a mile in each other's
> shoes, and by each other I mean not only in the shoes of
> fellow Americans or Canadians, but walk a mile in the
> shoes of peoples all over the world, and if we widen our
> parameters of thought to think of the U.S. system as a
> globalized system that extends far beyond the formal
> territorial limits of America, then:
>
> For the Iraqi, Cuban and other  civilians [...] the
> globalized imperial system that they experience, is a
> whole lot like fascism;
>
> For the peoples of Latin and Central America, [..]
> what they experience is a whole lot like fascism;
>
> For the peoples of Africa and elsewhere suffering horrible
> and quite preventable famines, killing millions of people,
> [...] what they suffer from and what they perceive
> to be the cause is a whole lot like fascism;
>
> For African-Americans subject daily to racial profiling
> [...] what they suffer
> and the policies guiding/producing what they suffer, smell
> a whole lot like fascism;

Yes, fascism is nothing but what imperialist states
practice abroad once it flows into the imperialist country.
Classical Marxism, isn't it? If Italy of Germany turned
Fascist in the 20s and 30s, it was, among other reasons and
basically, because these were imperialist states deprived
of colonies or with not enough colonies. Same -on a
different tune- might be said of some Central European
regimes (such as the Hungarian one). But this is precisely
why, IMHO, Jim Cr. is not quite hitting the nail with the
hammer when he reduces the importance of the existence of
FORMAL Fascist institutions and regimes within imperialist
countries. I disagree with this:

>
> it is academic how much nominal "freedom" and
> "prosperity" or how little formal "fascism" exists at
> "home."

This formal side of the matter has a contents of itself.
Any revolutionary in an imperialist country must of
necessity take it into account, IMHO (sorry, I am indulging
in proposing other what THEY should do, failing to Carrol
Cox's Number One Rule of Revolutionary Language:  "would
and should must be always preceded by the particle 'we'").

Of course that from the global point of view, the
"democrats" in power are the MATERIAL, ACTUAL Fascists
(this is, by the way, something that Chavez has recently
declared to a by no means sympathetic journalist who could
not retort with any witty remark to this obvious truth).
But it is also true that concrete political action must
take into account these "formalities".  As an Argentinian,
I vomit at our current regime. But I prefer to vomit and
not to be hanged. At least, if I am lucky enough, I will
stain some s.o.b.'s suit!

Yes, Jim, as you so correctly state,

> it is also important to note
> and utilize any specific and unique "freedoms" and
> institutions to promote substantive changes that limit the
> growth and influence of fascism as anyone would understand
> and recognize it.

In comradeship,

Nestor.









More information about the Marxism mailing list