Sarah Palin is a Fascist

Bill Ayers and Weather Underground bombed toilets while the U.S. bombed villiagers in Vietnam.

McCain and Palin are pallin’ around with real terrorists like George W. Bush, who is responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million dead in Iraq and 4 million displaced. And now Palin “doesn’t know” if abortion clinic bombers are terrorists?? Indeed, her wording is very specific: does the categroy of “innocent americans” include abortion clinic doctors, according to Palin’s fundamentalist, right-wing world view? All of this isn’t because she’s confused. Its because she’s a fascist.

The following is an excerpt from Eric Mann’s recent article on the election, and while I don’t agree with all of Eric Mann’s ideas about revolutionaries submerging themselves into a “united front” with Obama, I do think it is important to do what it takes to prevent John McCain and his running dog, Sarah Palin, from taking office.

Palin 2008Sarah Palin’s election would turn the women’s movement on its head—Palin is a fascist, a racist, a white separatist, and a misogynist

There is nothing funny about Sarah Palin. (Tina Fey’s brilliant parodies are the exception.) But do not laugh at Palin any more than you should laugh at Bush. She is not stupid. She is deadly serious, armed and dangerous. She is tied to extreme vigilante groups who want to secede from the United States because they feel it is too liberal and too multi-racial. She uses oil revenues to buy the loyalties of people in Alaska, tying their futures to the global warming that will in fact destroy Alaska and the planet.

She and McCain will cut social services, already hanging by a thread. They will ramp up the police state and the war on terror. She has broken with John McCain by proposing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and is moving ever further to his right. Some speculate she is doing this out of a lack of discipline. Others think she wants to position herself even more strongly with the extreme Right base in case McCain loses and she wants to pursue other national elected positions.

She has drawn the fascist mobs to the campaign and operates in the tradition of reactionary demagogues Father Coughlin and Lou Dobbs. She is the hit person against Obama, the warm-up act for McCain that gets the white mob into a racist rage. She will support a police state and will lock us up without a second thought. And the talk of her being one 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from the presidency is not a joke. She may be a future president of the United States if we don’t defeat McCain.

Governor Palin believes a woman who chooses to have an abortion is a sinner, period. She believes that such is the case even if the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy forced on her through rape or incest. She is an enemy of the movement for reproductive rights. Her message to desperate, working class women is that being a loyal wife is a woman’s best chance for escaping poverty, your subjugation is liberation. She appeals to misogynist men and assures them that their domination of the family is God’s will. While she has been able to get out of the house with five children to pursue a professional career, her gender politics will prevent most women from doing the same—locking women in the home as single parents or prisoners of their husbands—as she leads choruses of “Stand by Your Man.” Her election will be an attack of Roe v. Wade, women’s reproductive rights, and women’s liberation.

19 responses to “Sarah Palin is a Fascist

  1. Sarah palin is a very confused lady and should go back to Alaska because her brain is in deep freeze. Let’s let her rule her little world and not cross the boundary into the lower 48 – she is a mess

  2. At least Palin didn’t advocate for a “Japanese-German style” occupation of a country, as did Biden. Nor did she call for a whole nationality to be put in concentration camps. As bad as Palin is, she’d only be the VP, and it’s clear her opinion holds no weight with McCain, who is 100 times worse than she could ever be.

  3. She sounded really confused on here, its like she doesn’t understand the question! which was

    “Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?”

    She really could not answer as she later showed asking

    “I don’t know if what you are asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.”

    Brian Williams later went on

    “Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.”

    “Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.”

    Now from that being said, we already know she is doing typical Polit-talk in which she wont EVER answer the question clearly and uses ambiguous words. We already know from her past statements that she thinks doctors who perform abortions are murderers; I don’t really think she thinks people who bomb them are terrorists. A terrorist in my definition is someone who attacks innocent civilians in the hopes of inspiring fear; William Ayers is no terrorist, William Ayers did not bomb innocent civilians; William Ayers bombed the same people who ordered the massacre at My Lai, and the thousand of other My Lai’s in Vietnam, no one feared William Ayers everyone in the 1960s was against the invasion of Vietnam and the destruction of their brothers in a suicidal war, and they wanted those people who commited it responsible.

  4. Yes, but why won’t she answer the question? She refuses to say that abortion clinic bombers are terrorists, but at the same time says that anyone who bombs “innocent” people is a terroist. Now I agree with you about Ayers. His tactics were ineffective, because they relied on a small group and not the mobilization of the masses. But the important issue here, in my opinion, is the way Palin defines “terrorist” and the fact that she won’t apply that definition to abortion clinic bombers, implying that doctors who perform legal abortions are not “innocent”. The implications of this are horrifying.

  5. Personally, I don’t think she did not answer the question because of 2 possible scenarios

    a. she does not know what he was asking.

    b. She is using political talk by engaging in ambiguous language so as to have people “interpret” what shes saying. I see it happen all the time, if a controversy comes out of this(which im waiting for the media to jump on…still waiting) they end up saying something along the likes of “thats not what I meant…what I meant to say is <insert another ambiguous answer here. This is because she really does not think abortion clinic bombers are terrorists but does not want to seem like shes crazy so she will give some answer that can mean anything; or shes on the fence on it, and doesn’t want to have people seeing her condemn it nor condone it.

  6. Regardless of whether she thinks abortion clinic bombers are ‘terrorists’, she is no fascist. I think she was simply trying to keep the focus on Obama’s “terrorist” ties, and ignore everything else. To call her one is to cheapen the meaning of the word, in my opinion. It’s akin to McCain and Palin calling Obama a “socialist” because he thinks the richest 5% of the population should pay 3% more in income taxes and that trickle down economics doesn’t work. Biden has made many openly fascistic statements. So has McCain. McCain once called for the bombing of schools, churches, factories and public markets. Nothing Palin has said comes close to that. One’s opinion on abortion has nothing to do with fascism. Based on that criteria both Mao and Stalin would be ‘fascists’ since abortion was restricted in China until 1971 and the USSR from 1936-1955.

  7. Brian,

    I think the way she whips up right-wing mobs to a hateful frenzy is rather fascistic. Her connection to ultra-right white-seperatist groups like the Alaskan Independence Party are evident.

    Anyway, the focus of this post was not fascism, but rather her statements about abortion clinic bombers.

    Furthermore, I would think that anyone who regularly reads this blog would not assume that I define fascism in the way that you suggest, based on the sole criteria of opposition to abortion. That’s obviously rediculous and a straw man. It is reactionary, but its not fascism all by itself. It is unfortunate that Stalin and Mao made those errors, but certainly that doesn’t make them fascists. I tend to accept the old Comintern definition:

    Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.

    That’s fascism in power. What is fascism out of power, and does Palin represent or seek to represent it? The characteristics of fascism, according to the report to the Seventh Congress of the Comintern by Georgi Dimitrov, are (quoted in Zhou Enlai, “On Chinese Fascism, The New Autocracy”, Selected Works Vol. 1, p. 440 n208),

    Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of working people; fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory wars; fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution; fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and all working people.

    According to the Program of the Comintern of 1928 (quoted in R. P. Dutt‘s Fascism and Social Revolution: A Study of the Economics and Politics of the Extreme Stages of Capitalism in Decay pp. 108-109), the conditions for the rise of Fascism are,

    Instability of capitalist relationships, the existence of considerable declassed social elements, the pauperisation of broad strata of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, and, finally, the consistent menace of mass proletarian action.

    Certainly Comrade Dimitrov and Comrade Dutt have been the most consistent Marxist theorists to deal with this question.

    I think it is perfectly clear to absolutely anyone that Stalin and Mao didn’t fit that definition and that those characteristics never applied to the USSR of Stalin or the PRC of Mao. While I don’t think all of the conditions for fascism in power exist, I guess whether Palin is or wants to be a representative of those elements of the financial oligarchy within the U.S. government is open to debate.

  8. Brian, while yes, virtually all the socialist states have abolished abortion until a certain time, these were mostly due to cultural biases towards them. Reactionary policies were enacted and repealed in the USSR throughout its history, when abortion was reinstated it was done as a “necessary evil”. We must acknowledge these people have severe shortcomings especially in abortion rights and LGBT rights, which the Communist movement is correctly reforming their old school position on. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, the Kims, Che, Castro(used to), even Trotsky and basically everyone who claimed to be a Marxist deemed it a mental disease; Lenin when he called for its de-criminalization as well maintained that homosexuals should be round up and “cured”; Engels called homosexuality disgusting and taunted some opponents for homosexual rights. Their analysis was that it was a bourgeois hobby; we now know this is not the case, it is purely natural and there is massive amounts of scientific evidence pointing towards such; Just because socialist leaders were backwards in some of their views does not merit their support; they were extremely advanced for their time, racial and sexual equality was unheard of elsewhere but the USSR guaranteed it. A gay comrade-mentor once told me he “does not blame Lenin, Stalin, or other deceased communists for their backwards views on homosexuality anymore than he can blame a 14th century peasant for believing the world was flat.” That was very powerful to me, since for a long time I used to struggle with this question; as I certainly did not share their views.

    I agree with Comrade Zero’s definition using the old CI Gen-Sec Georgi Dimitrov and the theoretician Rajani Dutt’s definition on fascism. In my opinion, The American Far-Right can be classified as Fascists of a new type, while they may not call for open dictatorship, they are extremely repressive of progressive and revolutionary thought through state power, they are rabid chauvinists, unprincipled anti-communists and anti-leftist in general, and are some of the biggest representatives of finance capitalism; this is the same with the so-called “progressive” bourgeosie as well(other than the REAL principled ones like Kucinich, Gravel, Nader etc.) but their chauvinism is virtually petty and really is just American Exceptionalism rather than all out xenophobic nationalist supremacy.

  9. It’s not a “straw man”.The title of the post was Sarah Palin is a fascist. All we have to buttress this point, based on that post, are vague answers in reply to questions on whether abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. I think it’s a loose and irresponsible use of the term. The existence of lunatics at Sarah Palin rallies does not make her a fascist anymore than the existence of raving anti-semitic 9-11 conspiracy weirdos makes leftwing rallies fascist. Nor do her connections to a conservative separatist party make her a ‘fascist’. There’s nothing particularly fascist about the Alaskan Independence Party. Are they lunatics and rightwing? Sure. But what in their platform or position statements indicates they are fascist? Their platform amounts to advocating secession because they believe Alaskans’ use of resources is too heavily controlled by the federal government.

    The center-right parties of Europe engage in far more hateful, demagoguery in their campaigns, and nobody is calling the French Conservative Party, the Italian Forza Italia, the Swiss People’s Party, or the various other Christian Democratic parties “fascist”.

    I surely agree with Dutti/Dimitrov’s definition of fascism (although it’s entirely too vague, fascism is a specific political program). I don’t think Palin comes anywhere close to being as “ferocious” and “unbridled” as Dimitrov would demand in order to fit his definition. Dimitrov dealt with fascists, both in and outside of power. What Palin represents doesn’t even come close to the terror and chauvinism he faced.

    It’s not even about dictatorship per se. The Jim Crow South technically wasn’t a “dictatorship”, but was a rigid racial caste system combined with state and extrajudicial terror. Palin doesn’t even represent a return to those policies.

  10. I doubt I can contribute much to this discussion in terms of marxist-leninist theory, but that won’t stop me from throwing in two cents about the direction of this discussion.

    Maybe a good starting point would be to say that I have been a participant, reader or listener in discussions of this topic for about twenty-four years. After Reagan was re-elected in 1984, there was a flurry of discussion on the left about the imminence of fascism in the U.S. The argument at that time was that this new fascism would reflect on the one hand the complete domination of the federal government by Reagan Republicans and on the other an insurgent ultra-right wing social conservative movement centered around the organization “Moral Majority.”

    Many of us argued that the danger of fascism was not on the horizon because, in fact, the capitalist system had not been destabilized but was actually on the rebound and not at all threatened by the working class movement as it existed at that time. Sad to say, we were right. The U.S. entered a long period of deep reaction from which in many ways we are only now emerging. But it was definitely not fascism.

    In the years since then I have argued against the use of the term to describe the many crimes of U.S. imperialism as well as to describe the political meaning of right wing social movements.

    It is only in the context of the current global crisis of capitalism, and only in looking at the political rhetoric that is increasingly characterizing the hardcore McCain/Palin camp and its followers that I have considered that “fascism” may really be an apt term.

    To defend that position, I have to begin by suggesting that describing the character of a social movement as being “fascist” is different from describing a political regime by that term. We can objectively evaluate what a government does and how it behaves and apply the kind of criteria suggested in the Dimitrov and Dutt definitions. Assessing the potential of a social movement in its ascendant stages is trickier business.

    I also assume that we can agree that we aren’t going to wait to use the term “fascist” to describe a social movement until it begins issuing platforms or manifestos announcing that it is called into necessity because of “Instability of capitalist relationships, the existence of considerable declassed social elements, the pauperisation of broad strata of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, and, finally, the consistent menace of mass proletarian action.”

    On the other hand, the rhetoric coming from much of the right wing at the present time is precisely about the elements in Dutt’s definition. There is certainly an acknowledgment that there exists a profound economic crisis and deep instability. There is also strong evidence of an unfolding and potentially massive disruption to the “middle class” (both privileged sectors of the working class and the petit bourgeoisie) as a result of the economic crisis. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of people have already experienced mortgage foreclosures and probably millions more are at risk. Millions of people who see themselves as “middle class” are faced with decreases in the value of pensions and retirement investments.

    And there is fear of an insurgency. It isn’t discussed as “proletarian action,” certainly, but the hysteria around ACORN’s so-called voter fraud and the response (which included death threats and vandalism) reflect a fear that “America” is besieged by (especially) people of color. And unlike previous periods in which the right wing has tended to see its task as beating back the barbarian hordes, more and more what we are hearing is the view that the country has been “betrayed from within” and must be “rescued.”

    I would also argue – though I would have to scrabble around a bit to find specific pieces of evidence – that this “rescue” is more and more envisioned as something that could take place by suspending the normal rules of the game, such as the suggestion that a witch-hunt for “unAmericans” be conducted in the Congress.

    For these reasons, I think that the social movement that is coalescing around McCain and (especially) Palin may well be fascist (or perhaps more properly, “pro-fascist”) in nature.

  11. There are two points raised by Brian that I’d like to address, the first of which is that Dutt and Dimitrov are too vague on their definitions of fascism and that fascism has a specific program. I don’t think that’s the case. I think Dutt and Dimitrov’s definitions are right on and about as specific as you can get. There’s actually a very fascinating book that deals with this called Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton. The book analyzes almost every significant fascist movement in and out of power and draws the conclusion that while they have similar sources, arise in certain similar circumstances and conditions, and have a set of common characteristics, it cannot be said that they have a common political program. It is an interesting book.

    pdgoselin adds quite a bit to the discussion, and I appreciate their participation. I think there is an issue around the condition of a “consistent menace of mass proletarian action” that they bring up.

    R. P. Dutt, in Fascism and Social Revolution writes,

    What are the general conditions favoring the growth of Fascism? They may be briefly enumerated: (1) intensification of the economic crisis and the class struggle; (2) widespread disillusionment with parliamentarianism; (3) the existence of a wide petit-bourgeoisie, intermediate strata, slum proletariat, and sections of the working class under capitalist influence; (4) the absence of an independent class-conscious leadership of the main body of the working class.

    Are these conditions present in Britain, France and the United States [this book was written in 1934]? The answer must be given that they are all strongly present (p. 256).

    This enumeration of objective conditions is a little problematic, but here is the way I see it, returning to something else that comrade Dutt writes:

    Fascism arises when the working-class movement has grown to a point of strength where it should advance to the seizure of power, when the bankruptcy of the old regime is revealed, but the working class is held in by reformist leadership.

    (“Democracy and Fascism“)

    This is about subjective conditions, and I think this is the key reason why we don’t really need to worry right now about fascism coming to power. The workers movement is not enough of a threat to make the abandonment of the democratic facade of bourgeois dictatorship necessary. We are not yet in a revolutionary situation, mainly because of a lack of a necessary Marxist-Leninist communist party, a lack of subjective forces. The working class lacks leadership altogether: militant, reformist, or otherwise. There is no “consistent menace of mass proletarian action.” McCain, Palin, and their base may well represent “the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism” but the conditions for them to unleash their “open terroristic dictatorship” are not really present yet.

    The second point is tangential, so I won’t dwell on it, but to say I don’t agree with your characterization of the Jim Crow South as a caste system. Here’s what William Z. Foster writes in his excellent book, The Negro People in American History:

    The Negro people are definately not a caste. Castes are based essentially on class and occupation, and this definition in no sense fits the all-class, all-occupation Negro people. Introducing the concept of caste into the analysis of the status of the Negro people only further complicates and confuses an already complex situation.

    After a lengthy analysis of the caste system in India, Foster goes on to say,

    Obviously this primative caste system has nothing in common with the position of the Negro people in the United States. The latter are suffering a national oppression at the hands of a modern imperialist capitalist system (pp. 275-276).

    Anyway, as I said, that’s a minor point and really tengential to the discussion of fascism, but since we are talking about precise use of terms, I thought I would briefly point out my disagreement.

  12. comradezero points out that at the present time “[t]he workers movement is not enough of a threat to make the abandonment of the democratic facade of bourgeois dictatorship necessary.” I don’t disagree. But, again, that’s why I think we have to distinguish between the conditions for the existence of a fascist government and the conditions for the existence of a fascist movement.

    I don’t think that it is mere coincidence that the most vicious and strident rhetoric in the campaign did not appear until after the global economic collapse was undeniably and terrifyingly real to the ruling class. One of the reasons that I believe it is appropriate to describe Palin and the forces around her as fascist is precisely because I think their objective purpose is as attack dogs against any working class response – reformist or revolutionary – to the economic crisis.

  13. The above posts talk about the conditions required for fascism to seize power or to gain widespread acceptance. Dutti’s definition largely talks about the conditions required for fascism. He doesn’t, in either of the statements you quote anyway, talk about what fascism is and what it means to be a fascist. So really the conversation about the conditions required for fascism to take place is also tangential to the conversation about whether Palin is actually a fascist. Dimitri does try to outline what fascism is, and yes I think he’s entirely too vague about it. What qualifies as “most vicious”, “most ferocious”, “most rabid”, “unbridled”? It tells nothing about the particular political positions of a person or a party that would qualify under these headings. That’s what I mean by fascism as a specific political program. It doesn’t mean that there is a 10 point manifesto which all fascists must adhere to, but like Liberalism, like Conservatism, the term Fascism reflects a particular political philosophy. It’s not simply a murky adjective to be hurled at people with chauvinistic or demagogic tendencies.

    But from the above post, it seems you believe that the conditions aren’t ripe for fascism to take root in the United States because of the lack of strength of the working class. So what does that say in relation to the question of Palin the individual?

    If Palin is a fascist, but fascism shouldn’t be gaining power in the US, then Palin is some kind of anomaly.

    If Palin isn’t a fascist, then I don’t know what is being argued anymore. We agree.

  14. I would just add that most of the recent rhetoric coming out of the McCain campaign mirrors exactly what Hillary Clinton was saying about Obama before the economic crisis grew extremely serious (with the exception of the smear about Acorn). I think you can sum it up as sleazy campaign tactics, and not much more.

  15. Brian writes:

    That’s what I mean by fascism as a specific political program. It doesn’t mean that there is a 10 point manifesto which all fascists must adhere to, but like Liberalism, like Conservatism, the term Fascism reflects a particular political philosophy.

    But here is what R. P. Dutt says in Fascism and Social Revolution:

    The first illusion that requires to be cleared out of the way is the illusion that there is a “theory” of Fascism, in the same sense that there is a theory of Liberalism, Conservativism, Communism, etc.

    Many intellectuals, while “deploring” the “excesses” of Fascism, allow themselves to be fascinated by and drawn into elaborate and speculative discussion of the “philosophy” of Fascism – and are soon lost in the Serbonian bog of alternating “socialism,” capitalism, corporatism, strong-man worship, high moral adjurations, and platitudes, anti-alien agitation, appeals to “unity,” glorification of war, torture-gloating, deification of primitive man, denunciations of big-business, idolisation of captains of industry, kicking of the dead corpse of the nineteenth century and “liberal-democratic humanitarian superstitions,” exhumation of the considerably more putrescent corpses of mercantilism, absolutism, inquisitorial methods and caste-conceptions, racial theories of the iferiority of all other human beings save the speaker’s own tribe, anti-semitism, Nordicism and the rest of it.

    The innocent may solemnly and painstakingly discuss at face value these miscellaneous “theories” provided to suit all tastes. But in fact their importance is rather as symptoms and by-products of the real system and basis of Fascism than as its origin and raison d’etre. The reality of Fascism is the violent attempt of decaying capitalism to defeat the proletarian revolution and forcibly arrest the growing contradictions of its whole development. All the rest is decoration and stage-play, whether conscious or unconscious, to cover and make presentable or attractive this basic and reactionary aim, which cannot be openly stated without defeating its purpose. (pp. 197-198)

    Dutt goes on about this for several pages, but I won’t. I suggest reading this book.

    This is interesting, as Dutt here outlines just the sort of overly ideological definition that you get with the RCP and their discussions of “christian fascism,” which totally ignores all of these questions of objective and subjective conditions, in a way that is typical to them. I guess this is why Bob Avakian says that Fascism and Social Revolution should be “regarded as the work of a quack”. But if you look at the writings of Hitler or Mussolini, and I have, then you’ll find a lot of rhetoric basically as outlined by Dutt, but you won’t find anything that even resembles a political philsophy like you find in Locke, Hobbes, Burke, Russeau, Marx, or Lenin. This is why Dutt calls fascism a “movement without a theory” or a “negative movement.”

    If we return to what pdgoselin said about the need to “distinguish between the conditions for the existence of a fascist government and the conditions for the existence of a fascist movement” then I think there is room to talk about this in terms of Palin and the GOP and its racist and reactionary base. Certainly they wear the trappings of fascism that Dutt talks about here. But because the subjective conditions are not there for fascism to be necessary, I don’t think we are likely to see a fascist government, though Palin and others have the potential to be representatives of a fascist movement in an overall bourgoeis-democratic, imperialist government.

  16. Ummm, you’re kidding, right?

    Did Clinton make the accusation that Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist?

    Did she accuse him of having a left-wing agenda and of being a “share the wealth” socialist?

    Did people at Clinton rallies yell “Kill him,” “traitor,” or “Barack Osama” when Obama’s name was mentioned?

    When Clinton was in the campaign, did any of her supporters claim – as a Fox News political commentator has – that one of Obama’s political mentor was a devil worshipper? (Yes, I know this is crazy, but James Pinkerton actually did say this: Or that another of his mentors was a member of the Communist Party? (

    And that’s only what they are saying about Obama personally. It really doesn’t even begin to tap into the vicious race hatred and red-baiting that has been richly flowing for the last month or so.

    I’m willing to concede that there are arguments on both sides whether the term “fascist” is appropriate for Palin and the grouping around her . . . but claiming that the rhetoric coming from her camp is merely “sleazy campaign tactics, and not much more” seems a gross understatement. And then to top it all off, we have “the smear about Acorn.”

  17. With all due respect, if I read every book that was cited to me in blog discussions, I’d be reading for more hours than there are in a day for days on end. I know well that I need to improve my understanding of a lot of issues, but quite frankly I’m tired of people continuously citing a litany of books in every discussion so I can go educate myself.

    That said, Dutt’s snide rejection of the idea that fascism is a political program doesn’t really inform us any further on what fascism is and what fascists are. It simply renders fascism undefinable since it has no theory, and so I suppose we can go on calling every conservative party “fascist” since they engage in the same or worse behavior that McCain and Palin are in this campaign and have from time immemorial. If we do so I don’t think the word will mean much, and maybe that’s Dutt’s point in the end. Fascism as a term is meaningless. If fascism is simply “decaying capitalism’s violent attempt to destroy proletarian revolution” then everything from the efforts by social democratic parties to sabotage and destroy (often by horrific and terrible violence) communist revolutions is paradigmatic of “fascism”. In my view it doesn’t make sense to equate everything from social democratic to rightwing parties as fascist. Every bourgeois party has the goal of saving capitalism from proletarian revolution, so in that sense every bourgeois party has the same supposed goal as fascism and acts accordingly.

    On the issue of whether Clinton brought all this up before. Yes, unfortunately, Clinton tried to tie Obama to the “terrorist” Ayers a long time ago. Clinton tried to tie Obama to Tony Rezko. Clinton’s supporters repeatedly spread the lie and bigoted rumor that Obama was a Muslim and mention his middle name. Clinton supporters have and continue to tie Frank Davis (supposed Communist) to Obama. As for the Fox News commentator, that person is not part of the McCain campaign.

    The GOP tactic of crying about class warfare and redistribution/socialism is what they always say. It’s nothing new. You are right, of course, that the people at McCain-Palin rallies are openly bigoted and shout hysterical and violent things. But it’s not as if all these attacks haven’t been tried before in the primary, which was my point.

  18. Brian, I’m not trying to say you should “go educate yourself” in some condescending professorial way. If it came off that way it wasn’t how I meant it.

    I simply meant to say that Fascism and Social Revolution is a good book, in fact the pricipal Marxist-Leninist study, on fascism, which you seem to have a keen interest in. In fact, it addresses what you say about the problem of “calling every conservative party ‘fascist'” quite well, but I won’t cite it any longer since you say you are tired of it.

    Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s