9.11.2004
here's what some ruskies think:
"George Bush's United States is clearly in a proto-fascist condition. Of course, there's no such thing as direct equivalence between historical events. The same dangers never come around again -- not in the same form nor with precisely identical content. At every point in time, a new set of elements and circumstances coalesce to create the unique reality of that particular historical moment.
But if you take the general definition of fascism provided by its founder, Benito Mussolini -- "the merger of corporate and state power" -- and apply it to the elements that are coalescing in America at this historical moment, you could hardly find a more apt description of the Bush Regime." --The Moscow Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What silly commentary, taking Mussolini's definition of fascism at face value is just as meaningless as accepting Bush's acceptance speech as sincere. Perhaps the Moscow Times should be focused on Putin, the ex-chief of the KGB who is using all available state power to intimidate media using old soviet tactics, and who is actively subverting the rule of law in its efforts to renationalize Yukos, in a successful effort to 'merge corporate and state power.'
Furthermore, it is pretty naive to think that it is under the Bush presidency that state and corporate power have been aligned for the first time. I think it is pretty clear that our nation originally seceded from britain to satisfy our proto-corporate interests. Without invective name calling, our nation has always been a dual effort between state and business power to expand, which I don't see as a bad thing.
If you were to use mussolini's definition, Western European social welfare states would more resemble fascism, as the line between state and corporations is non-existent, in many of the large industries, more so in the states.
These labels are really fairly useless, but I think Authoritarian Nationalist, or Authoritarian Conservative would be more appropriate, and fair, in terms of describing Bush.
j
yea... It IS kind of ironic that they are talking shit about Bush (which weather or not you agree with it has become fashionable) but meanwhile thier president is calling for the authority to name state governors and a bunch of other "quasi-fascist" things. See below article. It all sucks.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040914/pl_nm/russia_usa_dc
I think it is fine for the moscow times to have an opinion on the U.S.'s direction, no matter what is happening in Russia. By the way, they have an opinion on that too-- "A Lurch in the Wrong Direction" (http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/14/004.html). The paper is written in english, for whatever that's worth.
I agree that taking Mussolini's definition of fascism at face value is pretty dumb, and the article itself is pretty over the top. However, i do get the feeling that we are treading on thin ice with this administration, and it could happen here. By "it" i mean a closed society that is fed by fear, where state power is used primarily to protect and serve the richest one or two percent of citizens, where information is tightly controlled, where an any opinion outside of a very limited range is considered unpatriotic, heretical, and perhaps punishable.
Call that state of affairs what you will.
i was thinking about my comment hear and i feel badly because i don't want to trade in fear. i don't want to be another dick cheney. on the other hand, i do see that these things really could happen, and are simmering in our country right now.
I guess the Ruskies should have the right to opine on America, despite there scenario being significantly more dire than our own.
But, the invective use of 'fascism' to attack all opposition, just devalues the term's meaning, and in a way weakens the perception of its evil.
In addition, I am in agreement with you about not trading in fear which is doing great harm to our already hampered political system. I wish for a return to the issues. For me there is no room for words like 'fascist' in serious arguments and articles on contemporary politics. It poisons the well, and demonstrates the authors ideological nature, which may play well to the choir, but handicaps the arguments ability to persuade.
For example, your definition of "it" is a persuasive vision, which I found compelling. But, article's like the Moscow Times is attempting to achieve the same ends, but through sophomoric rhetoric advance only their political bias.
yeah, i see what your saying. i'm worried about the growing divide between the us and everyone else. that such opinions are palatable to the international audience is itself a very bad sign.
Post a Comment