In a message dated 05/28/2000 6:01:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: << I think that the attempt to compare imperialisms is wrought with great difficulty, precisely because a Guatemalan Mayan peasant's view of the issue would differ sharply from a Polish worker's view. The former, having suffered deaths of 200,000 of his compatriots-- at the hands of US backed regimes run by US trained soldiers-- would be among the harshest critics of US imperialism. The latter would tend to view America as the great savior. >> this argument seems hollow to me. if one is going to speculate on those who are critical of US imperialism, then it's probably helpful to choose areas where US imperialism has held sway. ergo, it's proper, in my view, to point to countries of Central America, where US Imperialism has been rampant for more than 150 years, focusing on european countries is less than helpful, since US imperialism has had, until recently, a limited impact in these areas -- unless one wants to consider US participation in WWA as an exercise in imperialism, a leap I'm reluctant to make. << I agree regarding the definition of fascism and its relation to the fascist state; however, communism is more complicated. There are many types of Communism. There is council communism, and democratic communism, and there are many other varieties in addition to Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, as followed in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. There is basically only one type of fascism: dedication to following the will of the Supreme Leader( the Duce, or the Fuhrer). >> this definition of fascism is, to say the least, simplistic. in modern (or should I say postmodern?) times, the emphasis on the cult of the leader has been replaced by the cult of the elites, i.e., the dominance of the global corporation. this is the significance of the New World Order with its emphasis on capitalism, and the creation of international bodies such as the WTO to enforce the privileged place of capital in the implementation and enforcement of policies that ensure its continued dominance. one further comment about Pound; he quite accurately saw the harmful effects of the concentration of wealth by large companies, banks and individuals. what he got wrong, obviously, was who controlled the money -- he, like many others, blamed it on the Jews, a claim that is as silly then as it is now. his embracing of fascism, and in particular the "big boss" concept (as Olson calls it) was in major part a reaction against the power of the monetary forces; remember, it was out of the ashes of WW1 that Pound hardened the core of his economical and political beliefs, a dimension that is frequently elided in the consideration of his errors, especially by those fathead minnows who are intent upon painting him with as broad and as dirty a brush as they can in their desire to present him as a talentless and crazed individual who constructed his concepts out of the ether while in the throes of petty jealousies. joe brennan...