Suppose, one, that you want to classify contemporary America together with pre-war fascism. And suppose, two, that you have some reason for wanting to do this. Then, try to think, three, how you could do it without stumbling upon something that might give you pause.
Enter John Pilger, stage left. He it is – one – who wants to bring off that classification. But what could be his reason – two – for wanting this? You mean his reason other than just being John Pilger and so given to such heady comparisons? His reason is that he belongs to that segment of the left on which the US/interwar-fascism comparison goes down well. So why then – three – should he be worried about stumbling upon something that will give even him pause? Perhaps because he doesn’t want to make himself a total, as opposed to merely partial, laughing stock, and America today and Nazi Germany back then are, you know, radically different kinds of society and polity and culture and just about everything. Therefore, Pilger writes:
Historians seem to agree that the rise of fascism in Europe might have been averted had the liberal or left political class understood the true nature of its enemy. The parallels today are very different, but the Damocles sword over [Edward] Snowden, like the casual abduction of Bolivia’s president, ought to stir us into recognising the true nature of the enemy.
Snowden’s revelations are not merely about privacy, or civil liberty, or even mass spying. They are about the unmentionable: that the democratic facades of the US now barely conceal a systematic gangsterism historically identified with, if not necessarily the same as, fascism.
I’ll point out what should have leapt out at you anyway: first, ‘the parallels today are very different’ (but they’re there, comrade, they’re there); second, ‘gangsterism historically identified with, if not necessarily the same as, fascism’. Can’t you see what he’s trying to tell you? That contemporary America is like pre-war fascism: just enough like it that you should be able to recognize ‘the true nature of the enemy’; but, on the other hand, not so much like it that he can be accused of saying ‘the same as‘.
Good game, or what?