He, as people who are familiar with the conventions of the language and mailing list replies know, means you, Max.
>Here Ken tries to hide behind his Bolshevism::
>
>> Thus Max intends this repeated taunt as a fashionable form of
>redbaiting,
>seeking to split the antiwar into reasonable/liberal and
>revolutionary camps, and to demonize the latter in the eyes of
>the former, in order to weaken us all, whereas those on the left
>always seek to build the broadest front against imperialism. >
>
>But most Bolsheviks supported *the* war against fascism. It was
>only some misguided Trots and pacifists who were confused about
>it, and evidently still are.
Which "Bolsheviks," where and when? The Soviets stopped calling themselves Bolsheviks a while ago, and the flip-flops of CPs around the world depended on Stalin's foreign policy to decide whether they were for or against the war, not any sort of political analysis separate from that, as can be seen by the complete turn around, literally one day to the next, without internal discussion within the parties.
Communists in general were fighting fascism in Italy since 1919, and throughout Europe for more than a decade before the ruling classes of the West bothered. The Allies wandered into the war after Hitler wouldn't play a nicely as they thought he would. Even within WWII, the political question was never boiled down so quickly as you describe here.
The balance of your comments is to somehow make it seem as though socialists freely watched Hitler and other fascists romp across Europe, and that is a rather obvious lie. They were fighting fascism while the Allies were sending Hitler chocolate hearts and flowers.
>As for splitting, we all know it's in the eye of the beholder. I
>would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass the
>Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary defeatism
>or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted yesterday.
Compare the attitudes of the socialists that many of the rev-def folks looked to during Hitler's rise with the attitudes of your Allies during that same period. *Who* fails the Hitler test? The same people who are failing the Milosevic test right now. Way to go to to make sure the Kosovbars are slaughtered, that the anti-war forces within Serbia are marginalized (and by marginalized we mean hanged) and NATO ends up supporting the very ethnic borders that Milosevic wants, just like in Bosnia a few years ago.
With enemies like the US and NATO and you smoochy, Serbia doesn't need friends.
>To describe this as anti-communist red-baiting is a peculiar
>inversion of the history of the left, since the ranks of those
>who couldn't figure out why it was worthwhile to support the
>Allies against the Axis were always a tiny, albeit courageous
>minority.
Again, what left, where and whom?
>I have no optimism for the political future of my own peculiar
>views on this. I fully expect most of what passes for the left
>to go along with revolutionary apathy, as well as playing
>opportunistically to isolationist and racist currents among the
>general public, and abetted by the likely incompetence and
>inconstancy of U.S./EU policy.
Isolationist and racist currents like "Multiethnic communities in the Balkans can work." Yeah, that's real racist and isolationist.
>As for demonization, some here expect to get away with all manner
>of slurs against those with whom they disagree, but scratch them
>with, in this case, nothing more than a political attack
>exploiting their own phraseology, employing no greater pejorative
>than terms like "confused," and well its just boo hoo hoo.
Don't forget the explicit term "lunatic" or phraseology that boils down to "pandering to racism" or "too stupid to figure out that Hitler was bad." All of those are worse pejorative than confused. However, since you can't seem to remember what you wrote three paragraphs above, I'll be glad to call you a shit eater stationed under FDR's wheelchair and then deny I ever mentioned anything of the sort, but instead simply referred to you as "Li'l Dumplin'"
>> Thus, for example, during the Vietnam War we instigated and
>encouraged and
>abetted every form of resistance, and did all we could to
>undermine the effectiveness of U.S. armed forces. GIs deserted
>for every sort of reason,
>from heroic to cowardly and everything in between. We assisted
>them all, not
>because we adored cowards, but because our project was getting
>the U.S. out of Vietnam. Cowards we shipped off to Canada or
>Sweden . . . >>
>
>This is kind of special, isn't it? Anti-war deserters and
>expatriates as cowards? Here we must be dealing with a truly
>heroic figure. And if we forget we will be reminded.
Learn to read.
>> as quickly as we could, though even that entailed risks and
>cost precious resources. Heroes were put to work in the movement,
>either underground or with new identities, or sometimes, as they
>wished, in public protests that resulted in their loss of
>personal freedom for extended periods.>
>
>Here's a news flash for anyone too young to have been around
>then: it wasn't that bad. You could be actively anti-war and
>not worry too much about getting shipped off to an internment
>camp, though the possibility was periodically discussed, often
>with the aid of pharmaceutical enhancers.
Yeah, that's right. Deserters were never court martialed or put into the brig, or faced prison time, or did prison time. Who said anything about an internment camp other than you, FDR's personal chamberpot? Ken offered only a "loss of personal freedom" which normal everyday prison and the military brig both fit in to fine.
Perhaps in the alternate universe you lived in, deserters and apolitical war resisters were just given a pair of ripped jeans, a hooka and the keys to VW microbus by the government, but not this one.
>> Every mass mobilization against the war included marchers and
>banners and
>podium speakers from a spectrum of contrasting, sometimes
>conflicting, antiwar positions.>
>
>Ho hum.
>
Protest schmotest, kill all those swarthy little bastards, ain't that right Max?
>> The same principle holds here. Noam Chomsky's reasons for
>opposition to the U.S./NATO war against Serbia are not mine, but
>I hope he reaches and persuades millions, and to the extent he
>does, I salute him. Nor were the faith-based pacifists who
>performed some of the most effective opposition to the U.S. wars
>in El Salvador and Nicaragua motivated my the same principles as
>the Marxists with whom they joined hands, but we all recognized
>and thwarted attempts to divide our efforts as Max now tries to
>do.>
>
>You only salute him because he validates your position. He's
>just another useful idiot.
More Stalin baiting.
> What's really important is the way he gets there, with which you have nothing in >common, not where he ends up.
What a load. Chomsky showed how the US claims to be for peace while it actually consistently escalates the conflicts it claims interest in stopping. That is one of the arguments that was put up around here, to explain why it is feasible to consistenyl be against US intervention. While Chomsky's argument does not match completely Ken's or mine, it has a number of commonalities. Of course, a person who forgot he typed the word "lunatic" twelve seconds after doing so may not be able to figure that out.
>It's hard to practice entrism and third-periodism at the same
>time, isn't it?
Not that anyone is suggesting either.
>> For his part, Chomsky has a pretty good record of solidarity,
>without applying the kind of red/non-red test that Max urges his
>disciples to employ. >
>
>You don't have the franchise on red. The only test I proffered
>was the Hitler Test.
Yep, and you failed it by hanging your hat with the Allies, who just looooved Hitler for most of the 1930s. Go give the Fuhrer a big kiss for your employers, Max. *sm00ch*
>
>> Furthermore, Chomsky knows well, and doesn't hesitate to point
>out, that the most dangerous threat facing the people of the
>entire world is the ruling class and government of the United
>States. Our pro-war liberals never address that problem.>
>
>Yes I just love that war stuff. Gimme more war . . . bullets,
>bombs, the whole shootin' match. Glad you're against
>demonization. Are my horns showing?
Nah just your wide open mouth and empty head.
>I might talk more often about "the most dangerous threat facing
>the people of the entire world" if I thought there was some way
>of dealing with "it" in those terms, rather than on a less
>grandiose, self-important level.
Like being annoying on a mailing list?
>> I haven't seen Max protest when Doug Henwood gives thumbs up to
>his work, so the hypocrisy of his (Max's) latest attack on
>Marxists is evident.>
>
>I defy anyone to find one negative word in any post I have ever
>written about "marxists," "communists," or "socialists," though
>I've made clear I am none of the above. I'm even nice to Trots;
>would have to be, since I was one.
Sure, no prob:
>I would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass the
>Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary defeatism
>or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted yesterday.
I'd hope you recognize this quote, it is from the same post that you just wrote, the one where you defied anyone to find one negative word written about Marxists, communists and socialists.
So, do I win a Gummi Bust of Trotsky or a cotton candy goat?
>Since my work is free of ideological distraction, it has natural,
>universal appeal ( :-) ).
Like traffic accidents make everybody slow down.
>I sup with communists, socialists,
>anarchists, social-dems, liberals, populists, and free-thinkers
>of all types. Always have. You see, Ken old boy, most people
>think they are doing the right thing. So usually what they have
>to say is of some interest. It's the ones soaking in the
>uniqueness of their own righteousness who can be hard to take.
No kidding.
>
>> . . . Max seems to have a psychological need to cast himself
>as the sane guy surrounded by wackos. But face it, Max, most of
>your Beltway neighbors
>think your politics are pretty wacky too. >>
>
>Don't I know it. But if I thought most people on this list were
>wacko, I wouldn't be around. Or I would bother some other lists
>I could name where the sap runs thick. I don't even think Ken is
>wacko.
Yeah, you think he is a "lunatic." That is somehow different than whacko.
by the way, congratulations on all those bombs your NATO friends dropped on refugee centers last night. And Bill Clinton's colon is getting full again.