Let me address these points as they come up.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Proto-fascist structure
>
> >>> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> 11/19/99 05:35PM >>
> Not all political repression is fascism. Not even all military
dictatorships
> are fascist. You use the term fascism too loosely to be valuable in a
> serious discussion.
>
> (((((((((
>
> Charles: Your logic is backward. My definition of fascism is
>narrower than yours. Your Preface to Russ Bellant's book
>has a definition with about 13 elements in it, which is
>much looser than mine. So you end up backwards in this
>argument, claiming that I am
>being too loose, when I am being stricter than you are.
Charles:
>Communist Georgi Dimitroff [defined fascism]
>as the open terrorist rule of the most reactionary,
>chauvinist sectors of the financial oligarchy.
This definition was wretched when it was adopted as the Party Line, and it has only gotten worse with age. Recent historical research using computer crunching of voting patterns in Germany reveal that it was the petite bourgeois who in large numbers shifted votes to the Nazis, creating a situation where the ruling class chose the Nazis over the left.
> Your definition and approach do not focus on class.
Actually, it does, it just doesn't accept your overly simplistic idea that fascism is concocted in some board room by secret ruling elites. Fascism generally emerges as an autonomous populist mass movement of the right wing middle class, which then attracts support from other classes, primarily through scapegoating and demagogic anti-regime appeals. Gullible leftists, with crude anti-elite ideas, often jump on board.
>And because one Italian Fascist General was not anti-Semitic,
>you remove the aspect of racism from your long list.
>This is especially faulty when trying to apply the
>concept of "fascism" to the U.S. where
>racism is central to all historical issues.
This completely misrepresents my introduction to Bellan't book.
Charles:
> With respect to the above, I have never said all political
> repression is fascism. As a matter of fact I have counselled
>other posters in the past that not all tyranny is fascism.
>Many people get confused and call Stalinism fascism,
>and it is not, although it is a form of tyranny.
>Nor does my definition or approach say all military dictatorships are
fascist.
>
> I use the term "fascism" quite strictly, contrary to your
>claim that I use it loosely. And you have this issue upside down.
>
====
Let's start by examining an earlier thread:
Someone posed the argument:
>Clinton is a far worse menace to individual freedoms
>then all the militia men combined.
then there was a response:
>Clinton is more of a menace than Reagan, as well. Since what passes for the
Left
>was willing to stand up and fight Reaganism, but rolled over like a willing
>supplicant when the same meanness came dressed as Clintonism.
Charles Brown then responded with this:
>I want to criticize further this line that Clintonism and the
>Democrats are more of a fascist threat than
>Reaganism and the Republicans.
So it was you, Mr. Brown, who escalated a discussion of a "threat to individual freedoms" and a "menace" to "fascism."
====
> Chip:
> Just because a right wing crank says something bad about
> the government, you should not be so gullible as to believe it, much less
> suggest the drivel to others on this list. The secret team and secret
> government thesis, peddled by Danny Sheehan and the Christic Institute,
was
> sanitized conspiracy material from the Liberty Lobby and the LaRouche
> network.
>
> ((((((((((
>
> Charles: You can't prove that there wasn't a _secret_ FEMA plan.
>It would be secret. Better to presume that there is such a scheme.
This is outrageous. You can't prove a negative, it is a logical fallacy.
The FEMA plan was exposed by the Miami Herald, not some right wing conspiracy theorist. The right wing put a spin on it and this was adopted by Harry Martin, the right wing source you cited. A progressive analysis of the FEMA plan is available and I cited it. This article makes it clear that the "plan" was one of a series of readiness exercise scenarios that go back decades. For instance the US has plans for readiness exercise invasions by Canada and Mexico. North's use of FEMA posed a serious civil liberties threat. Let's not hyperbolize what was already bad, and depend on the right wing for our analysis of government repression. It is not better to presume the truth of all anti-government conspiracy theories circulated by the right. This position is disasterous.
Charles:
> As far as rightwing sources, most of Russ Bellant's sources are fascistic
rightwingers. He even goes to KKK rallies. Many of his sources on the Nazis
in the Republican Party are rightwing. He went to a World Anti-Communist
League Convention.
>
> Or for example, you quote Mussolini at the beginning of your Preface to
his book. Don't you consider Mussolini a rightwing source ? You also quote
Hitler in a highlight in that Preface. You give no indication that these
quotes are quoted as crackpot sources. You seem to think they give accurate
insights into fascism.
Chip:
Don't be silly, there is a difference between citing right wing sources in the form of quotes, or from their own meetings or publications; and citing right wing conspiracy theories uncritically as you have done.
Charles:
>Also, I think it is important to start naming names of actual individuals
who are the leaders of the ruling class , the ones pulling Reagan or
Clinton's strings. One of the unique characteristics of the bourgeois ruling
class, as compared to previous modes, is that they rule in relative
anonymity.
This is absurd, all you have to do is read Forbes magazine to see the contours of the ruling class. The fallacy here is that there is a united ruling class mechanically pulling wires that controlled Reagan and now control Clinton. This is so overly simplistic as to be a paraody of Marxism. I was once on a panel discussing the legacy of C. Wright Mills. The other panelists were G. William Domhoff and Holly Sklar. We all bemoned the fact that conspiracy theorists on the right and left misread systemic analysis and transform it into a hunt for "who controls everything."
Nobody "controls everyting." And the ruling class is seldom united on a specific policy.
We simply disagree.
-Chip Berlet