>>> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> 11/22/99 06:23PM >>>
I sent the "please stop" e-mail after the one you responded to.
Here's why I don't think it makes sense to continue to debate you:
You argue that since "the Red Army inflicted the most damage on the fascists" then Dimitroff's definition of fascism must be accurate and historically proven.
Charles: Yes, it is better proof of the validity of his definition ( which is of course more elaborate than just that phrase) than any proof yet adduced here of the validity of the proof of your definition. This short response from me is appropriate in response to your empirically empty, conclusory dismissals of the party line. Of course , the evidence of the rightness of Dimitrov's analysis is much more extensive than just that. But it's a good start.
You said something about the petit bourgeoisie voting for the Nazis. I responded that that doesn't mean the petit bourgeoisie became the ruling class in fascism. In other words, it doesn't refute Dimitrov's definition. If you want Dimitrov's direct discussion of the role of the petit bourgeoisie in the struggle over fascsim, I'll copy it to the list.
I defy you to diagram this assertion using logic. It fails a simple logic test.
Charles: Here's the logical ( dialectical materialist logical) diagram:
The test of theory is practice ( Big Daddy).
The Communist theory of fascism worked in practice.
Therefore, the Communist theory of fascism passed the test.
You dismiss a 50,000 word monograph that took four years of research with the phrase "it did not refute my arguments." Clearly I disagree.
Charles: I don't know what 50,000 word monograph you are talking about. What are you referring to that speaks to Dimitrov and the Communists' struggle against fascism ? Communists have written many more than 50,000 words on the struggle against fascism.
Secondly, what did your theory of fascism do to destroy real fascism ? Where is the test of your 50,000 words ? Surely you don't think your 50,000 words defeated fascism.
Finally, put a summary of your argument on the list. I have looked at a couple of the links you have given, but I don't have to read all you point to. The links I did read had no arguments against Dimitrov's thesis. Your Preface to Russ Bellant's book, a general and theoretical discussion of fascsim, had no arguments against Dimitrov's thesis. I have not seen any words from you arguing specifically against Dimitrov's thesis or in support of your conclusory statements (petulantly) denigrating Dimitrov's thesis.
When I demonstrated that you misrepresented several posts about repression and democracy by substituting the word fascism, you say that I misrepresent what you have posted.
Charles: There were several posts in which I demonstrated that you misrepresented what I said. For example, you said I said Bush and Reagan were fascists. No, I say they were proto-fascists. And in the discussion about whether the Democrats or Republicans were more of a menace or threat to civil liberties, I said it was not true that the Dems were more of a threat. I said a threat of fascism, because there isn't much to the right of Reaganism but fascism, which I have given a definition of. But the point of that discussion was not "what exactly is fascism" , but are the Dems somehow more of a threat than the Reps for something worse happening in the U.S. ( and I can't see it getting much worse without it being fascism). That was why I gave the reference to Russ Bellant's book on actual fascists in the Republican party. But I gave a lot of other evidence too, of KKK influence in the Republican Party. You have said nothing about that. So, your quibbling over my use of "fasci! sm" was about something that was not the point of that dispute, not to mention I have repeatedly given a narrow definition of fascism, so your correction of my reference to it, as if I use it loosely, was off. Then at another point you claimed specifically that I use the term "fascism" loosely, at the same time spouting dogmatic anti-communist pronouncements about the failure of the party line-definition of fascism. But you haven't given any discussion of the party-line definition of fascism except to say that there is proof that some petit bourgeoisie voted for fascists. But that doesn't contradict Dimitrov's thesis. He knew that some petit bourgeoisie and workers were duped into supporting the fascists. But that doesn't mean that his claim that fascism really served reactionary sectors of finance capital is false.
When I show that you suggested reading a fantastic misrepresentation of the FEMA scandal posted by a right wing crank, you respond by saying the "the historical facts, evidence, of the conduct of the bourgeoisie, including the U.S. bourgeoisie with COINTELPRO, a historical and dialectical materialist would presume that there is such a plan...it is materialistic to give it credence."
Charles: Did you cut out some of what I said here ? Yea , you did.
I mean what are you saying? That the only evidence you look to in trying to figure out the secret actions of the U.S. government is that which comes from the mass media on only the particular thing you are looking at ? You don't think it is materialist to consider the entire picture of the system you are looking at, including past practices, draw general inferences which are the basis for presumptions, and then apply them in different circumstances ? Do you really think that you will be able to understand what the U.S. secret police are doing without such inferences based on partial evidence ? Do you really think the history of COINTELPRO and other U.S. secret police projects is irrelevant to deciding whether evidence of other secret police projects is valid ?
Even if the version you promote is garbage? Left/Right...it doesn't matter as long as we despise the bourgeoisie? That's the Buchanan/Fulani coalition rhetoric in a nutshell; (and it's part of an intra-elite battle anyway).
Charles: You will need more than 50,000 words to support the idea that what I am saying about FEMA or the proto-fascism of the Republican Party is the same as the ideas of the Buchanan/Fulani coalition in a nutshell. And your inferences certainly are a nut's shell. What makes you think Buchanan despises the bourgeoisie ? That's about as believable as that Hitler despised the bourgeoisie. Of course, since you don't realize that Nazism continued the bourgeoisie, not the petit bourgeoisie , as the ruling class, you aren't clear on all this.
Using this logic, the denunciation of global corporate capital by the fascist Third Position should be embraced by leftists...an idea that actually first surfaced in an infamous issue of Telos. May I recommend the work of Alain de Benoist?
Charles: You are the one who thinks the petit bourgeoisie were the ruling class in Nazism, implying that the Nazis' were sincere in denouncing the capitalists. Those of us who are clear that the fascists' rhetoric is saturated with demogogy can read it without being fooled in the least that the fascists are the agents of the big bourgeoisie.
For that matter, almost all the left claims regarding fascists or U.S. secret police are derived in part from rightwing sources such as disgruntled CIA agents or expressions from rightwingers (Russ Bellant attends KKK events, etc.) . So your whole work relies in part on rightwing sources.
You got the wrong one, fella.
Finally, your diatribe on the subject of "documentation" is charitably described as petulant whining. I refrained from posting my real feelings in deference to list rules of civility.
Charles: To be a diatribe, it would have to be a lot longer. It was more like a zinger. The petulance on this thread is from you.
Even you "refrained" postings are pretty obviously arrogant failures to comprehend you are dealing with a well thought out, logical and evidentiarily based argument from me, and the main anti-fascists in history , the communists. You still haven't said anything about what your theories of fascism, allegedly superior to that of communists, have done to stop or fight fascism. Do you have 50,000 words on the practice of your theory against fascism and what it has done to stop fascism or "threats to civil liberties and menaces" ?
I find your claim to be debating using the rules of logic to be surreal. There is no point in continuing. I feel like I am trapped in an episode of Sliders where I have landed on an alternate universe. We clearly have different ideas about what constitutes linear logic.
Charles: You probably are trapped in an episode of Sliders. But I am not. I am in the real world and my logic is quite good. I always got good grades in it in school and in other tests. Since then I have improved my skill in it. By the way, full logic is formal logic and dialectics, not all "linear".
The specific "logic" here is Communist demostrated by deed the validity of their understanding of fascism. For one thing, they were fighting it fiercely for many years while liberals and "lefts" were collaborating or ignoring it. You still haven't said what the proponents of your non-communist theory of the nature of fascism were doing when fascism existed, but it was not likely to be more "logical" than the Communist response. Anti-communism is highly illogical in the struggle against fascism.
Also, it is logical to make inferences about the U.S. secret police system based on the history of their practices and propensities. In evaluating the FEMA claim, it is logical to take "judicial" notice of a wide range of evidence, including that not directly on the FEMA alleged plot. Anyway, you say there was a FEMA plot, so you don't even disagree that there was a FEMA plot.
(((((((((((((( Please take one last shot at refuting my work with your views. I will not respond.
Then, PLEASE, let's agree to disagree.
Charles: Oh , how civil , yet contempuous in speech and behavior ( petulant) you are.
Quit whining, and I am not letting you off the hook.