>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 10/06/99 11:53AM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>I thought there were libertarians on this list. Some of the militia
>groups in the U.S. are libertarian/anarchist, and some people here
>don't like criticism of the militias because of that.
Charles, old comrade, that's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it is that some people, me among them, objected to characterization of "militia groups" as quasi- or crypto- or unmodified-fascist. They're not. Some of them are as organizations, and some members of them are as individuals, but most are deeply individualistic and anti-statist. If fascism means anything it means a powerful state, and these people despise the state.
(((((((((((
Charles: I am really not trying to be shitty here. Just trying move along a repeating theme.
Before having anything to do with this list , I have been paying attention to the militias. I have no problem with the idea that they have a range of opinon among them -afterall that is sort of what their anti-centralism is all about. But it is not that illogical to see that given that freedom of opinion, some rightwingers are members. As I said once before, one of the top leaders of the Michigan Militia said on the radio here that he had concerns about kkk-types joining his groups. That they were members. Do you disbelieve me when I report that ? I don't want it to be true, but totally outside of this thread, that is factual information that came to me.
On anti-statism and fascism, THE main fascistic U.S. tradition, the old Southern Confederacy, was premised on an anti-federal government, states rights philosophy. So the miliita theme of being anti-federal government in no way prevents them from having U.S. style confederate elements, such as the KKKtypes as members. The idea that the Center for Democratic Renewal, Chip Berlet , Russ Bellant and the other left specialists who study this are just all wrong about it is not very likely. There is quite a bit of evidence of crypto, quasi fascism mixed into the militia movement. I mean what would you call Timothy McVeigh and his buddies from Michigan ? How about Mark from Michigan ? McVeigh blew up that federal building based on an anti-statist ideology.
Being anti-statist and deeply individualistic is not, of course, the same as being fascist. I am certain that many people who focus this way politically are anti-fascist, in fact. But there is enormous evidence , that these focusses are also compatible with being rightwing and even fascistic.
Ronald Reagan considered himself anti-government (statist) and individualistic , for christsake. I am not making an extraordinary claim here. The Ruby Ridge guys were explicitly fascistic racists.
I don't think you would tolerate any fascistic racists on this list, but I think you all have to be a little more honest about the wide range of views, from left to right, that are compatible with "anti-statist/deeply individualistic" in real life. Look at the evidence.
((((((((((((((
Many of us, me among them, are social libertarians, in that we believe that consenting adults should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to without complaint or interference from cops or neighbors. But that's another story.
(((((((((((
Charles: Yes, I have gathered that. But I this is a pretty old political philosophical issue. The whole American Revolution was heavily anarchist ( the government that governs least , governs best, the Minute Men and all that) in a progressive way. So, anybody who has paid attention to basic U.S. history has been over these political philosophical issues before, as I have many times.
Without being pejorative , I would characterize the above as a bourgeois principle of freedom. It is centered on absence of restraint of the individual. It is definitely an advance over feudalism. The Marxist critique of it does not seek to obliterate this bourgeois advance of freedom, rather to sublate it ( preserve and overcome it). The flaw in this concept is the centering on the individual , when the human individual is a social individual. This is analogous to the critique of the Robinsonades or rational man (sic) of bourgeois political economy. The Marxist concept of freedom is enabling to do while preserving absence of restraint. The CPUSA idea of Bill of Rights Socialism is an effort to make this synthesis, for example, the Bill of Rights being an important example of a charter of individual freedoms.
See _Democracy, Revolution and Freedom_ by Herbert Aptheker for example.
Again, I am not trying to be nasty, but lets not reinvent the wheel of this very old debate. Lets start from its long acknowledged points of difference, if we are to have it.
CB