Really glad you cleared that up, Ed, because I read your post as trivializing the idea that the Taliban and al Qaeda are fascist or even that big a problem since you said "The idea that the Taliban is a fascist and expansionist threat...doesn't hold water" and seemed to suggest they are merely second-rate authoritarians with a local focus, which is odd given what they have been doing with jet airplanes and buildings of late.
So I assume from what you say here that you do not agree that the Taliban and al Qaeda are fascist? OK, but it's not just liberal apologists for war who can frame a good argument that they are indeed fascists. Some of us were working on this before 911.
You also seem to be saying that Red-baiting people on the left who refused to denounce the North Vietnamese because of their communist views is the same as criticizing people on the left who refuse to denounce fascism? I am worried with that comparision. Defending communism is the same for a leftist as defending fascism? That seems to lead to the idea of a left-right coalition to smash capitalist imperialism. Of course, the Strasser brothers already thought of that. So educate us, what is your theory of the wisdom of building the Red/Brown alliance against capitalist expansion? Are you happy with the left/right coalition suggestions of Justin R. and his antiwar.com?
It might be useful if you and Louis read some of the new theories written in the past 40 years about fascism, since there has been quite a lot of interesting research that calls into questions some of the earlier assumptions by the Cominterm and Trotsky (who, incidently, Louis, disagreed on the nature of fascism). For a start, the books by Eatwell and Griffin and Fritzsche. There was a long discussion here on this list about fascism, and I offer my views about clerical fascism and Islamic supremacy at: http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.htm
As for the war crimes of the Serbian thugs, I relied on a lot of non-mainstream material, and liked Michael A. Sells, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia; and also found especially useful the debate between Noam Chomsky and Jared Israel at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anarchism/message/3389 where Israel denounced Noam Chomsky for opposing both NATO bombing and Serbian war crimes. So please forward you condemnation of this approach to Mr. Chomsky for his reaction.
When the choice is between capitalist imperialism and fascist aggression I check the box marked "none of the above." Why is that not a respectable left position?
Sincerely,
-Chip Berlet
-----Original Message----- From: Ed Herman [mailto:hermane at wharton.upenn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:08 PM To: cberlet at igc.org Cc: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Herman on Hitchens
Dear Chip Berlet:
Chip, your remarks on my critique show that you are a true master of the non-sequitur. I notice also that you sneer at Louis Proyect's views even before you have seen them, which does not speak for a very open mind.
Let me comment on each of your snippets-sneers below.
Ed Herman >
>
> >Status: U
> >From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >Subject: RE: Herman on Hitchens
> >Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:27:11 -0500
> >X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> >Importance: Normal
> >Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >
> >Sloppy Logic / Slurpy Argument Alert # 666
> >
> >Once more for the thrill of it:
> >
> >Just because Hitchens abuses the term fascist does not refute its
accuracy
> >in terms of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
> >
--REPLY: No it doesn't, that remains an open question for discussion, but
the inference that anybody suggested that his abuse refutes the claim is a
simple logical non-sequitur.
> >Just because Hitchens uses the fascist to promote the US war does not
mean
> >all those who call the Taliban and Al Qaeda fascist support the US war.
> >REPLY: Nobody says it does, so you have another pure non-sequitur to your
account.
> >Just because Clinton was "getting" the Serb fascists through NATO and
> >criminal bombing raids, does not refute that some of the Serb leadership
> >were fascists.
> >REPLY: Again a straightforward non-sequitur, although the empirical
question is debatable and I am sure we would disagree on this. But did you
ever read Susan Woodward's book Balkan Tragedy, or the books by Lenard
Cohen, or Steven Burg and Paul Shoup, or the writings of Robert Hayden and
David Chandler, or did you rely on the NYT and David Rieff and company?
> >Just because some of us called the Serbian thugs "fascists" did not mean
we
> >supported the NATO/US bombing.
> >REPLY: You are batting 4 for 4 in non-sequiturs, although whether your
designation of the Serbian thugs as fascists is an empirical and
definitional question.
> >Just because the NATO attacks and the bombing were wrong, does not mean
that
> >we should be apologists for Serbian Orthodox fascism, (or Croat Catholic
> >fascism or Kosovar Islamic fascism).
> >REPLY: Another non-sequitur, as I never implied that we should be
apologists. There is however the question of what makes one an
"apologist"--if I denounce the sanctions of mass destruction imposed on
Iraq, am I an apologist if I don't also immediately say that Saddam
Hussein is a nasty dictator? If you denounce some domestic fascists in
the United States who have just been arrested for a racist murder, are you
an apologist for the U.S. government if you don't point out its oftentimes
criminal failings and historic collusion with racist violence?
> >Just because the US attack on and bombing of Afghanistan were wrong, does
> >not mean that we should be apologists for Islamic forms of fascism.
> >REPLY: Still batting a thousand as a master of the non-sequitur.
> >I find it sad for the left that Herman has to become an apologist for
ethnic
> >fascists in order to criticize US imperialism.
> >REPLY: You are a damned liar to suggest that I have become such an
apologist; I think the Bin Laden operation is monstrous and the Taliban a
really vicious and sick government. Nothing I have said and nothing that you
cite contradicts this. As I have been pointing out for each of your
remarks, your logical powers are weak, and your supposition that if I
criticize an imperial attack and question somebody's particular designation
of the Taliban and Bin Laden as inaccurate this makes me an apologist is a
nasty bit of illogic. During the Vietnam war many of us who assailed the US
attack were regularly chided by people who insisted that we equally denounce
the NLF and government of North Vietnam, and if we didn't do this regularly
to provide "balance," we were apologists. You are an heir of that great
tradition.
> >How about NO to both imperialism and fascism...is that too much to ask?
> >REPLY: What a broad-minded fellow you are. The rest of us can't follow in
such big footsteps.
> >-Chip Berlet
> >
> >p.s. anyone have Louis Proyect's note, I can hardly wait.
> >
REPLY: I wouldn't bother to read it Chip--you know all the answers
beforehand, definitively.
> >
> >==========================
> >
> >
> >> Subject: Herman on Hitchens
> >
> >> > Bush is attacking the
> >> >"Islamic fascists," just as Clinton was getting the "Serb
> >> >fascists," and that is all that counts for the new Hitchens.
> >
> ><<SNIP>>
> >
> >> >
> >> > The idea that the Taliban is a fascist and expansionist threat,
> >> >and that Islamic fundamentalism more broadly speaking is the same,
> >> >doesn't hold water (Louis Proyect's note to you deals with this
> >> >quite well). Hitchens has come to use "fascist" as an epithet to
> >> >apply to any enemy of the moment.
> >
> ><<SNIP>>
> >
> >>
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Ed Herman
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
>