I don't have to hunt her down, we correspond from time to time. I disagree with her on this point, but respect her work in general.
The FDR quote was not derived from the Comintern definition, nor do I believe I ever said it was.
It would be nice if you actually debated this issue.
You seem to be saying that if China is embracing capitalism, then its repression can be described as fascism. I think that view is simplistic and reductionist. I have tried to have a debate, but between Charles' nasty diatribes and your non-responsive posts, it is difficult.
I still am interested in whether or not you think it is fair to call the British National Front or the US National Alliance fascist. This is in addition to several other points you apparently have decided not to address.
I can live with your sneers, but you have little room to crow about them given your lack of serious participation in what I consider to be a serious debate. I would like to have a debate where we can all learn something. If you are not interested in this, then just drop the subject and I will as well.
Cheers.
-Chip Berlet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org> To: <lbo-Talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:36 AM Subject: Ivins on FDR on defining fascism
> Chip better hunt down Molly Ivins, since she's
distributing this definition
> of fascism in her July 4th column.
>
> "Our democracy is, as ever, in a parlous state. Our
politics are corrupted
> by legalized bribery, and the gap between the rich and
everybody else keeps
> getting worse. FDR once said: "The liberty of a
democracy is not safe if
> the people tolerate the growth of private power to a
point where it becomes
> stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its
essence, is
> Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a
group or by any
> controlling private power."
>
> Looks like Charles and I are not the only ones influenced
by the Comintern
> class definition of fascism. FDR appears to have suffered
the same malady,
> but then he didn't have the advantages of social science
hindsight :)
>
> Nathan Newman
> nathan at newman.org
> http://www.nathannewman.org
>