>>> cberlet at igc.org 06/28/01 12:42PM >>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 5:34 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Defining Fascism
>
> cberlet at igc.org 06/27/01 04:28PM >>>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> So, far the Dimitrov's and the
> > Comintern's arguments are more persuasive to me than the one
> > you cite below.
>
> OK,
>
> ))))))))
>
> CharlesB: What do you mean " ok "? I gave readings and
> actions on fascism post-Comintern report. Admit you were wrong
>
> (((((
>
No thanks, all you did was post a list of people who repeated (avoiding the word "parrot" here) the claims of Dimitrov. Not new data or new ideas, just a broken record.
((((((((
CB: Aptheker, Patterson, Robeson and a number of others do not even mention Dimitrov , although Dimitrov is worth repeating. Aptheker discusses "new data" , not that you are correct that new data has refuted the old data.
(((((
>
> what sectors of big business and finance captial supported the NSDAP
> during the social movement phase led ideologically by the Strasser
> brothers?
>
> ((((((((
>
> CharlesB: I suppose you think this is a trick question
No, actually it was a question I wanted you to answer. You chose not to. OK.
(((((((((
CB: Answer it yourself.
))))))))
> On the demogogic "socialism" of the Nazis, like its
> "left-wing" Strasser brothers , perhaps you didn't read
> Dimitrov carefully enough:
>
> "What is the source of the influence of fascism over the
> masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it
> demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands.
> Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply
> ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better
> sentiments of the masses, on their sense of justice and
> sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Why do the
> German fascists, those lackeys of the bourgeoisie and mortal
> enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as
> "Socialists," and depict their accession to power as a
> "revolution"? Because they try to exploit the faith in
> revolution and the urge towards socialism that lives in the
> hearts of the mass of working people in Germany."
> How's that for a "slogan" ?
Great slogan, awful rhetorical writing, false data.
(((((((
CB: This rhetorical writing helped actually defeat fascism. Has your rhetorical writing accomplished as much ? You haven't won on the data argument.
(((((((
It turns out that while there was some working class support for the NSDAP, and some support in all socioeconomic sectors, the great bulk of support for the Nazis came from the middle class Burgher parties.
((((((
CB: The big bourgeoisie are a small fraction of the population, smaller than the petit bourgeoisie. So, it is not in contradiction with Dimitrov's thesis that the mass support for the Nazis would be petit bourgeoiisie. In non-fascist bourgeois states the mass support for the bourgeois parties is not from the big bourgeoisie either, because the big bourgeoisie are 1% of the population .Theory, theory , theory.
((((((9
Thanks so much for demonstrating that you know how to surf the web and cut and paste text. I am delighted for you. Alas, there is no content or debate.
((((((((((
CB: I am not obligated to give you content on every post. You haven't responded to any of the content I gave you so far. You are the one who has to give some answers , not me. You put a bunch of nonesense here how Mussolini and Goebbels give the basis for a theoretical understanding of fascism. That's your debate. Goebbels' argument.
(((((((
Is it your contention that Otto and Gregor were not actually socialists at one point? Is it your contention that Mussolini was not actually a socialist at one point?
(((((((((
CB: It is my contention that as fascists the Fascists and Nazis were not socialists, so any reference to some socialists who were duped into allying with the future Fascists and Nazis , and any lack of big bourgeois money support for said duped socialists is not an argument that the Fascists and Nazis were not supported by big bourgeoisie, finance capitalists in the Leninist sense of finance capitalists.
((((((
The militia did not bomb the federal building. It's like confusin socialists with communists. Egad! You would never do that on the left, why do you think it is OK to do it on the right?
(((((((((
CB: Well, lots of former members of the Michigan militias think that McVeigh was too much a part of the militias , because they quit the Michigan militias in groves after the bombing.
Like confusing socialists with communists ? I think you mean Democrats and Republicans.
(((((((((
>
> There have been no acts of militia terrorism,
> and only a handful of arrests for what amounts largely to barroom
> bravado.
>
> The OKC bombing was carried out by a neonazi. He was trying to punish
> the government and recruit out of the militia movement. Most of the
> people in the militia movement were not fascists much less neonazis.
>
> ((((((((((
>
> CharlesB: Oh most weren't , but some were ?
>
> ((((((((
>
Actually...yes.
(((((((
CB: Like McVeigh
>
>
> Demonizing the (wretched) militia movement as fascist
> encouraged passage
> of the 1996 legislation that eroded civil liberties for all of us, but
> esecially Arabs, Arab-Americans, and Muslims, who have been
> hit by that
> law the hardest. Remember the Brown Scare? It provided the legal basis
> for what later became the Red Scare. The CP supported legislation
> against "fascists" that was later used against communists and a whole
> range of liberals and progressives. So much for the historical success
> of your theoretical base. Frankly, Trotsky (God forgive me...) was
> closer to an accurate analysis of fascism than the Comintern.
>
> ((((((((((
>
> CharlesB: What are they your pet little nice militias ? Lie
> down with dogs and you catch flees.
Now Charles, I am not a fan of the militias and you know it. Get a grip.
((((((((
CB: I was correct to warn the Detroit NAACP on more militancy against militia terrorism right before the bombing. That was the original thing I said that you went off on a tangent regarding how the militias weren't that bad.
)))))))
> Remember Father Coghlin and the 1943 white race riot in
> Detroit ? Remember , the KKK and all those lynchings of Black
> people. ? Remember the KKK marching in D.C. in the 20's ?
> Remember Henry Ford with a picture of Hitler on his office wall ?
>
> ((((((((((
>
The KKK in the 1920's was not fascist. It certainly was racist and antisemitic. It was also largely anti-Catholic. Coughlin inverted this and became a Catholic right-wing populist who drifted into fascism. Actually, Hitler and his pals learned some of their antisemitism from Fo rd, not the other way around.
(((((((((((
CB: The KKK in the 1920's were proto-fascists in the way Hitler and his grouping were. The only reason they weren't full blown fascists is that they didn't take state power. You can't wait until proto-fascists take state power to identify them , because then it's too late. Same with the militias today. You can't wait until they get powerful enough to really be state power fascists. There is not premature anti-fascism. Get it ?
The analysis of fascism is not an academic, publishing project. The thing is to change it , i.e. to prevent or eradicate it.
((((((((
> Repeating a 70-year-old slogan over and over again is not debate.
> Dimitrov want a cracker?
>
> ((((((((
>
> CB: Can't you think up any other insults ? Perhaps you are
> having trouble noticing all the other things I said in
> response to what you said, and are fixated on the first line
> or something. but Dimitrov and I said quite a bit more than
> what you call a slogan, which was a definition as was being
> discussed on the thread.
Actually, I am quit adept at thinking up insults. I pride myself on it. But what would be the point?
(((((((((
CB: Actually, when you say my arguments here sound like a parrot you are a chicken , afraid to engage the substance of what I am saying.
>
> :-)
>
> -Chip
>
> Note change in heading to reflect content
>
> ((((((((((
>
> CharlesB: Note five to ten paragraphs more of discussion
> beyond and in elaboration of initial definition given. That's
> "definition" as in "defining fascism".
Sorry, I can't find the discussion you claim has happened. Where is it?
((((((((((
CB: You are losing the argument , and don't know it.