>So we were sitting in the office at Political
>Research Associates today watching
>as an "anti-imperialist" post by US fascist leader
>David Duke was being posted
>and cross-posted uncritically as useful rhetoric on
>left list after left list. And you wonder why people
>like Doug Kellner, Robert Antonio, Janet Biehl, Mark
>Rupert, Peter Staudenmaier, Allen Hunter, and me find
>a need to warn people on the left that not every
>enemy of globalization and US bullying is a
>progressive or an appropriate ally? Fascists are
>actively trying to recruit from the left. A
>warning seems appropriate.
Before we get too far, could you explain why this paragraph has anything to do with what I wrote? I pointed out that, in terms of the debate over the meaning of fascism, the one you were having with JAnnuzi, it did not support your position in any way. Kellner used the term fascism. He was also cautious about using it because he's not sure who is behind the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Kellner does not explain why they are to be called fascists, nor does he take up the debate over what constitutes fascism.
Kellner's only reference to you was to tell the reader that you call them "clerical fascists." However, he also referred to another author who describes it as "reactionary tribalism." It seems to me that, if Kellner gives equal weight to both expressions, then he isn't committed to the term fascism, particularly since he hasn't explained whether there are any differeneces between "clerical fascism" and "reactionary tribalism."
Given that he seems to have no special commitment to the word fascism, then I can't see how it supports what you've said in your discussion with Jannuzzi.