----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Clerical Fascism & Totalitarianism
> In his own defense, Chip B writes:
> >OK Kelley, explain to me the point of having a serious >discussion with
> >someone who claims the terms you use have no meaning, >refuses to allow you
> >to define the terms, or consider other definitions, and then >provides a
> tiny
> >snippet of a quote and challenges you to rise above your >sophomoric" level
> >and state categorically (in 400 words or less) whether or >not the person
> >being quoted is representative of the term. Its absurd and >insulting. It
> is
> >not a serious discussion. And in both cases, nonetheless, I >attempted to
> >give an answer.
>
> A use of the 'facts' that any propagandist would love.
Actualy, I thought it was an accurate summary. But I try to answer your points below.
>
> First, I never quoted you in whole or snippet form at the start of the
> latest exchange. I provided two entire articles, one an interview with Ben
> Bella and the other an article that clearly incorporated an interview of VS
> Naipaul in which he was probably relating his work 'Beyond Belief' with
> current events. Why you thought they referred to you or that you owned the
> whole thread reveals quite a bit about your personality, though.
>
Probably I thought it referred to me because I started the thread and kept insisiting on using definitions. Nor did I mean that you had quoted me "in whole or snippet form." Analyzing anything on the basis of one article is to walk on thin ice. I offered what I though appropriate. Short responses to short material.
> Second, I'm not saying the terms you use have no meaning. I'm questioning
> whether or not your use of them has anything but taxonomic function at
> conferences about clerical fascism--sure, that's rather ungenerous, but look
> at what you yourself have just written.
Well, I posted why my desire to explore the issues was practical and not merely lofty intellectualism, but you just made fun of me again. Yes...it's not generous.
> Classify o.k. But then use them in
> sufficient context and use them to explain the phenomena they describe (more
> on this at another time). That was the whole point of what I wrote about not
> using the strategy, 'define your terms' (I wasn't going to use it on you, I
> wasn't going to make you run in circles defining your terms). I was
> deferring to your background and your special use of the terms.
>
> Third, you certainly responded sophomorically (hint, turn off the quote
> machine, read it, and then resond; advice I will try to follow myself).
>
> Fourth, how 'intellectual' is it to blow off Naipual in one sentence (at
> least I didn't recount how many books by Naipaul I've read).
I didn't blow off Naipual in one sentence. And like Wagner, I think his artistic achievements transcend his particular politics. I said that there was a difference between being a bigoted nationalist and a fascist. I don't think all Islamic fundamentalists are fascists. If you want to start a thread on Islamic fundamentalism in general and Naipual's Hindu nationalist version of that analysis, it would be quite interesting. But then you should have a discussion with Nikhil Aziz in our office who wrote his dissertation on grassroots movements for economic justice in India and has a huge collection of books on Hindu nationalism which he an others view as a right-wing ethno-nationalist movement spreading bigotry against Muslims in India and breaking up the grassroots multi-ethnic movements he studied. Nikhil introduced me to the subject. But the BJP is hardly fascist at this stage, although it could shift as some movements do. Right-wing populist movements can shift toward the extreme right and fascism, or back toward reform, or remain dissident. But to quote Rushdie (hardly a fan of Ismalic fundamentalism) ''When Naipaul writes articles which the BJP can use as recruiting material, it's a problem.''
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/05rushdie.htm
And while it would be interesting to disect Naipual (who is otherwise brilliant) on Muslim fundamentalism it would be like trying to analyze the theories of a racist segregationist about the origins of the civil rights movement. I have a bunch of books like that, and while fascinating in a repulsive sort of way, they do not actually offer any meaningful insights into the civil rights movement, although they reveal much about the segregationist mindset.
> Finally, I'm not an anti-intellectual and am glad I can ply a trade and
> still be an independent scholar. I've published over 50 articles in my areas
> of speciality (language education, linguistics), but that hardly means I'm
> going to overwhelm you with sources about them unless you ask.
>
Actually, it would be nice if you plyed me with a few sources on the topic we are discussing.
:-)
-Chip Berlet