>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net>
> >i have been pushing people to address their claims that the left must fight
> >(violently) fascists with their failure to acknowledge that these folks are
> >proto-fascists. what you're asking is that we allow the forces of fascism
> >to emerge because it is apparently only that crisis that will be THE
> >contradiction that will force a viable, strong left to emerge.
> >
> >that's fine with me. i want certain people to speak honestly and directly
> >about that instead of hiding it.
>
>
>Well, Kelley, in the first place, I don't think people like the Taliban, the
>Saudi family, or the Islamic republic of Iran -are- fascists in any
>reasonable sense. But they aren't progressives, and I have no trouble
>labeling the Taliban and the Saudi family as reactionaries. But what is
>this business of allowing the forces to emerge? They DID emerge. The U.S.
>government helped them emerge. So now what? Who is going to put them back
>in the bottle? The U.S. government again?
my bad. we'd had a discussion here in which chip has said that they are fascists. i call them proto fascists since i also dislike the too easy use of the term fascism. that said, my discussion her is referencing an earlier and on going thread on fasicsm. in a reply on the thread yoshie maintained, to dennis on a thread about your party's support of china, that the duty of the left was to beat back fascist states with armed insurrection.
now, i happen to think that whether or not al Qaeda et al can be called fascists, they are nothing more and nothing less than the Joseph DeMaistres of their region. they are reactionaries who happen to want to take the reigns of capitalist power.
so, i'm talking about the dilemma involved when you see the conditions brewing for proto fascist movements to turn into fascists states. i see that happening in the ME no matter what happens. but leaving the ME will, i think, mean that inevitably. and i refuse to hide behind the cover you do: well it won't happen over night. no, if you want the US out of the ME, then you think in terms of what were to happen if we skiddaddled but fast. after all, is there a reason to linger, from a left point of view? (not from the view of the administration or from the view of empire. you have to here take the view of the LEFT were it to get it's way and follow thru on the consequences of getting its way.)
>The choice is not between U.S.-supported democracy today and reactionaries
>tomorrow. The choice is between reactionaries today, backed up by the U.S.,
>and "somebody" tomorrow, possibly including reactionaries, but -without-
>U.S. backing. The second is better than the first! And two more points:
>
>(a) this business of welcoming fascism in order to provoke a crisis that
>will advance the left is an old European ultraleft idea, but it's not mine.
>What I'm talking about is allowing the ordinary forces of national
>development to proceed.
ok. as long as you admit that it will probably kill just as many people as empire.
>(b) as to forcing the left to emerge, the left emerged in the Middle East
>long ago, and it is only the U.S. and its local satraps which have forced it
>back underground. From 1978 to 1992 there was a secular government in
>Afghanistan, which was like a golden age compared to the Taliban.
>Furthermore, as Carrol emphasized, and as I re-emphasize, the 'empire' is
>not going to go away tomorrow. There is a very long struggle ahead, and
>it's entirely possible that the left will re-emerge IN THAT STRUGGLE. By
>the time the empire really DOES retreat, there may be much better
>successors on the scene than the royal Saudis and the Taliban.
>
>lp
this is just ungenerous nitpicking. i don't disagree. i'd just like an acknowledgement that just as much violence will occur, that just as much blood with be shed. at least when yoshie raved on about opportunities for the left she had a pithy comment about how it presented threats as well. she wouldn't identify them, but she at least acknowledged them
putting forth these solutions is fine, but the attempt to smooth over the actual difficulties and i should hope moral difficulties of taking the position you've taken is unconscionable. just as unconscionable as those who support the cops and courts position without acknowledging that that goal will ultimately entail force and violence.
okay, i'm wasting too much time. i have projets due. later later all you smart people, you.
kelley