Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> Subject: RE: Hi,
In many ways this is simply fetishization of antiquated terms used by Marx. How is Chris' description of Bonapartism different from what is now called right-wing populism by contemporary sociologists, political scientists and historians? Especially the idea of popular cross-class anti-regime rhetoric during a crisis of legitimacy such as described by Habermas?
A lot of the criticism of what I am saying seems to be essentially complaints that I don't use the exact language used by Marx.
Well, so what?
Perhaps Chris can articulate where there is a real difference between Bonapartism and right-wing populism.
Perhaps Hakki can show where my definition of fascism actually conficts with anything said by Renton, instead of using insulting personal attacks and smears.
I don't get it.
^^^^^^^^^^
CB: Because there is a difference between Marxist and bourgeois sociology, political science and history. You are not claiming that you have a Marxist analysis, class and otherwise, but just use different words for the same concepts. It is not that you don't use Marxist terminology. You don't use Marxist analysis. So , of course Marxists are going to criticize your theory of fascism. It's like you are pretending that there isn't a distinct Marxist sociology, poli sci, historical science in 2002 that would be critical of your perspective on fascism. Marxism won't go away by pretending it is not there and you are the only one in the field.