Yes, Willy,you see, only scholars should talk about these matters, because if the untutored person does so , they might ,however innocently and accidently ,feed into the development of a fascist movement; because they aren't learned enough about the issues. I mean afterall, Hitler denounced the bourgeoisie in _Mein Kampf_. So, you have to be careful when you discuss the rich and their private clubs, or the next thing you know, the American fascist gangs will be inspired by Joseph Wanzala from Uganda and his oversimplified,individualized conceptions.
And one other thing: though the distinction between power structure research into elite cohorts and policy networking vs. oversimplified and individualized conspiracism derives from the classical Marxist approach to history ( anti-big man theory and all that), don't pay attention to any of the Communist Party analyses of fascism, like that of Dimitrov or Aptheker. Stick to the academics and moderate leftists ( see list below). Avoid class analyse. I mean there's a big difference between "elite cohorts and policy networking" and "conspiracies". The latter adds a gratuitous sinister connotation that just doesn't help in getting rational people to change things.
A key principle is never say the name of an individual capitalist or their agents; just refer to them anonymously as in structures and cohorts ( and certainly never as in any meetings together).
This is the only way that working masses will be inspired to follow ..what ?... well, not communists, but progressives in overthrowing capitalism. If you start naming capitalists, the masses will go fascist.
Charles
From: "Chip Berlet" Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Willy Greenfields
> I ask, is it the particular phrasing Joe W. uses or is
> it the general idea that power perpetuates and
> amplifies itself across private elitist networks that
> people object to? It seems a bit much to deride
> concern over organizations like this (and to invoke
> Gregor Strasser) when the organization's own members
> are discussing "Mandalay effects" and acknowledging
> that "the contacts are amazing."
>
The particular phrasing. More Birch Society and Buchanan (and the Strassers) than C. Wright Mills, G. William Domhoff, or Holly Sklar (or Doug Henwood). It is exactly the distinction between power structure research into elite cohorts and policy networking v. oversimplified and individualized conspiracism that I am exploring. Domhoff and Sklar have also written or spoken out about this distinction, and I was once on a scholarly conference panel discussing the problem and the distinction with both of them.
-Chip Berlet