> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>
>> In a nutshell, 1) I don't believe in "free speech for fascists" 2) I
>> don't
>> support state intervention to proscribe them,
>
> This guarantees misunderstanding. If you don't support state
> intervention, _then_ you DO believe in free speech for fascists. You are
> fighting the language, and fights against language are always losing
> fights, leading to the kind of confusion you describe. And this error in
> diction leads to confused political debate, because there ceases to be
> shared understanding when we turn to the question of leftists orgaizing
> to disrupt racist speeches and so forth. That discussion has to do with
> left tactics and their efficacy or inefficacy in given contexts, NOT
> with the question of free speech.
>
> Free speech _means_ no state interference. It has no other meaning. Do
> not use it in any other sense because if you do you will cause
> confusion.
-----------------------------
I'm not sure I follow you, Carrol. I've resolutely tried to explain that I
don't support state intervention because it invariably ends up being used
against the left, but that this is not tantamount to supporting free speech
for fascists, ie. allowing them a public platform. I'm for denying them that
platform through mass mobilizations from below. This latter is not
guaranteed to stop fascism if the relationship of forces is adverse for any
combination of reasons, but it is a more effective means for fighting
fascism than relying on state intervention. I thought this view was
confirmed historically, and was widely accepted by Marxists.
The confusion you bemoan doesn't have to do, I think, with the position described above, but with the abstract nature of the discussion itself: 1) there is today no polarization between a mass left and a mass right as there was in the 30's so the current discussion necessarily has an academic quality to it, removed from the practical questions people would recognize and deal with more coherently on the basis of their own experience, and 2) the concept of freedom of speech is treated by many in absolute rather than relative terms, so they are either unused to making the necessary distinctions - how the "principle" is dependent on context, on whose freedom is being defended and for what purpose - or, in fact, don't believe there should be any distinctions at all made with respect to the exercise of that right.