> This was not directed at you at all, but at the "posse of commissars" who
> explicitly said that my politics are not sufficiently "kosher" for this
> list
> and even suggested kicking me out altogether.
-----------------------------------------
Rise above it. :) That's a very small minority view, and it's easy for
others to think you've included them in the "posse of commissars", most of
whom don't view it as a compliment.
-----------------------------------------
> I am not denying that the two were going hand in hand. All I was saying
> that the two are analytically separable and that the freedom of nazi
> speech
> alone, i.e. not backed by paramilitary thugs, the deep pockets of German
> industrialists, and the "window of political opportunity" would not get
> the
> Nazis very far.
----------------------------------------
Agree.
-------------------------------------------
While we are at that, the nazis gained popularity not by
> their Jew- and Bolshevism- bashing rants, but by changing the tune and
> challenging the economic policies of the Weimar Republic and proposing
> alternatives - which started earning them votes.
-----------------------------------------
Don't really know how you'd disentangle the two in the consciousness of your
typical Nazi supporter, although it's true that until the economic issues
resonated, the racist aspect of their program wouldn't alone have propelled
them into power.
-----------------------------------------
That is to say, it is not
> their hate speech that the posse of commissars want to censor but their
> legitimate political-economic programme - which could not be censored in
> any
> democratic state - that was instrumental in the Nazi ascent to power.
--------------------------------------------
Huh? Don't know what you're getting at here.
--------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is that denying freedom of speech to fascists is a
> completely inconsequential symbolic act - that does nothing to stop them,
> but may inadvertently help their cause by giving them the aura of
> martyrdom
> - which they eagerly used to mobilize their supporters.
------------------------------------------
Again, it depends on what means are being used to try and stop the far
right.
I think it's accurate to describe hate legislation as mostly symbolic. It's easily circumvented; the group simply has to change its name. It's largely inconsequential in that it is imposed when there is no real danger of fascism in order to satisfy larger voting blocs who feel threatened or are otherwise offended by these cranks. In periods of crisis, when fascism can grow, it's in reaction to the growth of mass movements on the left. In these circumstances, the bourgeois state has no real interest in banning fascism, which it sees as an insurance policy against them. In general, I think it's an illusion for the left to think it can win and benefit from purely "anti-fascist" legislation. At best, it will get legislation against "extremists" who "preach hate" and "subscribe to violence" which could be used equally, if need be, against itself as well as the right.
But as concerns denying freedom of speech to the far right through mass action, here the impact is quite different. It's true, as you say, that attacking their rallies may well contribute to an aura of martyrdom and inspire their supporters. But in periods of crisis this consideration can only be incidental to the larger need to mobilize the vast body of anti-fascist forces and to imbue them with the confidence that fascism can be stopped. This can only happen in direct confrontation with fascism. The alternative is to leave the potential victims of fascism disorganized and dispirited, which was the fate of European Jewry and of all peoples who did not react in time to the rise of genocidal parties. Not to be overlooked is the large mass of people who are watching this struggle between left and right, and who, for reasons of self-preservation, will finally move towards the side which demonstrates it is the stronger. In these circumstances and through these means, denying freedom of speech to fascists is anything other than a "completely inconsequential symbolic act."
Of course, we're not in that situation, and until and if we are, so much of what the left says and does can seem merely symbolic and theatrical because its ideas were forged at a time when there were large mass movements and struggles, when these issues had an immediacy and relevancy they lack today.