That's got nothing to do with my comment. I wrote that intellectuals who demonstrate more sympathy for the historical right than the historical left, as Chris appears to, are very likely to go in that direction if and when the choice is forced upon them, notwithstanding a stance of dispassionate "critical inquiry" outside of such periods.
> Chris is saying, let's try to analyze fascism as history, with a
> dispassion that wasn't possible in 1936. Your response seems to be - no,
> let's talk about that history with all the blinding passion of 1936, as if
> what we say now could still weaken the struggle against the encroaching
> brownshirts.
I'm afraid you're the one using charged language. I don't see brownshirts over the horizon, and am not trying to rouse the list against them. I'm as committed to a proper understanding of fascism as you and Chris. However, on the basis of what I know to date, I have a less benign view of the movement than Chris does, and perhaps yourself. That doesn't mean, as you infer, that I'm so consumed by "blind passion" as to be unable to examine fascism rationally and in it's historical context. I've tried to do so on several occasions, including this most recent.
> Is it the job of a left intellectual to fife and drum for 60 year old
> battles and never try to see things more clearly than was possible for
> those who found themselves in the thick of the fight?
You don't expect an affirmative reply from me - especially about being a fife and drummer - do you? But I will say that part of seeing clearly is being able able to distinguish between those traditions which reflect our values and those which directly conflict with them. If I felt more sympathy for Mussolini's Italy than for Castro's Cuba, I would sincerely wonder what my purpose was on a left-wing list.