====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I didn't know that the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini were so wholesome, wholesomeness that is as long as you were not Jewish, a socialist, a trade unionist, gay, Roma etc. I did however know about Mussolini's roots as a "left wing" socialist, a process I see repeated at times on a smaller scale with former orthodox marxist types like Lyndon LaRouche. What I mean by pettifoggery is making a big theoretical deal about things that represent a distinction without a difference and have the danger of coming across as sterile, complacent and lacking in solidarity: like talking to the family of a homicide victim about the differences between first and second degree murder and manslaughter etc. Clearly the business end of the Greek dictatorship and Hitler and Mussolini, whom these guys openly admired, was of little difference: a naked gangster rule of force by the privileged classes over the workers and popular masses who are deprived of all democratic and constitutional rights, with the latter being overthrown. Thus folks using the terms fascism interchangeably with right wing military dictatorship is understandable and healthy, and not that terribly inaccurate, with those who would upbraid them setting themselves up for being misinterpreted as neo-con or otherwise suspect intellectual apologists. Thus we had a whole cadre of bourgois apologists making those kinds of arguments about Latin American dictatorships: don't worry, not really fascist, actually a real economic "miracle" at work etc. etc (or as that windbag Eric Sevareid put it, Chile's regime is an "obstacle to freedom" while the regime of that demon Castro is the "totalitarian" "complete absence of freedom"). Hippies and ultralefts in the 60s and 70s who loudly screamed that the US or West Germany were fascist or that bourgois democracy is fascist or that the "trots" were fascist were obviously engaging in hyperbole that if taken seriously could have and did lead to serious errors. It was in that context of the late 60s that trotskyists properly talked about the irresponsible use of the term. Moreover, to go beyond that to say that a military dictatorship was not even a dictatorship-and that's what I recall you saying?-is incorrect on its own terms and politically wrong. I remember as an kid in 6th or 7th grade in boarding school circa 1965 reading an article in Readers Digest about how Brazil had "defeated the Communists" in which the junta and the military were praised as patriots who had reluctantly intervened to prevent those satanic "Communists" from winning national elections through their nefarious trickery and who had through their courageous intervention had kept that country in "The Free World". The article was candid enough, however, to concede that it was a dictatorship in the common sense of that term, albeit a temporary one that was sadly needed as a lesser evil to Brazil "going communist". On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, rrpompeu <rrpom...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > > Well, Tom, I see that you consider "pettifoggery" an opinion that you do > not agree with. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
