Louis Proyect wrote:
Although the two positions [in Stan Goff's articles] are not explicitly related, they do resonate with a line of reasoning found on the American left and more particularly with the Communist Party.
Can you substantiate this a little? I read both pieces and can't -- for the life of my children -- find that mysterious allegedly CP "line of reasoning." I don't think a dispute on the semantics of the category of fascism is likely to reveal much. So why not focus on the *content* or social mechanisms others are wishing to emphasize when they use the term or resort to analogies with Nazism and fascism? One mechanism that has been emphasized by Chomsky, Cuba, and Venezuela is the outright *formal* rejection of international law under Bush followed by the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq in the face of worldwide opposition. Looking at things from the perspective of working people all over the world, especially in this age of nuclear arsenals, this not to be underplayed. I just posted a couple of comments on Stan's blog. Although I'd now be less certain about things I thought I had all figured out back when I wrote it, I stand by the main conclusions in my old essay on the issue (http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html) and was glad to find that Stan's arguments are not *entirely* different from mine. I wished we really learned from past controversies. The least we should learn is that dishonesty in debating is a waste. Julio
