. From: Jim Devine I'm afraid that the use of the phrase "premature anti-fascism" is dressing up a problem with too much glory. The "premature anti-fascists" of an earlier era were CPers, Trotskyists, socialists, etc. who went to Spain to fight France during the Civil War. They were then persecuted, even though the US turned against fascism.
^^^^^ CB: I use "premature anti-fascism" sarcastically, a humorous allusion to the historic example. Sarcastically, as in sort of saying "you say raising alarms about fascism is too early like the ones in the thirties who said raising the alarm was too early." So, it's not "glorious" logic but comedic logic. ^^^^^^ Jim D: The people nowadays who yell about fascism ^^^^ CB: Your claim that people are "yelling" it is telling. It is a subtle misrepresentation of those using the term so as to characterize them as "wild" , overly emotional, or that their thinking is distorted by their emotion. I'm not "yelling" about fascism anymore than you are yelling about any of the analysis you do. Your misrepresentation that people are "yelling" it so as to characterize use of "fascist" as unclear thinking distorted by emotion is not confined to you. Most of those who counter users of "fascism" want to characterize the use as "wild" and "yelling". ^^^^^ Jim D. seem to be saying we have fascism right now, or on the road to it. ^^^^^ CB: Whatever. There is a danger of it. That's sufficient to talk about it and not disdain the use of the term. ^^^^^^ Maybe, but I think the kind of "fascism" we may be having right now is very different from that of the 1930s (and is especially different from the German brand of fascism). ^^^^^^ CB: This is the issue in dispute: how much what is happening today is like what happened in the 1930's. You are assuming as true your position in the argument. That's known as begging the question, in technical logic. It is a circular argument. ^^^^^ Jim D. The folks who yell about fascism seem to be using the word as a more emotive word for "authoritarianism" or "violation of civil liberties." It's good for pumping up the adrenaline but not for intellectual clarity. ^^^^ CB; This is self-serving slander. My discussions of the topic are just as intellectually clear as yours. I am no more yelling than you are. This is gratuitous and false characterization of the thinking process of your opponents in the argument. Nothing in are many exchanges on this indicates that you are intellectually clearer on the dispute. My use of "fascist" is so intellectually clear it's amazing :>) ^^^^^^^ It's a little like fuzzing up the barrier between seduction under the influence of alcohol and rape. Both are bad, but the former is not the same as the latter. Rape is forcible, though I shouldn't have to say that. ^^^^^ CB: Well, this is an analogy that begs the question. What we are disputing is whether you are not seeing the similarities between two phenomenon that are in fact similar. You have not demonstrated convincingly that "today is not the same as yesterday." With respect to fascism. ^^^^^ The authoritarianism we've seen in recent years -- especially right after 911 -- was forcible only toward an unpopular minority and was generally accepted by the majority in the US. ^^^^^ CB; There's plenty of evidence that the main repression of Nazism was of "unpopular" minorities. The vast majority of the German population were not subjected to the very worst repressions. We don't even have to accuse the "Good Germans" of being inherent "Nazis" to say that they were not nearly as badly repressed as the despised minorities. In other words, we don't have to subscribe to a "Goldenwhathisname" thesis to see that the German majority was not very repressed compared to the despised minorities. ^^^^^^ In many ways, it was akin to Cointelpro back during the 1970s, which also applied to unpopular minorities (e.g., the Black Panther Party). The fascism in the Mussolini or Franco sense of the word was aimed at very popular movements tending toward becoming the majority. The authoritarianism of recent years in the US isn't that kind of fascism as much as it's American as apple pie. I don't see how liberally fuzzing up distinctions encourages reforms. Please explain. ^^^^^^ CB: German Fascism was as German as Dutch apple pie. It was not hostile to the majority, or it probably couldn't have held power. The Nazis were not using very many repressive measures against the members of the master race. They were treating them good, like a master race. It was _minorities_ who got treated superbad by the Nazis. There is a danger that the majority of Americans are acting like the majority of Germans, because both were _not_ the targets of the extreme repression. I don't agree that I am fuzzing up distinctions. That's begging the question on your part. We are _disputing_ how distinct or alike German then and the U.S. now are. So, for you to essentially assert "Germany then and the U.S. now are very distinct" is merely asserting as true your position on the issue in dispute, i.e. begging the question. That's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife ?" . I never beat my wife. I never fuzzed up the distinction between 1930's fascism and today, because there are important actual similarities between the 1930's Europe and the U.S. today. I have essayed the similarities at length on this list an elsewhere. My question is " How does contortedly avoiding and censoring the use of the term "fascist" do anything but increase the danger that fullblown fascism might come to the U.S. ?"
