The famous quote from Hitler, and I don't have it available for exact quote, but it said that only one thing could have stopped the nazis and that is if the enemies of fascism had early on understood their true nature and intentions and those of the nazi programs)and had resolutely struggled to smash them in the early stages of the movement. The problem is that nazis use free speech in the particular (and they celebrate and laugh about using "bourgeois freedoms"--in the sense of their use of the term "bourgeois"--in order to smash them and those who even support those 'bourgeois freedoms" for the nazis) in order to construct the kind of malignant society in which there will be no free speech for anyone in general. As a matter of pure logic, support of the general right of free speech means, denial for some, of free speech in the particular, so as to preserve free speech in general. Of course this concept is often used against leftists with the claim that like nazis, they seek denial of free speech in general and therefore must be curbed and smashed in the particular--but no leftist can never hope for any acceptance or honest portrayal by the bourgeoisie or indeed real free speech in general or in the particular under capitalism or fascism etc. Allende in Chile made the argument that the Patria y Libertad fascist groups should be left to expose and impeach themselves through self-impeaching rhetoric and machinations, whereas the MIRistas argued for arming the workers and armed struggles against the fascists; history records the inevitable outcome of the Allende argument in Chile and the arguments of those in Germany, Jewish and non-Jewish, who said the nazis are so crazy that their having free speech can only destroy them by exposing their ugly and barbaric natures. Jim Craven -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9908] Re: Re: Re: TINAF Special on Washington Nazi Demo -- >>> Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/10/99 05:00PM >>> At 04:35 PM 8/10/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: >I believe your conclusion below is that we should do nothing about fascistic racist groups, no ? Is this the line that the best way to respond to such groups is to ignore them ? Charles, they are boogie men not because they are not vicious, but because they do not pose any serious threat to the political system inth eus (in the way the nazis did in 1930 germany). (((((((((((( Charles: When would have been the time to effectively stop the Nazis in Germany ? Before they became a serious threat to the political system or after ? After they became a serious threat, IT WAS TOO LATE. There is no premature anti-fascism. Fascism is one ideology that we can justify nipping in the bud. ((((((((((((( Despite their rhetorics - I do not think that neo-nazi, religious right and other lunatic right groups are about to take power or even gain any major influence in the us. If that wre about to hapen - you would see the whole hell breaking loose, FBI, CIA, NSA - you name it - going after them. ((((((((((((((( Charles: The fascists are kept in a proto-state by the U.S. ruling class , so that they can be brought to full form if there is a crisis. The FBI et al. will not necessarily be against them in a time of economic crisis in the future. The democratic-republican form is the best shell for capitalism ( See _State and Revolution_) , but the finance capitalists developed fascism to put down working class revolution in times of extreme crisis for the capitalist system. Hitler and his group were a crackpot, fringe sect too, at one point. He got financing from the bourgeoisie when the communist and workers' movement was getting strong enough to threaten for power. ((((((((((( If you hear of the existence of such groups, it is because the powers that be want you to hear about them, and direct your hatred in that direction. They are the Orwellian 5-minutes of hate, a decoy designed to divert public anger from real miscreants (mainstream politicos, corporate bosses, etc.). Charles: No, I think it is to continue polluting the thinking of vulnerable working class people who are angry about their situation. The KKK claims and emphasizes that Black people and other "mud people" have a privileged life as compared with whites, and this "affirmative action" is the reason for the sad plight of down and out white people. The ruling class keeps these fascists afloat and legal as a way of keeping racist ideology alive. The bourgeois wants both extreme and mild forms of racism seeping into the mass consciousness. The bourgeois need racism to persist as a ruling class. I even say racism/colonialism is as much definitional of the capitalist mode of production as wage labor. This is a modification of Marx (!). See . anti-dogmatism. (((((((((((((( I do not mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist - but diversion and provocation are perhaps the oldest tricks on the book the powers that be use to defuse discontent. I'd rather see the Left collecting funds to buy political influence, rather than engaging intotally futile theatrics of counter-demonstration against nazi (or kindred) boogie men. (((((((((( Charles: Capitalism is a system, not a conspiracy or a policy, but within the system there are many conspiracies ( assassinations, stolen elections , etc.). The opposition to fascistic racists is not the only or even the main task of the Left, but it is one of them. The importance of the opposition is similar to opposing _The Bell Curve_ and the like in academe. It is messy , but a necessary task. > > >Charles: I happen to have a paper on this. In fact and at law, the First Amendment in U.S. history has protected KKK and Nazis and has very rarely protected the Left. The first Supreme Court case (Schenck)on the First Amendment was not until WWI when, in the famous opinion in which Justice Holmes says the First Amendment does not protect crying "fire" falsely in crowded theatre, Holmes decided that the First Amendment did not protect the Socialist Charles Schenck from handing out leaflets opposing WWI as a capitalist war in which workers were doing all of the dying. Schenck, Eugene V. Debs and others went to prison unprotected by the First Amendment. Then came the Palmer Raids in the early twenties against the Communist Party, and a Communist Party member was jailed in _Whitney_ despite Justice Brandeis' opinon which was a paen to free speech. Great words. Bad results. Then in the late 40's the whole leadership of the Communist Party was not protected by the First Amendment ag! >ainst Smith Act convictions. Even when the Communists were released from jail the rationale was not such as to strike down the Smith Act as unconstitutional. > >No fascistic racists have been convicted or unprotected by the First Amendment that I have found. > >My point is that the left has not been protected by the First Amendment, so the typical scenario that the Left will not be protected if the Right is not protected is poor reasoning. In the history above, the Fascists were protected throughout, but it did not result in the Left being protected. So, the current period of grace for the Left is not dependent upon the Fascists' protection. Even if that is 100% true, that does not mean that the nazis run the show in the us. If anything, they are useful tools of th epowers that be from time to time - like police dogs. They may be unleashed on the crowd from time to time and never punished for attacking humans, but that does not mean they run police departments. You do not attack police dogs, but people who unleashed them. (((((((((((( Charles: Fascism is the open terrorist rule of the most chauvinist, reactionary sector of finance capital ( We don't have fascism now).The real ones we have to defeat are the financial oligarchy, true. This does not contradict fighting their "dogs" directly too. (That's not a poem). Charles Brown
