RE: [PEN-L] [Marxism] Michael Moore and Wesley Clark

["Craven, Jim" <JCraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Louis wrote:

But did Mao ever refer to Chiang in these terms? "General Clark told me
that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people
like him who have to die if there is a war." That's what Michael Moore
said. Clark is the same guy who used depleted uranium shells in
Yugoslavia. Moore was respected by the left for his *truthfulness*. You
would never find Mao pimping for the KMT in this fashion. His approach
could be best expressed as "March separately, strike together".

Response Jim C: Yes, it is exactly true what you are saying and clark
was on record openly praising Bush not long ago. But this might be seen
as capitalizing on contradictions in the enemy camp which Mao of course
did favor whenever possible or necessary. What Clark said about many
combat veterans learning to be anti-war is quite true. When I worked
with VVAW, the ones least likely to hype war and or relish over their
particular "fond memories" (nothing like a war to turn a "nobody" into a
"somebody") were the ones who had been in the bush while the former
clerks etc were most likely to incessantly share their little stories
about "there I was...". The U.S. Army was certainly one of the most
radicalizing experiences and colleges that I have ever attended. But
many will see just about anyone but Bush as necessary given the stage of
history at which we find ourselves, given the extremely sophisticated
and pervasive technologies of repression and surveillance in Bush's
hands, given how truly stupid, wreckless, pampered, vicious, mean,
revengeful and ruthless Bush is and is capable of being and that it is
about who is best able to take Bush out--especially cosidering what
happened in the last stolen election and that the next one promises even
more dirty tricks.

Louis wrote:

Jim, I can't see why Bush would need to seek a fascist solution. The
Democrats voted for his war in Congress (Kucinich himself only
abstained). Fascism generally arises when a parliamentary system can no
longer maintain the stability of the system and when the future of the
system depends on who can muster a more powerful armed force in the
streets, like during the Weimar Republic in 1929 or so. Nothing like
this seems on the horizon. Unfortunately, the American population is far
too passive and apolitical to constitute a threat to big business for
the foreseeable future.

Response (Jim C): Certainly it is true that in all case of fascism past
and present, certain objective conditions--the kinds to which Louis
alludes--were present and necessary for the genesis and rise of fascism
and for fascists to have any hope of building a sufficient mass social
base to carry them into power through pseudo-democratic means and
institutions in order to abolish those very institutions and build
full-blown fascism. But it is also true that fascists, past and present,
have also been aware of the conditions requisite for their assumption of
power and have been quite willing/able to engineer some of those
conditions rather than waiting for them to develop--e.g. the Reichstag
Fire leading to the "Enabling Act". This Bush family is on a whole other
level in terms of the usual criminality, psychopathology, fascist
inclinations, ruthlessness, penchant for revenge etc among candidates.
They have been open and covert supporters and financiers of outright
nazis, the likes of the Moonies, death squads, the likes of the World
Anti-Communist League, the White Hand etc. We have not seen, to the best
of my knowledge, such a calculated plan as in Florida for example, to
covertly take Afican Americans off the voter roles as purged felons, in
the one state likely to be the swing state, at the level and with the
premeditation that Bush demonstrated in Florida. It is not only what is
at stake, it is how far this criminal fascist family--and their minions
like Rove--are prepared to go versus the state and forces of any
opposition available to counter them. This is the thinking of some of
those who are holding their noses and pushing for Clark--solely because
of a resume likely to appeal most to those swing voters and even
possible Bush supporters.. Keep in mind with Kerry you get another
Bonesman.

Louis wrote:

Don't forget that the anti-fascist front led to American Communists
backing the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the seizure
of their land and property, for which they have never been fully repaid.
As well as condemning a March on Washington for equal rights for blacks
since it would impede the war effort. Plus, attacks on strikes all the
while that war profiteering was taking on obscene dimensions.

Response Jim C: All true although there were also Communists who stood
against those formal positions and actions by the CPUSA. I think that
those actions represented not a logical extension and application of the
united front against fascism concept but rather a betrayal of it.

Thanks for the discussion. I am merely pointing out how I can see why
some radicals might feel they remain radicals even with such an odious
tactical compromise or retreat.

Jim C.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism