[PEN-L:9518] Re: RE: Rummel et al

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Let's drop this holocaust accounting debate.  It is going nowhere.
>
> Max:
> >I have a unique escape from these tedious debates on how many
> >zillions were cruelly exterminated at the hands of fascism,
> >communism, or imperialism.  I simply disclaim support for
> >any of them and try to live different.  It's not that hard,
> >actually.
>
> LP:  It depends on whose ox has been gored. . . .
> >>
>
> mbs: Nobody can be an expert on everything.  Otherwise
> we all adopt rules of thumb to form judgements on things.
> As it happens I've done some reading on the European
> holocaust, very little on the others.  So here's my
> simple guide to mass murder:
>
> * anyone who says less than 6 million Jews were murdered
> is a fucking asshole.
>
> * any Jew who denies that millions of slavs, gypsies, gays,
> etc. were murdered is a putz.
>
> * whatever the machinations of imperialism, it is
> undeniable that stalin, mao, pol pot, and their cronies
> were personally responsible
> for enough deaths and murders to exempt them and their
> "thoughts" from my list of plausible guides to
> revolutionary change.  It doesn't much matter whether
> Stalin killed ten million or one hundred million,
> since they will all stay dead in any case.  Ten
> million is quite enough for me to come to a negative
> judgement.
>
> * whatever the magnitude of imperialism's crimes, the
> roles of organized labor, social-democracy, liberalism-
> post-FDR, and democratic socialism are sufficiently
> removed (not entirely removed) to keep them on the list
> of plausible forces for positive change.  For instance,
> I don't have to get mired in arguments about how many
> native Americans have been victims of capitalism to
> have and pursue ideas about responding as best I can.
> I'm not indifferent to whatever the true number is.
> It's simply that the number has no practical bearing
> for me.
>
> I think this war over terminology --
> was it genocide, or what -- is political in an
> unconstructive sense.  Calling the treatment of
> native Americans or the Middle Passage "genocide"
> is a rhetorical instrument for indicting bourgeois
> demoratic capitalism (BDC) at its root.  That doesn't
> mean the term is inappropriate; it does mean that
> its political context often -- especially on PEN-L --
> makes its use tendentious.  People are not arguing
> about history for its own sake -- they are trying to
> prop up problematic arguments and political precepts,
> and doing it in a way, I might add, that has zero
> political impact from any left political standpoint
> you care to espouse.
>
> >>
> . . .
> All these things are related politically. The Reagan counter-revolution,
> which was actually initiated by Jimmy Carter and continued with Bush and
> Clinton, involves cooperation with neo-fascists. . . .
> >>
>
> This is especially strange coming from you.  The
> U.S. government has *always* cooperated in one way
> or another with neo-fascists, if not fascists.  How
> much, at different points in time, and to what end
> is another matter.  Presently, I would acknowledge
> that Clinton is cooperating with neo-fascists, or
> at the least some very unsavory characters.  So
> has the PRC, and so did the Soviets.  To me that
> has little bearing on the big system question
> (is BDC amenable to reform) or the big political
> question (are reformist movements feasible and
> effective at a relevant level).
>
> mbs
>
>
>
>


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx