Chris B writes:
> 1. I am not using the term social fascist in the sense it was used as a
> term of abuse against social democrats in Germany before the Nazi seizure
> of power. Indeed that sectarianism was the major error that had to be
> reversed in the reappraisal by the Comintern 1935 Congress in support of a
> line of a united front against fascism.
You (once again) miss the point. "Social fascism" is not merely a term of
abuse -- it is an erroneous, and apologetic, (mis) analysis of fascism by
Stalinists. It is thus not a tag, it is a *theory*. Moreover, that theory
(unfortunately) has been perpetuated to the present day, mostly through
the (unfortunate) perpetuation of the Maoist variety of Stalinism.
> 2. I am not calling the Serb nation fascist. I am saying there are strong
> fascist features in Serb nationalism. Further that when that programme is
> used by Milosevic within the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and is
> dominant in the new formed "Socialist Party", it is social fascist.
> Have a look at the web site of the Serbian Ministry of Information.
Cute ... by your reckoning, the political party *in power* is fascist, but
Serbia is not fascist.
Quite a trick.
How can fascists stay in power without mass support? What happened to
bourgeois democracy? What happened to the trade unions? Oh what a tangled
web we weave when first we practice Stalinism.
Your (re) definition simply asserts that any authoritarian government or
regime, if led by socialists, would be social-fascist. Jim H is right --
look at the knots Chris B has tied himself in. *By his definition*, China
under Mao could qualify as being social-fascist!
Jerry
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
