Norman Geras Gives Me A Roughing Up. posted by Richard Seymour

Norm has slipped his willing mouth over my carefully laid bait and decided to slag me off for slagging him off. You can read what he has to say here , and my rebuttal follows here:

Norm's first objection is that:

"Nik helpfully points out to me that 'The Democrats are not a working class party, and have no organic connections to the labour movement', and he chides me for possibly 'think[ing] there is a sincere difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush'.

Strange to relate, however, my post did not characterize the Democratic Party as a working class party and nor did it say anything one way or another about the the degree or kind of difference between Kerry and Bush - even though the occasion of it was a piece by John Pilger in which he was discussing this difference, or alleged lack of it."

Perhaps Norm isn't being deliberately obtuse, but I suspect he isn't stupid enough to miss the reference to his comparison of Pilger's comments on Kerry and Bush and the policy of the Comintern under Stalin in which loyal footsoldiers were obliged to refer to everyone else on the left as "social fascists". But he does get the reference, for he later says so:

"My point, my only point, in making this comparison was that like the Comintern parties in the 1930s Pilger was (loosely) associating with fascism politicians who are not fascist, while being rather more indulgent towards political forces to which some of us think this epithet is more appropriate : like the Saddam Hussein regime and those presently blowing up Iraqis (to say nothing of UN and Red Cross personnel) in Iraq."

I agreed with him about Pilger's hyperbole. That unfortunate verbal tic doesn't invite confidence, but I would willingly defend the bulk of what Pilger has had to say in recent years. Now, I can't be sure, but I'll just guess that Norman Geras has no evidence that John Pilger is a devotee of the late Hussein regime. Because he wished for it to fall under rather different circumstances than it did is no indication that he is a closet Ba'athist. I'll also suggest that Norman is being somewhat dilute in pretending that anyone in Iraq who fights the occupying forces merits the epithet of 'fascist'. There are countless reports of Iraqi resistance groups being composed of opponents of the Ba'athist regime.

I gather that, at any rate, Geras is comparing Pilger's denunciation of Bush as a "crypto-fascist" with his similar denunciation of Gore's advisor Al Fuerth for calling for the destruction of the Iraqi regime. Presumably, we are supposed to infer that Pilger is indulging the late Ba'ath regime, wishing he could have protected it from the wrath of fascists in the Whitehouse. But, of course, Geras omits the context - which is that anyone wanting to know what a Democrat president would have done had only to examine what senior Democrats, especially those close to the elected President had to say about the war:

"A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch". Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat". Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century"."

Geras, having therefore decided that my argument was 'empty', failing to answer his point ( which was fairly slender in any case ), notes the fatness of my attitude:

"Gosh, it's jolly unfriendly. It says 'ex-Marxist Norman Geras'. Ouch. That is so wounding - particulary since on Nik's blogroll I'm only 'Marxist gone awry'..."

I suppose I should apologise. Initially I had thought he had just wobbled to the right. I seemed to recall his essay on Marx and morality (in Marxist Theory, Alex Callinicos (ed)), and was surprised that such a perceptive critic would find himself cheering on the forces of the radical right in a blatant power-grab. I was then acquainted with the truth. I will never again call him a "Marxist gone awry". He can check my blogroll. Nevertheless, if the remainder of his post is the height to which his crushing intellect and elevating invective will take him, I must say I feel decidedly unthreatened by whatever response he might muster to anything I happen to write about him in the future. Here's him:

"Your post was stupid. True, it contains no obscenities, and you've not risen to calling for me to be shot like a mad dog. But you (a) engage with what I don't say and (b) call me names. I'm not saying that you're stupid, since I don't know you. Just that your post was. Let me buy you a drink some time."

I'm the last person to turn down a drink under any circumstances, but I'm afraid he wouldn't enjoy my company very much. You see, I am stupid. I expect he could take up hours of my time and his explaining why the United States military is suddenly a weapon of liberation, and I still wouldn't get it. I'm just thick. Imagine him trying to explain why Israel's actions in no way contribute to anti-semitism. We'd be there for fuckin' days! There, see I did it. I used an obscenity. On top of that, I'm probably indulging fascism, antisemitism and snottiness. I rule!