Most Republicans are leftist by today's standards.
e.g.
Some lines of note
> The theoretical doctrines of Communism are for the most part derived from Marx. My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred.
and
> I am completely at a loss to understand how it came about that some people who are both humane and intelligent could find something to admire in the vast slave camp produced by Stalin.
You say
> Sartre repellent on multiple levels
IMO the group of French intellectuals influenced by the Nazi philosopher Heidegger (of which Sartre is certainly one) looks increasingly creepy the more you look into them.
[0] https://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/opiate/why.html The rest of the page looks a bit crazy but that's the first google hit and they host the whole thing in plain text.
It's entirely possible to logically respond to fascists (if you actually find one that isn't just a role-playing fool) and to push back against their extremism. The first step of that is actually understanding what it is that they really purport to believe, rather than attacking the easy strawmen that have been rhetorically established for you.
Anyone who wants to attack fascism should read Evola's critique on fascism "from the right" - really helped me fill in my understanding on what these people were trying to do, to separate the ideology-in-theory from the ideology-in-practice. Just like with communism, where "true communism has never been tried", so too nobody's ever really tried "true" fascism, or democracy for that matter.
When arguing with someone, it's usually best to actually get a mental model of how they themselves think... but that's a vulnerable moment for both parties involved, and not always something that can happen in the heat of verbal sparring.
I shall have to remember Russell's turn of phrase as a way to turn down meetings I don't want :)
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps Russell had already responded to the fascist position elsewhere, either generally or to Mosley specifically? Perhaps it didn't make sense to dialogue with him at that particular time?
> Just like with communism, where "true communism has never been tried", so too nobody's ever really tried "true" fascism, or democracy for that matter.
I reject this claim, but even if I were to concede for the purposes of argument, they don't need to be tried to be rejected, because what makes them repellent in the first place aren't the supposed ways in which regimes and people have failed to "try them", but the very positions themselves. Both are rooted in a false anthropology and a false humanism that reduces individual persons to means, which further entails a false ethics of utilitarianism.
Sure they are. If you can't justify your beliefs (or rejection of other beliefs) rationally from some set of principles or axoims, you can't claim that they're valid or that anyone else should abide by (or even respect) them.
Maybe the premises are something that you or others disagree with (e.g. to take one that we probably both disagree with: human value is predicated on intelligence), but if you can't argue from some set of premises, your beliefs are meaningless and invalid (and, almost always, inconsistent and hypocritical).
> sometimes it is not weakness to reject even a proposition, simply humanity and a recognition of the underlying motive
Can you read minds to discern motives? If not, then this is a false assertion.