>>> James Devine writes:
I had written: >>I doubt that finance capital wanted the mass slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, gays, commies, laborites, social dems, etc.<<
CB answers: > If I understand you to be sarcastic, I wont argue. OK Hitler didn't deviate from the finance capitalists' plan for him. He carried out the exact plan of the finance capitalist, the most reactionary, chauvinist, racist, militarist sector of finance capital in open terrorits rule is fascism. So, I agree with you that the real world historic criminals were the finance capitalists and Hitler was their agent. <
JD>>> I wasn't being sarcastic. I don't think Hitler was following anybody's "plan" except maybe his own. (Even his own plans changed with the balance of political power in Germany, the changing tides of the war, etc.) Finance capital -- along with industrial capital, conservative land-lords, etc. -- backed Hitler as a "lesser evil" to the commies. They didn't know what they were getting (nor did anyone else). It should be stressed also that Hitler had some popular support, in the white-collar middle class and the lumpen proletariat, to name two groups. I think conspiracy theories (like "Hitler followed finance capital's plans") are pretty worthless.
CB>>>> Oh. If you are not being sarcastic, then I disagree. I do think that finance capital liked the slaughter of communists, laborites and Jews.
I was thinking about this. The original issue was did Hitler follow a plan of the finance-industrial or financial oligarchy's plan or not ? I said attacking France and England first instead of the SU first was not the financial oligarchy's plan; and I must beg to differ that the financial oligarchy did not have a master plan including war plan. It was a less united oligarchy than today (part of how I would discriminate imperialism from ultra-imperlialsim). I do think Hitler deviated from the plan some, when he invaded France first. And on the original point, instead of that just being crazy , it could be interimperialist rivalry taking precedence over anti-communism.
And going back to an even earlier point, the existence of fierce interimperialist rivalry between Germany and France/England means a specific feature of the classic Lenin-Bukharin imperialism was very much in effect. I think it is significant that though there are still interimperialist rivalries, some of the old specific European great power/advanced capitalist country rivalries have turned into their opposite -close alliance. France and Germany will be the biggest partners in the EU. Both economic and military rivalries are different from 1940
With respect, I do not believe that the financial-industrial oligarchy, the monopoly capital dictators thought of Hitler and the Communists as two alternatives with Hitler the lesser of two evils.
I have some citations on this, but I will have to find them, if you want Herbert Aptheker on the role of German big bourgeoisie in nurturing and creating the Nazis. It is "well" settled on the left here in Detroit that Henry sent millions of dollars to the Nazis in the early thirties ( Transnationalism of the big bourgeoisie is not at all new)
On worthlessness of conspiracy theories, as I say, I have some facts from a professional historian on that, documentation as they say. But it is not so much a conspiracy as a system. It is the system of STATE-monopoly capitalism - another specific in Lenin's definition of imperialism - or the norm for the financial oligarchy to control and use the nation state for all purposes, more than in the 1800's with more laissez-faire. It is not a policy or conspiracy, but a systematic feature. Fascism was not the preferred form of state-monopoly rule, rather the bourgeois-democratic republic. Fascism was a strategy of desparation by the bourgeoisie, the monopoly and fianace bourgeoisie. Hitler was elected , of course.
CB writes: >>The general crisis ... is the crisis all around crisis of capitalism in the era when socialism begins to replace it. Of course the collapse of European socialism makes one say this is absolutely wrong now. However given that processes proceed in ebbs and flows, ("zig-zags"not straightlines) the end of the Soviet Union does not utterly defeat the concept of general crisis. The crisis has been partially and temporarily abated. 7 years or whatever it has been is not a long time in historical terms.<<
JD right, but it would be a big mistake to invoke this kind of "general crisis" as part of an understanding of current events. It's a big mistake to be so abstract. We have to deal with the fact that socialism is on the ropes (as it was before the USSR collapsed, but that's another story).
CB
On the ropes if the fight metaphor. Socialism on the verge of being knocked out. If we say socialism will fight again. I would even go so far as to say socialism has lost about 5 straight fights, 4 by knockouts , the fall of the SU being 3 in itself. I'd even say socialism was sick somewhat all of its life. You would be to if bully imperialism had been trying to strangle you in the cradle and beat you up or kill you your whole life, including the biggest bully of all , the Nazis. The amazing thing is this battered child did carried out some socialist historical tasks. And the next socialism will not have to repeat a lot of mistakes, because the SU made them. Trial and error is fundamental to practical-critical epistemology
I'd even use the metaphor that the first phase of socialism, primitive socialism is DEAD. Dialectically, everything is born, lives and dies. Of course socialism is not an individual. At any rate,the next phase of socialism will be a rebirth.
Getting out of this metaphor, I consider China socialist, just like they say they are. Viet Nam et al also. Lenin of course said that the revolution in the East would surpass that in Russia. In a way, that is true right now, though now fully. At any rate, the existence of socialist China is to me a limitation of the "death" metaphor I put forth.
As to China's current "capitalism", I think of it more as an elaborated NEP. And China learning from the slaughter of the first generation of socialist countries and movements for flaming so Red. Ghana has pursued a similar camouflaged socialism. Of course, the "death" of the SU makes China even more overmatched , and it has big concessions to imperialism for survival.
Charles Brown