Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> At 07:16 PM 4/9/99 +0200, Johannes wrote:
> >I can understand your feelings, but it neither adds any enlightenment nor
> >does it help politically to revive the politics of social-fascism again.
> >Historically such policies added to the failure of the German workers
> >movement to fight the Nazis and prevent the holocaust.
>
> Fair enough. It is just very disappointing to see Europeans doing all
> this, and under the social democratic leadership on th etop of that!
>
> >Today it does not help to equate Hitler and Schröder as well.
> >First, if you listen to the statements of Fischer and Scharping you will
> >note that they justify the aggression against Yugoslavia with the slogan
> >'Auschwitz, never again'. Its with this anti-fascist rhetoric they try to
>
> Well, talk is cheap, as they say. George Orwell (in _Politics and the
> English Languege_) called it "the defense of the indefensible" i.e.
A general comment. A year or two ago on marxism list someone (I think Doug) commented on some of the achievements of the Clinton administration and asked, Who needs fascism?
I think our chief enemy now are quite distinct from historical fascism, though they *do* reach pretty much the same results, and it's important to find names for them that don't confuse issues.
Carrol
P.S. Considering the deaths and enormous human misery directly attributable to the US under every president from Truman to Clinton, I can very well understand the temptation to call them all mother-fucking fascists. That's what they "feel like" to all who know the roster of their crimes. (Perhaps I should except Gerald Ford.)