From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
That's quite true. Still, the Nazi Party was the largest party in the Reichstag at that point, which set it up for the Hindenberg maneuver. Why couldn't the parties which claimed to be the voice of the workers, which each claimed to be armed with the brilliant, nearly infallible insights and wisdom of the great Marx, prevent this situation from occurring?
^^^^ CB: This is ,of course, rank anti-communism. It is only worth commenting on that in this thread, because the Communists didn't claim to be infallible, nor was it the Communists' fault that the Nazis were not stopped. As Father N's famous quotation suggests, the Communists were the most vigorous of all in opposing the Nazis. It was the liberals, whose politics were closer to Jon's who failed to oppose the Nazis. The blame for not stopping the Nazis lies with non-Communists.
^^^^^^
Why couldn't they bury their differences and cooperate to stop the Nazi advance (temporarily and slightly depressed in the results of the 1932 election, but their real leap forward had occurred in 1930)?
^^^^^ CB: You don't seem to be quite as knowledgeable as you say about the W Republic. The issue of the split between Communists and Social Dems is a well discussed in the examination of the history of that period and place. In fact, it is analogous to the ongoing debate here about whether to support the Democratic Party. The Soc Dems were like Dems. Should the Communists have supported the lesser of two evils in Germany ? Historical hindsight says yes. But in 1932, of course, nobody had historical hindsight for then. The fallacy of judging the Communists in 1932 based on today's historical hindsight occurs often among anti-Commmunists.
We can also ask, why didn't the Soc Dems unite with the Communists ?
^^^
I don't think the answer is any secret, but it is rather embarrassing to Marxist-Leninists, I think.
^^^^^ CB: Nazi Germany is by far more of an "embarrassment" for just about everybody else _but_ the M-L's. The M-L's fought the Nazis more than any other political grouping. The fact that the M-L's failed just means they were tragic heroes. Many others, especially liberals and those in Germany, who shared your political thinking, were embarrassing,opportunistic cowards.
^^^^^^
> The Nazis crushed the opposition because they had
> State power given to them by conservatives like
> Hindenberg AND because rank and file lefties were not
> sufficiently free of the authoritarian personality
> character structures which they had been brought up
> with, their resistance to the Nazi domination lacked
> the capacity for self-organization which could have
> effectively challenged State authority.
>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1969/human.htm
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1969/human.htm>
I'm not sure how good an explanation Fromm's "authoritarian personality" theory provides (perhaps it is partially true, but there was a lot more to it, I think). But of course President Hindenberg did appoint Hitler Chancellor. Again, the question is, how did the situation get to this point? Where was the leadership on the left that would have headed it off? If the Communists were so prescient about the Nazi threat as Charles claims, why were they so ineffective against it?
^^^^^^ CB: Part of the reason the Communists weren't able to win was that liberals, like you, voted for the Nazis and supported them.
The Communists were the most vigorous opponents of the Nazis, but I have never said they were "so prescient" about the Nazis. I have repeatedly said on this thread that in 1932 the Nazis weren't the NAZIS of world historic infamy 7 years later. I have said nobody, and that includes the Communists, anticipated the Holocaust or the full monstrosity of the war.
Furthermore, I have said exactly that part of the reason that Communists take on the role of anti-fascist agitators today is out of respect for the comrades and others who were massacred then, when they did _not_ anticipate full fascism. We dedicate ourselves to "never again" and therefore are rationally "premature" anti-fascists. We _will_ head it off this time.
^^^^^^
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that the Weimar constitution in fact had built into it its own suicide pill, in the form of Article 48, which gave the president the ability to decree emergency legislation and use the armed forces to "restore order," in addition to his other powers of dissolving parliament and nominating chancellors. These presidential powers were fundamental to the process of Hitler becoming Chancellor.
All of this was very different from the U.S. Constitution, of course, and needs to be taken into account if one wants to compare the course of events in Weimar Germany with the U.S. situation.
^^^^^ CB: The U.S. Con requires an Act of Congress to declare war. That hasn't been happening. There is no such thing as whatayoucallit Combatants in the Constitution. The Supreme Court violated the Constitution in picking Bush for Pres. There is no provision in the U.S. Con for postponning an election, as the Bush admin considered. A second 9/11 attack would make suspension of the U.S. Con likely.
In other words, the U.S.Con is a piece of paper, in some contexts, and the different in its words won't necessarily stop a move to fascism.