I stand easily corrected if I am wrong.
Joanna
Charles Brown wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>